Foothill Global Citizen by TheGlobalCitizen

WARNING CLIMATE CHANGE AHEAD

DEAR READER, We thank you deeply for picking up the inaugural issue of our climate change magazine, Global Citizen. This project has, for us, been a key tool for increasing our understanding of some of the issues regarding climate change. In the Global Arena section, we feature dueling perspectives to foster a constructive debate. Climate change affects all aspects of human life, from energy and economic policy (“Pay to Pollute, Pg. 14) to conservation and issues of trade-offs even in “green” energy (“There’s No Free Lunch”, Pg. 42). If you are new to the topic of climate change, we’ve prepared a “Climate Primer” to introduce the key concepts behind our planet’s dilemma, and prepared a summative piece detailing the long-term threats climate change poses upon our world and an editor’s reaction to those threats (“A Short History of Everything”, pg. 40). We examine the recent political developments that have called into question the future of America’s role in the battle against climate change (“Trump vs. Science”, Pg. 36), and we have included a short introduction to global events in the past year (“World News”, Pg. 30). We are privileged to attend a diverse and international institution which fosters an awareness of global issues. In the face of increasing hostility towards internationalism and global cooperation, we offer perspectives from individuals across the world, compiling numerous facets of viewpoints on controversial concerns. Throughout this issue, we strive to share our enthusiasm about issues that affect a truly global citizen. Sincerest thanks, William Robertson and Ronnie Miller ------Want to share your voice? We’d love to hear from you! Please send your ideas, opinions and comments on our material to globalcitizen.fhda@gmail.com if you’d like to further discuss any piece with us or be published in the Student Voices section, to be featured in our subsequent issues.

CONTRIBUTORS Writers:

Asha Bacon Jeff Berman Leon Cho Catherine Davidson Maria Gwyneth-Jocelyn (SP) Casey Glassford Sanghui Han Liam Lin Sean MacPherson Ronnie Miller Shreyes Nallan William Robertson Anthony Tinh

Editors:

Ronnie Miller William Robertson (Editor-in-Chief)

Design Chief: David Stelzer

Special Thanks:

Scott Lankford (English Professor, Faculty Advisor) Bernie Day (Honors Institute) Jerry Rebredo (Foothill Marketing and Public Relations)

CONTENTS GLOBAL ARENA The New, Clear Way To Combat Climate Change

The Pinstripe Ecowarrior: Examening Nuclear’s Power Level Pay to Pollute There Is Only So Much Oil: Let’s Frack It All Don’t Frack The Boat Baby

TECHNOLOGY

Charging Up: Tesla’s Acceleration May Be Here To Stay China’s Future: Grey Skies & Brown Pastures

CLIMATE WATCH World News

Trump Vs. Science: Will Trump Trump The Paris Agreement

21 30

A Short History Of Everything

STUDENT VOICES

There Is No Free Lunch: The Desert Tortoise Or Big Solar Plastic Coffin: How Plastic Bottles Can Turn The Pacific Into A Watery Grave

Global Citizen | Issue 1

The New, Clear Way To Combat Climate Change

By Casey Glassford

Jason Blackeye

ne of the hottest (pun intended) topics of debate in America today is that of climate change and global warming. In a time when scientists all over the world are warning us of the disastrous, irreversible effects we are facing if we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t seriously cut down our CO2 emissions, a cheap, clean source of energy is in higher demand than ever. Nuclear power, by far the most controversial of the clean energy technologies, is the key to unlocking a world unreliant on fossil fuels and free

Global Citizen | Issue 1

of carbon emissions. Nuclear being the largest source of emisenergy is cheap, reliable, and sions-free energy, nuclear plants carbon free. are also one of the the largest sources of jobs in the clean enuclear energy is the best ergy sector. Expanding solar or choice for the environ- wind infrastructures would also ment as well as the econ- be far more expensive and inomy. According to the US Ener- vasive than expanding nuclear; gy Information Administration, for example, producing 20% of 20% of all electricity and 65% of Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s electricity from wind emissions-free electricity in the would require an additional United States is produced by nu- 19,000 miles of new power lines clear plants. Wind and solar en- to be run into our neighborergy combined only provide 2% hoods. Nuclear reactors take up of the total and 6% of the emis- a fractional amount of space to sions-free electricity. On top of produce far more energy. Nucle-

ar is also the only power source that is independent of weather. While solar only works if the sun is shining and turbines only work if the wind is blowing, nuclear reactors can churn out energy around the clock--even in the middle of a windless night.

to safely store nuclear waste have already been developed, from closely monitored cooling pools, to outer-space disposal. The containers that the waste is stored in are made to last- they are more than 18 inches thick of concrete and steel, and are built to survive earthquakes, tornahe largest reason people dos, hurricanes, flood, and even are scared of nuclear en- enemy attack. ergy is because of rumors that nuclear is unsafe. However, erhaps the most compelworking in the nuclear indusling argument in favor of try has been deemed safer that nuclear energy is this: it working in the finance, insur- produces exactly zero carbon ance and real estate sectors by emissions or particulate polluThe Occupational Safety and tion. Expanding the nuclear secHealth Administration (OSHA). tor could mean that industries Oil spills into the ocean, coal like coal, oil, and natural gas mines collapse, and gas pipe- become obsolete, and global lines explode, but there has nev- warming is stopped in its tracks. er been a death from a nuclear Without nuclear, we would have accident at an American com- to rely more heavily on these inmercial reactor. James Conca, dustries- and we frankly don’t a writer for Forbes magazine, have the luxury of doing so. Afpublished an article comparing ter the accident at the Fukushithe mortality rate for various en- ma Reactor in Japan, Japan ergy sources. Coal topped the decided to suspend nuclear enlist, causing a global average of ergy production Without nuclear 100,000 deaths per trillion kilo- as a power source, the country watt hours of energy produced. was forced to rely more heavily Oil caused 36,000 deaths, nat- on their fossil fuel plants, and ural gas caused 4,000, and nu- carbon emissions spiked. Japan clear energy-all the way at the even tried to classify coal as a bottom of the list- caused only “renewable resource” to meet its 90 (even granting the most ag- obligations for renewable energressive estimates of deaths gy generation. If nuclear energy caused by the Fukushima or around the world is shut down, Chernobyl disasters). Grant- global carbon emissions would ed these calculations are fairly skyrocket, and we would be in back-of-the-envelope, but it’s the fast lane to climate disaster. clear that the death toll of nucle- Nuclear energy is what can and ar energy is nothing compared will save us from the disasters of to those of the “Big Three” fossil climate change. fuels from which the world gets most of its energy. The waste produced by a nuclear plant is potentially hazardous if not handled correctly, but technologies

“It produces exactly zero carbon emissions or particulate pollution”

