SUSTAINABILITY VOL. 03 | SEPTEMBER 2020 NLCS JEJU ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SOCIETY
CONTENTS 02 SEPTEMBER ENVIRONMENT CALENDAR NEWS 03 TRUMP VS. BIDEN ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENVIRONMENT 05 IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSING WILDFIRES? #BEATPLASTICPOLLUTION 07 BEAT PLASTIC POLLUTION 09 A THREAT TO MARINE LIFE COVID-19 11 WHY COVID-19 WILL END UP HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT
15 CAMPAIGN OF THE MONTH
REISE | PAGE 2
13 GREENWASHING: HOW CAN WE AVOID IT?
01
SEPTEMBER ENVIRONMENT CALENDAR
September 16 International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer : World Ozone Day was proclaimed by United Nations General Assembly to commemorate the date of the signing of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987 September 21 Zero Emissions Day : ZE Day holds the mission of “giving the planet one day off a year” Participating is simple: for 24 hours, don’t use gas, oil, or coal, and use minimal or no electricity generated by fossil fuel. September 22 Car Free Day : World Car Free Day encourages motorists to give up their cars for a day September 26 World Environmental Health Day : World Environmental Health Day is celebrated to shed the light on important work of environmental health around the world. Theme for 2020: Environmental health, a key public health intervention in disease pandemic prevention 02
TRUMP VS. BIDEN ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE ENVIRONMENT MINSEO CHA Climate change, a hot button issue for years, has gained renewed significance ahead of the 2020 United States presidential election, with wildfires raging in the West, tropical storms threatening the Gulf Coast, and record-breaking temperatures. Environmental policy is one of the many subjects American voters will consider when casting their ballots in the upcoming election. Trump’s views are essentially unchanged since 2016, when he started his presidency: skepticism of established science and contempt of government regulation. He has aggressively promoted policies that would allow more planet-warming pollution and reversed numerous commitments to mitigating climate change. Most notably, he withdrew from the Paris Agreement and removed clean water protections. On the other hand, Biden calls climate change an “existential threat” and stated that the scientific community has a big role to play in shaping policies.
He would push the U.S. to rejoin global peers to try to slow down climate change by restoring environmental protections undone by the Trump administration and rejoining the Paris climate agreement. He also released a $2 trillion plan to combat climate change. Here is where each candidate stands on different issues: Water pollution The Trump administration considers drinking water quality around the globe a greater crisis than climate change. However, Trump removed Obama-era clean water protections intended to protect bodies of water from pollution from agriculture and industrial facilities in January, finalising his signature campaign promise to farmers who claimed that regulations were too burdensome. 03
Biden has pledged to ensure all communities have safe drinking water and to prevent water pollution in vulnerable communities by taking action against fossil fuel companies and other polluters that "put profit over people.� According to his campaign website, they include institutions who knowingly harm the environment or conceal information regarding potential environmental and health risks. In addition Biden co-sponsored the OceanDumping Ban Act of 1988, which prohibited dumping sewage, sludge and industrial waste, during his time in the Senate. Climate change's effect on natural disasters Trump expressed skepticism that climate change was to blame for extreme weather when visiting California amid devastating wildfires raging up and down the West Coast earlier this month. In 2018, Trump stated that he didn't "believe" a major federal report's findings from 300 experts and 13 federal agencies that climate change would hurt the economy. Biden criticised Trump for his comments about the California fires. He is a supporter of the Green New Deal, a proposal by Democrats that suggests dramatic solutions in response to alarming findings of recent climate change reports. His plan to address climate emergency includes a 100% clean energy economy and reaching net-zero emissions before 2050.
Biden has promised to pursue a global moratorium on offshore drilling and reminded voters that under the Obama-Biden administration large parts of the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans were banned for drilling. Deregulation One of Trump's campaign promises during the 2016 election was to roll back environmental regulations put in place by the Obama administration. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spent its first year under Trump carrying out executive orders to repeal regulations and reexamining landmark environmental policies. It also began to repeal the Clean Power Plan, which would impose restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. The administration also lowered fuel economy goals. In short, Trump remains committed to expanding energy production in the U.S. Biden has proposed an ambitious solution for clean energy production, which would involve a $1.7 trillion investment in clean energy over the next 10 years and move the nation rapidly toward a quick reduction in its fossil fuel reliance. The plan would also include establishing an Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice to bring justice to those most impacted by climate change.