Samuel Zeller Global Citizen | Issue 1

THE PINSTRIPE ECOWARRIOR: EXAMINING NUCLEAR’S POWER LEVEL

By William Robertson

n the early 1950s, many energy experts envisaged a “nuclear age”-- a world harnessing the power of the atom to provide cheap, clean energy for everyone. Nuclear energy never climbed much above 20% of energy generation globally. As America struggles to find a new landscape for energy production, the old energy debate re-emerges with renewed vigor: is nuclear energy safe? When America was first setting up its modern nuclear regulatory regime with tight control over

Global Citizen | Issue 1

safety in the 1970s, nuclear power provided a clean alternative to coal-fired power plants. Nuclear power produces no carbon emissions or other harmful particulate matter that cause respiratory problems and-- over the long run-- has been relatively cost competitive to fossil fuels due to lower fuel costs and significant government subsidies. Yet it is safe to conclude that nuclear power is not a viable economic alternative to natural gas or renewable power and energy storage technology is an

increasingly viable alternative to the “baseload” energy nuclear provides.

hile nuclear power does provide a steady, clean supply of energy, the capital costs and the timeline on which the capital pays off is far too long. In the US energy market, the number of operational nuclear power plants peaked in 1996. One reason new reactors simply aren’t being built may be that construction can run horrendously over budget:

Illinois’ Clinton reactor-- one of the few reactors built in recent decades-- took 7 years to build and actual costs exceeded estimates by around 1000%. Other reactors in New York, Illinois and Massachusetts have struggled to make a profit despite being buoyed by hefty federal subsidies and feed-in tariffs (which artificially boost the price nuclear energy producers get for selling their energy). Unlike in France, Japan or Germany, this series of closures is due not to government decree, but rather to market forces which simply make nuclear energy economically unattractive.

Jakob Madsen

large reason energy utilities simply aren’t investing in nuclear is the lack of a viable exit strategy: Illinois’ Exelon-- the largest operator of nuclear plants in the US and the largest regulated energy company --with annual revenues topping $30 Billion-- has reported that 2 of its 6 Illinois-based plants are losing the company money. Yet, they remain operant because, according to Exelon CEO Chris Crane “losing money is cheaper than decommissioning.” For companies looking to build power plants, nuclear rep-

resents a giant up-front investment with uncertain long-term profitability and an arduous and expensive decommissioning process. Small wonder the private sector is so hesitant to put up the funds necessary to run these plants. In order to make any policy addressing climate change politically sustainable, it must be carried out in a manner that does not harm economic interests.

ergy needs in a renewable-dependent future. Wind and solar are highly variable-- some generator somewhere must be running for those windless nights. Yet by the time wind and solar are ready to provide the US with even close to 100% energy generation--well beyond mid-century-- batteries would provide a more economical alternative to nuclear power. Panels and turbines would be able to generate excess energy to be tucked n contrast, solar panels are away for when they cannot proexpected to continue their de- vide power-- instead of using cade-long dive in price. The baseload generation. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projects a 59% fall in prices within the next decade-- enough to out-compete fossil fuels according to the Agency-- and in sunny spots in Texas and Oklahoma, solar power is already the cheapest energy option, with wind energy following similar trends-- selling for $0.025/kWh in some areas, far below the $.04-$.06/kWh US Jason Blackeye average. Texas company Austin Energy completed a purchase in enewable energy plus 2014 of solar energy at around energy storage seem to $.06/kWh. Global investment in provide a safer bet than renewable energy hit a peak of nuclear energy. While nuclear $349 Billion in 2015. By com- power’s competitiveness has parison, investment in nuclear fallen over the past few decades, energy peaked in 2013 at $50 li-ion batteries have neared Billion according to an estimate competitiveness themselves-from the World Nuclear Report. prices have fallen by half since Although a cooling attitude to- the global recession. The ecowards nuclear power from gov- nomic consultancy McKinsey ernments in Germany and Ja- projects that by 2025, batteries pan is partly to blame for this will fall from their current perch decline, this gap fundamentally of around $500/KwH to around represents the unprofitability of $160-- a price that makes elecnuclear power. tric vehicles more economically competitive than some gas-guzany contend that nucle- zling ones under current expecar power is necessary tations of future fuel efficiency to fulfill “baseload” en- standards. Technology invest-

Global Citizen | Issue 1

ment, new competitive business models and the introduction of scalable production (see: Tesla’s gigafactory) are all key contributing factors. Because of this, companies are eagerly wading into the energy storage market. Appliance giant Dyson plans a $1.4 Billion investment in battery technology and electronics giants Panasonic, Samsung and GE are investing billions in energy storage R&D while investment in nuclear power atrophies. An MIT report found that if utilities were to invest in batteries, they would be able to turn a profit relatively quickly. Encouraging the private sector to deepen investment in nuclear power plants would be worthwhile if there weren’t an alternative to this “baseload” energy-- but batteries compete for the same niche as nuclear energy and batteries clearly have much more room to become more competitive, especially given the private sector momentum already behind them.

f nothing else, the invisible hand has proven to be more resilient and efficient than more visible ones propping up nuclear energy with costly subsidies. Few foresaw the renewable energy or fracking revolutions of recent years, but they have upended the long-stagnant energy industry, with the market nimbly responding to new pressures. There is a role for government to shape incentives by forcing companies to pay the costs they impose on others, but a bet on nuclear power saps the dynamism of the market and diverts resources from finding the most efficient route to a low-carbon future.

Global Citizen | Issue 1

Matthew Henry

“One reason new reactors simply aren’t being built may be that construction can run horrendously over budget: Illinois’ Clinton reactor-- one of the few reactors built in recent decades-- took 7 years to build and actual costs exceeded estimates by around 1000%.”

Sources: David L. Chandler | MIT News Office. “Energy storage for renewables can be a good investment today, study finds.” MIT News. June 13, 2016.

CARBON

TAX?

PAY TO POLLUTE By Nicole Ronnie Miller

t’s no secret -- carbon emissions are one of the primary contributors causing climate change and temperature increases all throughout the globe. But with carbon emissions being a byproduct of innovation, technology, and nearly everything that fuels our planet, what motivations exist to reduce these emissions? Large corporations and carbon contributors need to bear the costs of their pollutions; this will give them motivation to reduce their emissions and find a cleaner, more sustainable source of energy that is less harmful to the environment. Currently, there are two primary viable options for how to tackle and approach this issue: instating a carbon tax, and creating a cap-and-trade system.

carbon tax is a proposed plan to place a specific dollar amount tax per ton of carbon emissions produced. According to Yale Climate Connections, “Sending a price “signal” through the economy is the only way to get energy companies and startups to ramp up

Global Citizen | Issue 1

their low-carbon investments and search for conservation strategies. Currently, carbon pollution has no consequence; it is what economists consider an “externality.” The University of Chicago’s Initiative on Global Markets polled some of the foremost economists in country today, and revealed that 95% of them believed that a carbon tax “would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.” A carbon tax could force businesses and citizens to cut back carbon-intensive services and goods. It could start a race for lower emissions technologies, which would give energy companies an edge on competitors.” The World Resources Institute has outlined that this carbon tax would be established as a constant and unchanging dollar amount. Doing so lends companies certainty and stability in non-fluctuating pricing, allowing them to budget accordingly and incentivizing companies to de-

vise improved production methods which lower their emissions. Additionally, the existence of a non-fluctuating tax means that the more companies can reduce their emissions, the more money they will save and thus keep or use elsewhere; this provides a constant stimulant to strive for ever-lowering emissions until no carbon tax needs to be paid at all with the attainment of an emission-free production line.

owever, a carbon tax is not the only possible solution to the daunting issue of carbon emissions pressing us today. Second, a cap-and-trade system has been speculated; the Environmental Defense Fund breaks this down as, “The “cap” sets a limit on emissions, which is lowered over time to reduce the amount of pollutants released into the atmosphere. The “trade” creates a market for carbon allowances, helping companies innovate in order to meet, or come in under, their allocated limit.” California already has a capand-trade system founded and

functioning at this very moment; The AB 32 Scoping Plan inaugurates a cap-and-trade plan with projections achieving an 80% reduction level in emissions by 2050 compared to greenhouse gas emission levels in 1990. The California Air Resources board has outlined an enforceable plan which meets all AB 32 requirements. This plan was put into action on January 1, 2012, and has seen positive numbers and success in its early years. Critics of the cap-and-trade system cite that establishing acceptable prices for carbon auctions may be difficult to moderate, yet according to the World Resources Institute, “Emissions caps can be set more stringently, price floors and ceilings can avoid volatility, and emissions allowances can be auctioned instead of given away. Indeed, California’s capand-trade program has made important strides in addressing these concerns, for example by establishing a price floor in its auction of allowances.” The existence of a functioning and successful model of a cap-andtrade system, California’s, that

other states and countries can model their own systems out of, adds security and reliability to the system’s integrity.

emissions, so a system which encourages companies to pursue this is the most attractive and viable option. Despite this, both systems do make bounds in the right direction; creating accountability and consequences for emissions by providing tangible aftermath to pollution and an incentive to innovate and pioneer environmentally friendly technology.

ith so many successes in a cap-and-trade system, why even consider an alternative such as the carbon tax? The World Resources Institute faults the system in saying, “While a carbon tax does not offer the same degree of emissions certainty as cap-and-trade, sufficient stringency can be achieved with a Interested in this topic? tax through design elements like We’d love to hear from you! a “ratcheting mechanism” that Please send your ideas and would adjust the tax upward if the initial emissions reductions opinions to [email] if you’d like to further discuss any are too low...a tax provides a continuing price signal wherepiece with us or be pubas cap-and-trade does not enlished in our upcoming courage reductions beyond the Student Voices section, to emissions target.” Altogether, be featured in our a carbon tax offers a constant subsequent issue. motivation to lower emissions and reduce carbon footprint, yet a cap-and-trade does not. Many environmentalists’ main goal is to help create a world devoid of pollution, atmospheric poisoning, and greenhouse gas

Jason Blackeye Global Citizen | Issue 1

There Is Only So Much Oil: Let’s Frack It All By Will Robertson

l file

a rigin eck eo oub 11 h t D s e to hua t 20 mon Jos ugus Com e mafd A r a i e 11 imed s w e Wik chang No

n 1990, the US’ total CO2E (CO2 equivalent) output was roughly 5 gigatons per year. Emissions rose steadily over almost 2 decades, peaking at 6 gigatons around 2008. Since then, US emissions have fallen to 5.6 gigatons. At first this was likely due to the global economic downturn in 2008-09. Indeed, as the economy picked up in 2010 so too did emissions. But then emissions dropped back down again even while economic growth started to accelerate.

Global Citizen | Issue 1

Much of this was due to a radical change in the energy mix: natural gas began to replace much-dirtier coal burning to supply electricity. Natural gas’ economic strengths and relative environmental soundness are deeply dependent upon emerging fracking technologies and therefore the United States must continue to pursue fracking as an alternative to coal mining.

round the time of the recession, advances in fracking technology have made drilling for oil and gas in America’s vast shale deposits much more economically attractive, unleashing a boom. Hydraulic fracturing-- or frack-

ing-- is a technique whereby a drill releases a toxic brew of water and chemicals and blasts it into the natural cracks in shale deposits. The United States sits atop massive deposits of shale, particularly in Wyoming and the Dakotas, West Texas and Pennsylvania-- the oil and natural gas in these deposits would be unrecoverable without using this technology. There is evidence to suggest that such a technique can cause small-scale seismic activity and environmental groups have been up in arms over its use due to the risk it poses to drinking water, the potential for methane leaks and a variety of other hazards. Yet, It is crucial that America embrace fracking as a method for helping natural gas replace coal while renewable energies develop new technology and business methods that make them eco-

nomically competitive. In this way, natural gas can serve as a bridge fuel to a cleaner economy.

Brookings Institution concluded in a 2014 analysis that on a dollar-for-dollar basis fracking delivers a greater reduction in CO2E emissions than either soracking will have a place lar or wind power given current while the world prepares technologies. Since then, solar the ground for large-scale and wind have both become deployment of renewable en- substantially cheaper, but so too ergy. A good rule of thumb is has fracking become cheaper that both wind and solar run be- and safer. tween 25% and 33% capacity (solar panels don’t work at night) atural gas siphoned via whereas a natural gas plant, for fracking can also fuel instance, can run at over 80% of economic growth. CO2E capacity. Thus, it can take more output has long been closethan 3 times as much solar ca- ly tied with economic output, pacity installed to produce the hence the perceived dichotosame amount of energy as a my between a strong econogas powered plant. Add to this my and a liveable environment. the fact that most of the ideal Yet since 2010 America’s GDP locations for massive wind and growth has hovered around solar arrays-- West Texas, the 2% annually while emissions Great Plains-- are located far fell by nearly 7% over this pefrom major population centers, riod. Lately, the economy has and one begins to see some of surged to 3% year-on-year with the major unresolved obstacles strong job and wage growth. to widespread renewable use. Had emission output increased These challenges help to make in line with GDP as it had in the natural gas a more economical previous century, output would way to reduce carbon emissions be roughly 6.6 gigatons instead in the short term. Because of of the current 5.6. Some of this these factors, research from se- reduction is due to an increase nior fellow Charles Frank of the in efficiency standards and the

explosion in renewable power output. Indeed, between 2013 and 2014 alone solar energy output doubled from 6,000GW to 12,000GW. Despite this impressive growth, wind and solar still only accounted for roughly 2.5% of total US energy generation by 2015 according the the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) compared to 30% and 35% for natural gas and coal respectively. One must look beyond renewables to explain this one gigaton gap.