Drilling Throughout his presidency, Trump's policies have largely gravitated toward an expansion of oil and gas drilling. In August, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt announced that the administration would allow oil and gas drilling on more than 1.5 million acres on the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
President Trump and the Democratic nominee Joe Biden hold radically different beliefs on climate policy and environmental issues. The future of the United States and our planet lands on the hands of the voters.
04
IS GLOBAL WARMING CAUSING WILDFIRES? JANICE SEUNG MIN YOO Since August, a massive wildfire raged across Los Angeles, United States. The wildfire scorching its way from mountains to the desert in the northeast of Los Angeles threatened more than 1000 homes and millions of residents. The effects were devastating; more than 30 deaths were caused and thousands of people had to move out of their homes. However, there are controversial views about the cause of wildfire in California. The U.S President Donald Trump is blaming land management practices as the cause of the destructive forest fire. On the other hand, scientists and a number of environmentalists claim climate change is the more likely cause of forest fire.
Fig. 1. Golden Gate Bridge under an orange smoke-filled sky at midday due to wildfires in San Francisco, California
Earlier this year, scientists conducted research on the origins of Australia’s dramatic forest fire and showed that climate change was the cause of it. According to scientists, global warming is playing an unequivocal pervasive role in boosting the conditions for fire. Studies convey that the increase in frequency and severity of fire weather is causing frequent forest fires around the world. Fire weather is defined as periods of time with a higher risk of fire due to a combination of high temperatures, low humidity, low rainfall, and high winds. Scientists argue that anthropogenic heat and human activity causing global warming has set an extremely warm and dry background condition in which forest fire can easily occur. According to statistics, the frequency of wildfires worldwide has increased eight to ten-fold in the past four decades, suggesting that increasing climate change caused more forest fires. 05
Since the COVID-19 pandemic and the current wildfire is occurring simultaneously, scientists and researchers anticipate that the impacts will be devastating. It is impossible to separate climate change from the wildfire that results in severe impacts on human health. The U.S government should not solely blame the land management practices as the main cause of the current forest fire in California. We as humans should reflect on our activities and their impacts on the environment in order to reduce further consequences of climate change and global warming. Fig. 2. Connection between climate change and wildfires
Human activities harming the environment have caused wildfires, but the effect of wildfires on humans is also catastrophic. Due to the current wildfire in California, over 4.4 million acres have been burned across 10 states in the U.S. Dozens have already died, and over 4000 infrastructures have been destroyed, bringing inevitable impacts to the U.S economy. However, the most traumatic effect is air pollution. Exposure to wildfire smoke is associated with respiratory diseases such as asthma, COPD exacerbations, and cardiovascular diseases including arrhythmias, strokes, hemodialysis, and myocardial infections. Not only chronic respiratory diseases but wheezing, coughing, sore eyes and throats, shortness of breath are also immediate human responses when exposed to wildfire smoke for a short period of time. According to data from the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), middle-aged adults have double the risk of cardiac arrest on the day of exposure to high smoke levels, compared to those unexposed. In addition, pregnant women are more likely to have a preterm birth when exposed to smoke.
Bibliography Daniels, J. (2018). California timber industry may be a “piece of the puzzle” to help reduce state’s raging wildfires. [online] CNBC. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/californiatimber-firms-maybe-piece-of-the-puzzle-to-cutfire-risk.html. [Accessed 26 Sep. 2020]. McGrath, M. (2020). Clear climate link to California wildfires - study. BBC News. [online] 25 Sep. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/scienceenvironment-54278988 [Accessed 26 Sep. 2020]. opb. (n.d.). California wildfire threatening more than 1,000 homes. [online] Available at: https://www.opb.org/article/2020/09/22/bc-uswestern-wildfires-1st-ld-writethru/ [Accessed 26 Sep. 2020].
06
BEAT PLASTIC POLLUTION
EVELYN JAY WON YOON Every minute the equivalent of one garbage truck of plastic is dumped into the ocean. Each year, between 8 to 12 million metric tons of new plastic trash enters the sea. Plastic never disappears, it instead breaks up into smaller pieces known as “microplastics�, which are tiny pieces of plastic debris in the environment resulting from the disposal and breakdown of consumer products and industrial waste. These microplastics are currently found in the deepest part of the ocean. According to sciencemag.org, in 2019, the production and incineration of plastic will produce more than 850 million metric tons of greenhouse gasesequal to the emissions from 189 five hundredmegawatt coal power plants. It is a common belief that we can recycle our way out of plastic pollution. However, recycling is not the answer because our facilities cannot keep up.