he primary cause of the dramatic reversal of the century-long trend is the fracking revolution without which natural gas and oil would be hard pressed to compete with King Coal. Oil-- and especially natural gas-- are less carbon intensive than coal and, if used as substitutes, would bring down US carbon emissions quickly and cheaply. To produce the same amount of power, burning natural gas emits a little more than ½ the carbon coal does. Replacing coal with natural gas would thus go a long way to fulfill the US’ international commit-

Global Citizen | Issue 1

ments to reduce carbon emis- media with many comparing sions, despite concerns over its impact on the environmental methane leaks. movement to the seminal Silent Spring which first sounded ore importantly, natu- the alarms about the overuse ral gas is economically of DDT and eventually helped competitive and there- to get it banned. The man setfore allows the US to dramat- ting his water on fire, the famically cut carbon emissions. ily forced to allow the big bad According to an analysis by Mi- oil companies to drill on their chael Greenstone of the Brook- property and all the other evils ings Institution, natural gas is by of fracking were “exposed” in far the cheapest energy source Gasland. The result was a masto install and is the only low-car- sive public outcry-- fracking was bon energy that is cost competi- banned in several states (most tive with existing coal-fired pow- of which lacked the necessary er plants. Natural gas, therefore, shale deposits) and fracking provides an opening for an awk- became a mainstream environward alliance between the oil mental issue. and gas industry and those concerned with global warming to ndeed, a long-awaited study both increase general economon the effects of fracking on ic prosperity and dramatically drinking water by the EPA slash carbon emissions in the was released in December 2016 future. and renewed environmentalists’ ire against fracking. It used data from thousands of mining sites and water resources across the US and found impacts ranging from “modest” to “severe” on the drinking water of up to 11 million people and called for further studies to be conducted to quantify the damage to drinking water. While fracking certainly damages drinking water availability, there is reason to doubt the alarmism encouraged by Gasland. A study conducted Adam Kedem over ten years at thousands of espite this, fracking has sites by Resources For the Fuan abysmal reputation ture (RFF) found “little evidence” among green energy en- of widespread contamination thusiasts. In 2010--before most of drinking water downstream people ever heard the word of the wellhead. The study also fracking-- the documentary found that pollutants are much Gasland sought to examine the more common downstream of costs of hydraulic fracturing. wastewater treatment plants Its imagery spread like wildfire than downstream from fracking in both social and mainstream sites. If this study accurately

reflects the nature of the problem, then contamination from fracking is less of a problem than poorly treated wastewater. Policies should therefore treat fracking water contamination just like any other problem of contamination-- enforce safety standards and make sure treatment facilities are appropriately maintained and upgraded.

D 16

Global Citizen | Issue 1

Dan Watson

urthermore, methane leaks pose little safety hazard. Most leaks, according to the Environmental Defense Fund “don’t pose an immediate threat to safety” but instead contribute to broader problems like smog and global warming. Most analyses of the long-term warming potential reveal that methane leaks barely affect natural gas’ ability to dramatically cut CO2E emissions in a cost-effective manner, due largely to the fact that methane is short-lived in the atmosphere (even if potent) and therefore has a small impact on long-term warming, assuming natural gas is phased out in the coming decades. Furthermore when compared with coal, these effects are minimal to nonexistent. Independent

analysis by Brookings suggests that if natural gas were to completely replace coal, the savings in health impacts alone would be between $20 and $50 million.

hus, fracking presents a unique opportunity for cooperation between bitterly divided foes and allows environmental objectives to be pursued without compromising economic prosperity. An uneasy alliance may be found between petroleum companies and the brand of environmentalists that hug spreadsheets instead of trees. Fracking is nowhere near as dangerous to communities as documentaries like Gasland would have you believe, but close independent and government monitoring of water quality around fracking sites and infrastructure upgrades would significantly reduce the likelihood of catastrophe. Renewables are not yet ready for deployment en masse, fracking can help the US meet its international obligations while the industry matures.

“Fracking is nowhere near as dangerous to communities as documentaries like Gasland would have you believe, but closeindependent and government monitoring of water quality around fracking sites and infrastructure upgrades would significantly reduce the likelihood of catastrophe.”

Sources: “Scientists Warn of Quake Risk From Fracking Operations.” National Geographic. May 4, 2014. “U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” EIA - Electricity Data. December 23, 2016. “EPA’s Study of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources.” EPA. December 19, 2016. Levi, Michael. “A New Paper on Natural Gas as a Bridge Fuel.” Council on Foreign Relations. January 04, 2013.

Global Citizen | Issue 1

Don’t Frack The Boat, Baby!

By Asha Bacon

ydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a controversial oil and gas extraction technique developed in the late 1940s to gain access to fossil energy deposits previously inaccessible to drilling operations. Both terms refer to the smashing of rock and the use of millions of gallons of water along with toxic chemicals in order to bring gas to the surface. During the shale gas boom in the United States, “fracking” became the buzzword for this extraction method. Although fracking can help grow the economy, it does more harm than the potential benefits it delivers.

racking does two major things for us: improves job growth and increases trade. two major components to our economy. According to a recent report by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, an American think tank, fracking was directly responsible for 400,000 new jobs and indirectly responsible for 2 million new

Global Citizen | Issue 1

jobs in 2003. In his article, “How Fracking Has Improved our Economy,” author and economist Sree Kumar claims that the energy boom “may have been responsible for roughly a quarter of the jobs U.S. employers have added to payrolls since the global financial crisis of 2008.” Along with jobs, the energy boom has also helped to reduce the U.S. trade deficit dramatically and improved investment to the U.S. By reducing our dependence on foreign oil, American fracking has helped to cut our cumulative trade deficit from 7.1 trillion (with foreign oil imports accounting for 2.87 trillion) to 34.3 billion between the years 2000 and 2012. U.S. oil refineries produce tens of millions of barrels of gasoline, a finished product of only a portion of oil pumped from the ground, per day. In 1970, three major powerhouses in the oil industry -- Valero, Phillips 66, and Marathon Petroleum--released over 628,000 barrels of gasoline per day. This drives corporate profit growth, thus increasing

international investment in the and therefore long-term growth potential. Overall, fracking is a significant part of our economy and we are heavily dependent upon it.

Olu Eletu

ne of the first (and the most repeated) lessons in economics is that all resources are finite. In other words, while fracking is bringing in money, our dependence on it is going to ruin our economy once the oil runs out. According to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, “there are 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserve

left in the world’s major fields, which at present rates of consumption should last 40 years.” This means that in 40 years, if we continue to consume oil at the same rate, our economy will experience a dramatic decline. In an article in the “International Business Times,” it is noted that “the rising cost of oil has... forced governments and oil companies to exploit previously marginal sources of oil from difficult locations, such as the deep sea.” Because oil is becoming more scarce, it is also become more valuable and expensive to obtain. Due to this fact, companies have started to source their oil from areas like the deep sea out of desperation. Unless the United States moves away from fossil fuel dependence, it will face a massive shock to its economy as workers in these industries will find themselves unemployed and unemployable. The truth is, for as long as we continue to heavily depend on fracking, our economy will have a due date. However, our economy is not the only thing with an impending due date -- so does our environment. One good thing about fracking is that it presents us with the opportunity to produce electricity at half the CO2 emissions as coal; on the other hand, fracking pollutes our air, water, and soil, along with causing natural disasters and health issues.

ne of the main components in natural gas is methane -- a substance roughly 25 times more potent in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. The National Oceanic and Atmospher-

ic Administration (NOAA) conducted a study in Weld County, Colorado which “estimated that 4 percent of the methane produced by these wells is escaping into the atmosphere.” This number may seem small, but its effects are not. And on top of the methane pollution, scientists have found that these same wells equate to the emissions of 1-3 million cars. When climate change takes place, most organisms are not able to adapt in the timespan the change takes place on-- animals and organisms that we both indirectly and directly rely on to survive. The effects of climate change seems small, as it just refers to the increase in our earth’s temperature by a couple of degrees celsius, but it can cause catastrophic levels of damage.

urally occurring radioactive material, liquid hydrocarbons, brine water and heavy metals,” which ends up in our oceans, lakes, rivers, etc. In order to protect the cities surrounding these fracking infrastructures, which are directly affected by these companies’ chemical dumping, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) are forcing major companies under an emergency administrative order to reimburse cities which have been affected by their pollution. Something they cannot protect against, however, is faulty design. Almost every fracking plant has faulty design and is poorly built, but there are few policies against it, leaving civilians with dirty, polluted water and, in many states, without the legal ability to ward off fracking wells.

F Evan Dennis

racking also pollutes our water -- which not only can affect our sea life, but also directly affects us. The fracking process includes drilling mud, slurries and fluids, which all require chemical additives. A report published by NAGT, a news resource, found that fracking “produces millions of gallons of toxic fluid containing not only the added chemicals, but other nat-

inally, fracking pollutes our soil. The Associated Press reported recently that the amount of chemically tainted soil from drilling waste increased nearly 5100% over the past decade, to more than 512,000 tons last year. We are not only killing our earth by contaminating it, but also wasting resources, time, and money cleaning in up. According to Steve Tillotson, assistant director of the North Dakota Health Department’s waste management division, trucks are hauling oilfield waste to facilities “24 hours a day, seven days a week.” Companies commit to cleaning up their waste, which is good, but they should not have to do it in the first place and it would be impossible for them to clean up everything. Like with Global Citizen | Issue 1

the pollution of water, faulty design is also one of the leading causes for the contamination of soil. The pipelines built are often corrosive and lead to events like when â&#x20AC;&#x153;An ExxonMobil pipeline rupture spilled 42,000 gallons of oil into Yellowstone River,â&#x20AC;? according to Brownâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s report: Exxon Oil Spill in Mont. River Prompts Evacuations. Hundreds of residents were uprooted and barely reimbursed. Companies seek to minimize costs and therefore care little for our environment, which lead to preventable, yet catastrophic situations.

racking may improve our economy temporarily, but the permanent damage will be devastating. In the U.S. the fracking industry helps close the trade deficit and encourages job growth, but when the resources run out and the industry inevitably collapses, we will be faced with a huge economic shock. The fracking industry makes up a significant portion of our economy, but we also designate a lot of money that could be spent on better things to cleaning our air, water, and land. Overall, the fracking industry does not care for our ecosystems or even us. By supporting fracking, we are putting the economy above not only the planet, but ourselves: we are all affected by this horrible industry and will bear the costs.

Global Citizen | Issue 1

Jackson Jost

Global Citizen | Issue 1

TOPICS: CHARGING UP: TESLA’S ACCELERATION MAY BE HERE TO STAY CHINA’S FUTURE: GREY SKIES & BROWN PASTURES Global Citizen | Issue 1

Charging Up: Tesla’s Acceleration May Be Here to Stay

By Sanghui Han

limate change creates pain that is both acute and chronic for humans. Some level of crisis and disaster will befall us-- indeed, most climate researchers are in accord that climate change is already having tangible impacts on human lives. Reducing carbon emissions-- even dramatically-- would not prevent large catastrophes from wreaking havoc on communities globally. Sadly, there is no silver bullet to prevent the full-blown nightmare scenario of extreme warming. Therefore we must ‘Enjoy the pain that you can’t avoid’. Tesla applies the spirit of this message by combining luxury and comfort with environmentally sound design. The best way for us to deal with many of the unavoidable impacts of climate change is to appropriately balance comfort and style with cuts in carbon emissions . One answer is in the creation of low- or no-carbon transportation which will be incrementally alleviating the level of climate change to eventually solve the problem. According to Renault-Nissan, conventional automobiles are responsible for 15% of man-

Global Citizen | Issue 1

made carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Because of the industry’s reliance on cheap batteries, innovation in this sector would have spillover impacts in the renewable energy markets which also will likely come to depend on battery technology. However, electric vehicles emit zero carbon dioxide while driving and can be recharged by 100 percent renewable energy sources. In recent years, demand for low-carbon vehicles has shot up. Now, every three minutes in 2016, someone buys another electric vehicle. Particularly in Europe, drivers can cut in half their environmental footprint by driving an electric vehicle. Because of transportation’s heavy carbon footprint and the spillover impacts on renewable markets, it is crucial to scrutinize the industry of electric vehicle to understand what works and what doesn’t in reducing carbon emissions in light of a prospect of the industry. Therefore, in this essay, the industry will be analyzed using Michael Porter’s five forces analysis with emphasis on Tesla Motors. First devised in 1979, this analysis has become a staple of the microeconomic

elite and Porter himself is now a prominent Harvard Business professor.

Pedro Gandra

efore applying Porter’s five forces analysis, one must examine the positive impacts of electric vehicles and technological innovations. According to the College of Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, transportation and electricity generation account for almost 60 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Moreover, the United States imports 9 million barrels of oil per day, 70% of which is consumed by the transportation sector. Vehicle electrification

could decrease the imports of oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by using clean technologies. In the case of Tesla Motors, it uses a lithium-ion battery and thereby improves mileage more than 3 times the industry standard, spurring innovation in battery technology. In order to make its products more competitive, Tesla has needed to install charging stations for its vehicles, equipped with a battery pack and a solar power array. By fueling demand for solar panels and batteries, it helps to drive competition in these sectors, thus compelling companies to create more effective and affordable solar panels and batteries. To bring down costs further through, Tesla has established the ‘Gigafactory’ to create the economy of scale. The Gigafactory is also run almost entirely by solar energy. Consequently, Tesla Motors is becoming an incredibly efficient car manufacturer through vertical integration while pursuing a valuable social objective in reducing carbon emissions.

he first force, the threat of new entrants, is rather high. This typically threatens the market leader-- in this case Tesla-- but because of the increase in innovation due to competition, this is good for emissions reduction. One reason market entry is relatively easy is that Tesla has opened its core patents to the public. As a result, other companies do not need to finance as much R&D or fear a lawsuit by Tesla. Thus, potential competitors can easily replicate and improve upon the existing product. Moreover, con-

sumers’ awareness of climate change has given rise to the large demand for environmentally friendly vehicles and this ultimately makes it enormously attractive for other manufacturers to enter the market. However, Tesla’s specialization in electric vehicles and battery technology gives it a crucial competitive advantage over other automobile manufacturers. Since Tesla was founded in 2003, the company has curated its image and now it is considered dominant in the electric vehicle industry which makes it difficult to dislodge.