More than 300 million tons of new plastic is produced annually whereas less than 10% is recycled. Even if all plastic packagings were collected to be recycled, in most cases, it would only be down-cycled to a lower quality product and will not be recycled a second time. With the best available recycling technology for the current mix of plastics used, the maximum recycling level would still only be somewhere between 36% and 53%. Also, biodegradable and compostable plastic items are not a universally suggested alternative to regular plastic as they behave just like standard plastic if they end up in the environment and can contaminate recycling streams of fossil fuelbased plastic should it accidentally end up in the recycling bin.
07
Compostable plastics are indeed only compostable at too high temperatures, possible only in industrial facilities, which many cities don’t have and many “compostable plastics” are removed from industrial compost facilities because they take too long to biodegrade. Bioplastics contain a high amount of pollutants due to the processing necessary to make them. As a solution, what can we do to beat plastic pollution? There are several ways to enhance this situation. First, skip single-use whenever possible. Start small with something you know you can be successful at. Second, advocate for local policy change. Moreover, understand the system of plastic production and its impact on your and your neighbour’s communities. Last but not least, aim for “progress” over perfection. We need the ocean, and the ocean needs us. Activism only works when we’re able to stay in the course and change takes time.
START SMALL WITH SOMETHING YOU KNOW YOU CAN BE SUCCESSFUL AT. AIM FOR PROGRESS OVER PERFECTION. WE NEED THE OCEAN, THE OCEAN NEEDS US.
08
A THREAT TO MARINE LIFE YURI LEE Global concern and public awareness regarding the impact of plastic on the marine environment are currently increasing. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) considers plastic marine debris and its ability to transport harmful substances as one of the main emerging issues affecting the environment. The problem of plastic in nature, particularly in our oceans, is a global crisis. Every minute, about a dump-truck load of plastic goes into the oceans, sullying beaches, hurting wildlife, and contaminating our food supply. Plastic is a synthetic organic polymer made from petroleum with properties ideally suited for a wide variety of applications. A plastic bottle can last for 450 years in the marine environment, slowly fragmenting into smaller and smaller pieces which eventually end up microscopic but never truly go away. The primary cause of plastic pollution and destroying nature was by humans. Two-thirds of it comes straight from land-based sources: litter being left on the beach or washed down rivers. Almost 19 million tons of plastic waste ends up in the oceans each year. Floating plastic debris are currently the most abundant items of marine litter. Waste plastic makes up 80% of all marine debris from surface waters to deep-sea sediments. Considering the plastic debris found in the ocean today, it is anticipated that the plastics in the ocean will outnumber the fish by the year 2050. 09
Shockingly, 100 million marine animals die each year from plastic. 12-14,000 tons of plastics are ingested by North Pacific fish yearly. Entangling in the nets or rings may drown immediately if the gear is large or heavy. They also suffer from lacerations, infections, reduced ability to swim, and internal injuries. Fig. 1. Around 150 million tons of plastic are already floating in our oceans
Environmental destruction will result in marine wildlife such as seabirds, whales, fishes and turtles. The most visible and disturbing impacts of marine plastic are ingestion and entanglement. Marine animals easily mistake plastic waste for prey, and most die of starvation as their stomaches are filled with plastic debris. Since plastics end up with the microplastics (small pieces into which the other meso-plastics shred), it will block digestive tracts, diminish the urge to eat, and alter feeding behavior, all of which reduce growth and reproductive output.
It is now the time to prevent and reduce plastic pollution. Humanity is responsible for environmental sustainability. Recycling and reusing plastic materials are the most effective actions available for environmental sustainability. We should also aim to use less products that are made by plastics. Ninety percent of the plastic items in our daily lives are used once and then chucked: plastic bags, water bottle, straws. These items should be altered to reusable products.
Bibliography IUCN. 2020. Marine Plastics. [online] Available at: <https://www.iucn.org/resources/issuesbriefs/marineplastics#:~:text=The%20most%20 visible%20and%20disturbing,are%20filled%20w ith%20plastic%20debris.> [Accessed 26 September 2020]. Sangeetha, A., 2020. Plastic Pollution: The Search For A Sustainable Solution | Ecomena. [online] EcoMENA. Available at: <https://www.ecomena.org/plastic-pollution/> [Accessed 26 September 2020].