Timo Stelzer

econdly, the threat of substitutes is low. In other words, Tesla has a dominant position in the electric vehicle market with few competitors. Particularly, the unique combination of fully electric high-performance vehicle and charging infrastructures puts Tesla in a superior position. That is because it helps not only consumers lower their gas costs, but also achieve greater horizontal integration to gain control within the electric vehicle industry. In the middle-sized electric vehicle market, cars such as the Ford

Focus Electric and the Nissan Leaf lack the horsepower and luxury of the Tesla. In this way, Tesla competes in a market for “luxury electric cars” -- a market currently composed of one firm. A consumer looking for an electric vehicle is likely to consider other factors like comfort, style, and safety. Tesla’s cars beat the others in the market by a mile, its Model S earned an unprecedented score of 103 out of a possible 100 from Consumer Reports, a ratings agency. By the time other companies introduce similarly high-quality electric vehicles, Tesla’s market dominance will likely have granted it significant staying power. Yet, this market dominance is shaky-- underpinned by consistent manufacture of quality vehicles. In October 2016, the carmaker received relatively poor marks from Consumer Reports due to its Model X’s poor reliability and its stock fell precipitously in response. Tesla’s market dominance depends upon its consistent delivery of quality products.

dditionally, vehicle manufacturers targeting the full-sized electric vehicle market, such as Daimler-Benz and BMW are in the process of developing electric sports vehicles. The industry benchmark -- the Tesla Model S -- is set very high (thanks in part to that 103 rating), making it difficult for other firms to remain competitive after entering the market. Although high-performance hybrids exist on the market -- like the BMW i8 -- the hybrid vehicle market acts as imperfect substitutes in that consumers would Global Citizen | Issue 1

lithium-ion cell chemistries is $160 per kwh. This can account for around 50 percent of car costs, if you assume a conventional 40-percent supplier markup. These various cost estimates cover only the materials and labor costs of the cells and packs, and do not include any overhead, capital investment, and the many other costs required to operate a car company. However, since the batteries and necessary components comprise such a large percentage of the car’s cost the bargaining power of the suppliers is extremely high. High prices are protected by a highly concentrated market. Few firms can develop them efficiently -- giants like LG CNS, Samsung SDI, and Panasonic are dominant. However, Tesla is beginning to manufacture its own batteries which would drive competition in that market. Tesla would no longer need to buy from the highly concentrated battery market.

Matt Henry

sacrifice carbon efficiency for improvements in luxury only on the margins. Consequently, it does not appear that Tesla will face much direct competition in the market in the short term, especially in fully electric performance vehicles. Thus, its role will be more and more essential for the step of the transportation industry to become carbon-free.

ing power of suppliers, for example, is extremely high. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Although this disadvantages Tesla, the competition drives research and innovation helping to bring down the price of batteries and increase efficiency. Tesla uses approximately 2000 components, which are purchased from over 300 different suppliers worldwide. According to Jon hile some market forc- Bereisa, a president and CEO of es favor Tesla, others Auto Lectrification, the raw mado not. The bargain- terials cost for today’s

W 25

Global Citizen | Issue 1

he fourth force, the bargaining power of buyers of Tesla is low in both business-to-business and business-to-consumer commerce. This is in part because, in addition to being a buyer for parts of consumer vehicles, it is also an emerging supplier of components for other car companies. Its tech is among the most advanced, giving it an often decisive edge. Tesla requires Panasonic’s expertise to develop and manufacture batteries which are then sold to other car manufacturers. Supplying these companies plays an important role in buyers’ overall profits-- Toyota’s and Daimler’s electric and hybrid vehicles often depend on

the supply from Tesla, putting it in a strong bargaining position. On the other hand, in consumer sales, Tesla placed itself in a unique niche market with limited competition by combining luxury with low-emissions. With its high-priced (up to $90,000 a pop) flagship Model S, Tesla focuses on relatively high-income customers. It means that it has strong bargaining power over buyers because an increase in market prices will not have a strong effect on the market demand: demand looks to be relatively inelastic.

arket forces are not alone in favoring electric vehicle manufacturers like Tesla. Government programs to lower carbon dioxide in the form of tax deductions stimulate the demand for electric cars in the private sector. For example DC subsidizes electric vehicle purchases with a $7,500 tax credit. Furthermore, California provides consumers who purchase electric vehicles with a $2,500 rebate. In the words of Tesla, “many states also offer non-cash incentives, such as carpool lane access in Cali-

fornia and free municipal parking.” Thus, it is clear that Tesla and the electric vehicle industry have become more attractive over time not only by market forces but also by the government support.

ly conscious generation should make make the electric vehicle market more profitable. The big automobile manufacturers, such as Audi, Volkswagen, and BMW, have recently entered the market and introduced their environmentally friendly cars. Thus, he fifth force, competition, within a few years, rivalry among may not be high now but existing firms is likely to be more could hit zero to 60 fairly intense. quickly. Few firms have plunged into the electric vehicle market, n conclusion, the electric vealthough many traditional manhicle industry has a pivotal ufacturers have gotten their toes role to play in reducing carbon wet. A more competitive market dioxide to help mitigate the pocuts cost by forcing companies tential effects of climate change. to think about market share and It is a wise way to ‘enjoy’ and to encouraging more efficient ways ultimately lessen the degree of of rolling out products. At pres- the unavoidable crisis caused ent, Tesla is the sole automo- by climate change. Whether bile manufacturer that produc- Tesla’s promise to, as their sloes only electric vehicle models. gan depicts; ‘prolong the life exHowever, due to its high sales pectancy of the earth,’ the corvolumes, the market has be- nerstone to cope with climate come more and more attractive change should be established in the last few years and has from looking at the electric vebeen expanding fast. Accord- hicle industry by means of these ingly, other automobile produc- five market forces. If the goal is ers are investing into research more innovation and more afand development in electric ve- fordable eco-friendly products hicles to grab their piece of this to cut back carbon dioxide, the unexpectedly large pie. Climate future looks bright. awareness and the rising incomes of a more environmental-

Sources: Karamitsios, A. (2013). Open Innovation in EVs: A Case Study of Tesla Motors. Sweden. Mangram, M. (2012). The globalization of tesla motors: a strategic marketing plan analysis. Motavalli, J. (2013). As it increases production, tesla worried about battery supply. Tesla. (2013). Tesla Motors Inc. 2013 Tesla. (2016). Tesla Inc. 2016 Porter, Michael E. (2008). The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review. Renault and Nissan. (2016). Electric Vehicles – a solution to climate change and air pollution. John Voelcker. (2016). Electric-car battery costs: Tesla $190 per kwh for pack, GM $145 for cells. Global Citizen | Issue 1

China’s Future: F Grey Skies & Brown Pastures Author Name

irst, climate change is only one of a myriad of challenges pollution poses to society. Set aside pollutions in terms of air, water, noise, soil, plastics and even radioactive contaminations. Environmental degradation such as deforestation, desertification and declining biological diversity have captured our attention and slammed us with grim headlines. China’s problems are not unique to itself, but, nonetheless, I will be using China as an example not only because it is one of the most polluted, but there are a lot of perils we all seem to turn a blind eye on to ensure our own interests and economic growth.