Fig. 2. Crab entangled in a plastic cup
IUCN. 2020. Marine Plastics. [online] Available at: <https://www.iucn.org/resources/issuesbriefs/marine-plastics> [Accessed 26 September 2020].
10
WHY COVID-19 WILL END UP HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT ALISON HYEYUN SONG Temporarily, COVID-19 significantly helped the global carbon emission rate to fall off by more than 5 to 10 per cent in New York and more than 25 per cent in China. In Korea, the CO (Carbon oxide) was in the range of 0.297 to 0.529ppm in 2020, compared to 0.332 to 0.642ppm in 2019. The satellite showed the emission of nitrogen gas, which causes the acid rain and respiratory disease, also fading out at the start of the year due to the pandemic. In most countries, governments implemented lockdown internally and externally. As transportations was heavily impacting the environment, reductions in human activities and movements with transportation decreased global greenhouse gas emissions substantially, which led to drastic improvements in air quality.
While the significant drop in global greenhouse gas emission due to the Covid-19 may seem beneficial to the environment, the reality speaks differently. Disposable products such as plastic face masks, hand sanitizer bottles, gloves, food packaging and households goods are discarded all over the place on our streets and oceans. COVID-19 led us to use more than 129 billion face masks and 65 billion gloves every month globally. If these masks and gloves are sewed up altogether, it will be able to cover the entire landmass of Switzerland. Enormous amount of masks will risk the ocean animals. A marine animal, such as turtle, will see the mask floating in the water and get confused with its favourite food: jellyfish. Moreover, the elastic string that is attached to the mask will also increase the risk of bird or marine animal to be tied into the string.
Fig.1. Comparison of NO2 and CO emission rate in South Korea in 2019 and 2020
11
More plastic pollution happened during the COVID-19 crisis and we are reaching an irrevocable point when nobody will be able to recover our planet. Climate is changing dynamically and this is the period where humans must carry out actions to change the world. Bibliography
Fig. 2. Discarded masks float under the sea Before COVID-19 hit the world, plastic pollution was one of the greatest issues to our planet. Lockdowns were supposed to keep people safe and stop the pandemic from spreading, as well as to reduce the carbon emission rate; however, as people were quarantined in their homes, the daily use of plastic products in houses rather increased and made plastic pollution even worse. Disposable products are delivered across the world and food is delivered - overly wrapped packaged - daily to homes as people around the world get used to online order and takeout services. Excessive amounts of single use plastic wastes are produced every day. According to a survey from New York Times, during the eight weeks of lockdown in Singapore, the 5.7 million residents discarded 1,470 more tons of plastic waste from food delivery and takeout package than usual. In December 2019, COVID-19 have landed in our world and initially showed some positive impact on the environment such as improved air quality and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Would this positive impact be a long-term one? When pandemic dies down over a few years, people will resume outdoor activities and activate their industry even more than before to recover every single deficient work they were restricted to do.
Ju, M., Oh, J. and Choi, Y., 2020. Changes In Air Pollution Levels After COVID-19 Outbreak In Korea Henriques, M., 2020. Has Coronavirus Helped The Environment?. [online] Bbc.com. Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/future/article/202004 22-how-has-coronavirus-helped-theenvironment> [Accessed 27 September 2020]. Ford, D., 2020. COVID-19 Has Worsened The Ocean Plastic Pollution Problem. [online] Scientific American. Available at: <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ covid-19-has-worsened-the-ocean-plasticpollution-problem/> [Accessed 27 September 2020]. Henriques, M., 2020. Has Coronavirus Helped The Environment?. [online] Bbc.com. Available at: <https://www.bbc.com/future/article/202004 22-how-has-coronavirus-helped-theenvironment> [Accessed 27 September 2020].
A MORE POLLUTED FUTURE HAS BEEN BREWING WHILE WE WERENâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;T LOOKING. 12
GREENWASHING: HOW CAN WE AVOID IT? MINSEO EMILY KANG The demand for ethical products is having increased competition among brands who contend to be seen as sustainable. According to NYU Stern Center For Sustainable Business and IRI, between 2013 to 2018, products that reveal sustainability saw 29% sales increase. Despite representing only 16.6% of their category, the FMCG(fast-moving consumer goods) products delivered 50.1% packaged goods market growth in the period, reporting CARG(compound annual rate of growth) 5.6 times higher than those not marketed as sustainable. Jessi Baker, the founder of traceability start-up Provenance, asserted that this circumstance occurred over the concerns of greenwashed products.