T Alex Gindin

he People’s Republic of China (PRC), though still nominally a developing country, is one of the two biggest polluters in the world (the other one being the good ol’ US of A). Together, the account for roughly 40% of global emissions and although the United States’ emissions are slightly higher per capita, China simply has a lot more capitas and therefore edged out the United States for the top spot shortly after the recession. Another billion-strong country is eying China’s mete-

Global Citizen | Issue 1

oric rise while it decides for itself what path to take in its development: India. According to Bruce Jones-- energy expert at the Brookings Institution-- you can “kiss 2 degrees...or even 4 degrees goodbye” if India use the same carbon-intensive path for development that China did. Thus, analyzing China as a model is pivotal to helping countries balance growth with sustainability. Being native to China, the problems she faces deeply impact me.

he current environmental condition in China is grave. In the 2015 China Environment Report, published by Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China, among 338 prefectural-level municipalities, merely 73 of them (21.6%) had met a minimum standard in terms of air quality. Being Shanghainese, by intuition I think of smog and haze as soon as the weather is foggy, even if perhaps it is actually foggy. People are so numb to it that they even cease to whine about the weather, knowing they can do nothing about it (public transit is well-established though there are still some people that haven’t yet developed the habit of green commuting). Another example would is the ever-expanding desert in many regions of China, at a rate of over 1,300 square miles per year, according to the New York Times. Off it goes, relentlessly devouring villages after villages, merciless-

ly expelling multitudes of towns- nothing is going to stop those people and greedily gobbling unconscionable merchants. vast tracts of land . Statistics show that the Gobi desert has expanded over 50,000 square kilometers in China since 1975, approximately the same size as the country Croatia. Even Beijing itself is suffering from sand storm every now and then. What used to be farmland has turned to dust-- looking at these unexploitable waste lands really breaks my heart and agonizes me at the same time particularly in a country with a relatively low Frank Lopez amount of arable land in the first place--roughly 10% of the total hile much work reland area while 20% is desert. mains to be done, Chinese officials have t may sometimes seem as not been asleep at the wheel. though Chinese officials are 2016. China is actually taking not aware of the problem or an active part in this movement, display an unyielding callous as it is one of the leading counattitude towards the victims of tries to compose and advocate the encroaching desert. Yet I the Paris Agreement. Despite would like to stress the press- the government’s trepidation in ing need of local governors’ and pursuing any policy that would central regulators’ awareness hinder growth, it is doing a fair and actions in combatting the job in various aspects such as problems. Don’t get me wrong, promoting green energy, enthough, I’m saying that the gov- hancing coal desulfurization, ernment is doing nothing at all, implementing more rigorous subut I believe they can do much pervision of industrial waste as better than what they are doing well as emission and so on. Per right now. The reason why cen- the 2015 Environmental Protectral regulators, play the most tion Report presented by The significant role in this campaign State Council of the PRC, the is that they have the power, re- forest coverage rate increased sources, and the funding to lead from 20.36% (2010) to 21.66%, the movement while also make which is equivalent 15.1 billion it efficient and effective. Without square meters, and desulfurized the back of government, prof- & denitrified coal-fired plants iteers are like unleashed “mad have reached the generating dogs”, jeopardizing our eco-sys- capacity of 1.73 billion KW, 240 tem and enriching themselves million KW more than there was without so much as a blush in in 2014. Finally, the report noted shame. Hence until systemat- that the budget Chinese govic regulations are promulgated ernment has enacted for conand reliable laws are enacted, servation is roughly 40 billion,

compared to 8 billion provided by Environmental Protection Agency. Because of all of this, watchdogs like climatetracker. org have given China luke-warm reviews on climate policy: it is admittedly doing a fair bit of heavy lifting, but is not quite a role model.

o, I am able to safely draw the conclusion that the government itself is paying a massive amount of attention to issues of environmental protection. However, the point is that the environment has already been highly contaminated which makes it even tougher to deal with. Yet too little too late is always better than nothing, isn’t it? The sooner we start to pay off the debt we owe our planet, the better the chance of us to actually get out of the debt.

“I am able to safely draw the conclusion that the government itself is paying a massive amount of attention to issues of environmental protection.”

Global Citizen | Issue 1

Melting Ice Caps -Greenland Photo By: William Bossen

Nuclear Power Pant -Bulgaria Photo By: Viktor Kiryanov

Skyline In Smog -China Photo By: Alex Gindin

Canyon de Chelly -USA Photo By: Ben Esteves

Dried Out River -Iraq Photo By: NASA

CLIMATE

WATCH TOPICS: World News Donald Trump Centerpiece

Great Berrier Reef -Australia Photo By: NASA

Global Citizen | Issue 1

AMERICAS

Washington state rejected a carbon tax which would have applied a high fee on emissions to lower business taxes and provide a rebate to families

Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii reports record 401 parts per million carbon content in September

Florida rejected a proposition which increases costs on solar energy producers by limiting their ability to sell excess power back to the market

Donald Trump elected President

EAST/CENTRAL ASIA

Study indicates that Indonesian forest fires could cause deaths up to 100,000 per year 31

Global Citizen | Issue 1

AFRICA & THE MIDDLE EAST

Over 170 nations agreed to phase out certain powerful greenhouse gas emissions which could prevent 0.5-0.9â&#x201E;&#x192; in warming by 2100 (Kabila)

Global Warming could reduce GDP by up to 1.5% per year ($15 Billion)

World leaders met in Morocco for COP 22 after a landmark deal to hold warming to below 2C enters into force (Marrakech)

EUROPE

Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cabon trading fails to raise price of carbon above $6/ton; near alltime low (Oct 20)

Germany achieves 100% renewable consumption for several hours

Great Britain approves a major nuclear reactor at Hinkles Point Global Citizen | Issue 1