Fig.1. Survey of greenwashing companies by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing
Greenwashing is the process of presenting a false impression or information about the product to make it seem more environmentally. This marketing technique has recently been one of the most significant issues aroused in discursive green marketing practices. It is used by a myriad of companies worldwide, which ultimately pressurizes the companies that are more biodegradable than the ones with greenwashing products. TerraChoice Environmental Marketing (TerraChoice), a Canadian-based environmental marketing agency, surveyed seven Australian stores from 2008 to 2009 and found that only five products out of 866 products that stated environmental claims did not engage in a form of greenwash. Moreover, as expected, 95% of products in 2010 were guilty of greenwashing as can be seen in Fig.1. The data from a later date did not show any major improvement from it. This conveys how extensively the greenwashing process is used in the world. While green marketing can help consumers to make better-informed product choices, it is also a strong marketing tool for companies to make the product appear more valuable based on how sustainable it is. There are typical companies that make deceptive or misleading green claims about their products. For example, catchlines such as â&#x20AC;&#x153;100% natural, recyclable, biodegradable, and chemical-freeâ&#x20AC;? is utilised in an extremely exaggerated manner while it is associated with false facts. 13
Greenwashing exploits the consumers’ genuine environmental concerns, which creates problems such as limiting their ability to make actually environment-friendly decisions and generating skepticism towards all products that promote green credentials, including the environmentally friendly ones. It not only affects the consumers and companies but also the whole environment, as it threatens the progress of real improvements to sustainability. If the companies with environmental claims turned out to be false, then it is accidentally contributing to harming the environment by supporting the greenwashing company. “There is growing pressure on brands to keep up with shopper demands in sustainability, and global FMCG brands are now having to catch up to meet ethical standards that were set by smaller, independent companies. Ethical promises which were once a nice-to-have, have quickly become the new minimum standard for conscious consumers”, said Baker. For corporations to build trust in their sustainability claims, they need to be “transparent with integrity” across every item they sell to the consumers, Baker suggested. People usually avoid the brands that greenwash by boycotting their products and calling them out on the dangerous chemicals in their products. However, transparency is a more efficient way to reduce the concerns of the consumers of the greenwashing products, as maintains trust by eliminating any suspicions or anxieties people might have about the value the company is offering. This will prove to the consumers that they are not hiding any environmental claims they present to the public and enable them to differentiate between greenwashing and real facts”, Baker emphasised.
Provenance would be the SaaS(Software as a service) that would gather information and track products in a secure, trustworthy, and accessible way for the consumers. Every product will receive a ‘digital passport’ which tolerates the shoppers to discover where the product was made, by who, and when it was made. This system for radical transparency of each product will develop further in the future, and Baker believes that new technology will support the evolution of transparency. Bibliography April 26, P. on and 2015 (2015). Corporate greenwashing on Earth Day in New York. [online] Available at: http://climateandcapitalism.com/2015/04/26/co rporate-greenwashing-on-earth-day-in-newyork [Accessed 26 Sep. 2020]. Brouwer, A. (2016). Revealing Greenwashing: A Consumers’ Perspective. Radical transparency is needed to overcome ‘greenwashing’ scepticism. [online] foodnavigator.com. Available at: http://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2020/08 /19/Radical-transparency-is-needed-toovercome-greenwashing-scepticism [Accessed 26 Sep. 2020]. Impakter. (2019). Beware of Greenwashing in Finance. [online] Available at: http://impakter.com/beware-of-greenwashingfinance/ [Accessed 28 Sep. 2020]. Mendez, L. (n.d.). Greenwashing Is Real—Here’s How to Avoid It. [online] Architectural Digest. Available at: http://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/green washing-and-sustainable-brands [Accessed 28 Sep. 2020]. 14
CAMPAIGN OF THE MONTH
Done with your mask? Don't forget to cut the straps! Birds and marine life get easily tangled in discarded masks. 15
CONTRIBUTORS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Minseo Cha WRITERS Minseo Cha Janice Seung Min Yoo Evelyn Jay Won Yoon Yuri Lee Alison Hyeyun Song Emily Minseo Kang DESIGNER Minseo Cha CONTACTS If you would like your environment-themed article/artwork/photograph to be shared via Sustainability, please contact the chairs: Minseo Cha mscha22@pupils.nlcsjeju.kr Janice Seungmin Yoo smyoo22@pupils.nlcsjeju.kr