Climate Change: What You Need to Know What Causes Climate Change? - Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil to produce energy emits CO2 (“Greenhouse Gases”) - Deforestation: When forests are cut down carbon absorption ceases and the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere as CO2 - Industrial and agricultural practices pollute the air and soil - These gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm (“Greenhouse Effect”) The Effects at a… Global Level: - Earth’s average temperature has risen by 1.5°F over the past century, and could rise up to another 8.6°F in the next hundred years. Small changes in temperature can translate to dangerous shifts in climate and weather - The surface of the ocean has warmed 1°F over the last 80 years - The average sea level is expected to rise 1-4 feet before the end of this century as a result of the ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica National Level: - The U.S. is the second largest contributor to CO2 in our atmosphere (after China), though it is home to only 4.4% of the world’s population - Glacier National Park was home to more than 150 glaciers 100 years ago. Now, there are less than 30, and the park is expected to lose all its glaciers State Level: - Higher temperatures increase the severity, frequency, and extent of wildﬁres: on average, 4% of the land in California burns per decade - Heat waves are becoming more common, snow is melting earlier in the spring, water supply is decreasing, and less rain is falling - Southern California has warmed 3°F in the last century The increase in human contribution in recent years has caused CO2 to rise to unnatural, hazardous levels

Global Citizen | Issue 1

Climate Change: What You Need to Know The increase in Earthâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s temperature has lead to a nationwide drought. This map depicts the United States drought conditions by territory as of Dec. 6, 2016

What You Can Do: - Conduct an energy audit to calculate how much energy your family uses at home and identify ways to reduce your energy usage - Switch to renewable energy (solar panels, wind power) - Use less electricity - Reduce, reuse, and recycle waste - Turn off water while brushing your teeth and washing dishes - Take shorter showers - Buy organic or locally grown foods; avoid processed items - Carpool, bike, or walk to destinations - Get involvedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;spread awareness about climate change, join a club or write for a magazine such as this one Reader Questions: - What was your emotional response from reading these facts? - What new information did you learn? What did you already know? - How do you think you personally contribute to climate change? - Are you going to change your behaviors? If so, what will you do? Sources: 1. https://www.epa.gov/ 2. https://www.nwf.org 3. http://climate.nasa.gov/ 4. https://www.drought.gov/ Global Citizen | Issue 1

Trump Vs. Science: Will Trump Trump The Paris Agreement?

By Sean MacPherson

n December 12, 2015 at the 21st Conference of the Parties at the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), 195 countries adopted the Paris Agreement—an international agreement focused on dealing with anthropogenic climate change—by consensus. A year on, 194 nations have signed the agreement, with 117 having ratified the agreement domestically. Now that the required number of states have adopted the measure, the agreement enters into force, meaning that “all governments that have ratified the accord, which includes the US, China, India and the EU, now carry an obligation to hold global warming to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels.” The President-elect’s policies and rhetoric abandon global commitments, threatening to derail climate diplomacy.

dedicated to sustainable natural resource management, details the inception of the Paris Agreement: “publicly outlined what post-2020 climate actions they intended to take under new international agreement” in preparation for the conference. 1 These explicit and intended actions are known as their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, (INDCs). The domestic goals outlined in each country’s INDCs are integral to achieving the ambitious, overarching goals detailed in the Paris Agreement—“to hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C, to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C, and to achieve net zero emissions in the second half of this century.” 1

he signing and entrance into force of the paris accord marked the largest global effort to combat climate change. The World Resources Institute, a global organization

Global Citizen | Issue 1

atifying countries are obligated to follow through on their commitments; furthermore, it is pivotal that the highest carbon emitters, namely China, the United States, Russia, and India take the lead since they account for more than fifty-percent of global carbon emissions. The United States’ own INDCs pledge a 26%-28% cut in emissions relative to 2005 by 2025-- a target just out of range of the cumulative effects of current policies and market forces and China has pledged to cap emissions by 2030--although many experts think that emissions may already have capped thanks to slowing growth, an aging workforce and increased efficiency. The challenge under a Trump administration will be focused on cementing current policies and preventing backsliding on these promises.

P Andy Brunner

resident-elect Donald Trump entertains many policies and viewpoints that could prove fatal to the Paris Agreement. His website pledges to “lift the restrictions on the

production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal,” to “lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward,” and to “cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure.” 4As The New York Times reports, “Mr. Trump has already vowed to ‘cancel’ last year’s Paris climate agreement…and to dismantle the Clean Power Plan, Mr. Obama’s domestic climate change regulations.” 6 Trump’s controversial policies stem from his mindset that it “comes down to… [w]ealth versus poverty.” 5 He prioritizes short-term economic gains over the long-term benefits and necessity of continuing the United States’ full commitment to the Paris Agreement.

roblematically, Trump threatens the Clean Power Plan.As Chelsea Harvey, of The Washington Post, describes, the Clean Power plan is “the centerpiece of the [United States’] individual commitment to the Paris climate agreement. Currently the plan “is the subject of a highly fraught legal battle… in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit”—one which wages the Environmental Protection Agency and various climate activism groups, who are in support of the plan, against “several large corporations… [and] two dozen states,” who, with the support of “industry groups and utilities,” are pushing to destroy the plan. Experts point out there are multiple plausible paths that Trump could take to dismantle the plan.

irstly, Harvey details that “it’s possible that the [Trump] administration could simply decline to continue defending the Clean Power Plan in court”—either by “withdrawing from the current proceedings or failing to bring its defense to the Supreme Court in the case of an appeal.” Jack Lienke, an attorney at the Institute of Policy Integrity at New York University, denounces the likelihood and effectiveness of this plausible approach: “[t]here are states and municipalities and environmental and public health organizations that have intervened in the case in support of EPA and the rule.” As Lienke sees it, other interest groups would come to the plan’s defense if the Trump administration and its respective Justice Department stood down. Withdrawing from current

litigation, however, is only one of several ways in which the Trump administration could dismantle the plan.

nother way in which Trump could attempt to destroy the Clean Power Plan would be through what Southern Environmental Law Center’s senior attorney, Frank Rambo, describes as “a motion for voluntary remand.” Harvey says this type of action would “essentially [halt] the case and [allow] federal agencies to … potentially revise their rules.” In essence, if the Trump administration successfully motioned for voluntary remand, they could rewrite the Clean Power Plan. This action however, as Lienke notes, is also highly unlikely, since the “EPA has finalized this rule, [and] this rule is now law.” Furthermore, he notes that a new plan mocked up by the Trump administration “would inevitably be litigated.” Although this method is as equally ineffective as the Trump administration simply withdrawing from the plan’s appeal, there are still more ways in which they could attempt to cancel the Clean Power Plan.

Jason Blackeye Global Citizen | Issue 1

astly, and most realistically, since the “EPA has a major role in approving state plans to comply with it” and with Trump’s recent appointment of Scott Pruitt—a climate change skeptic and litigant against the CPP—to the head of the EPA, state requirements under the plan could be weakened. Rambo, however, adds that “environmental organizations could also legally challenge the EPA’s actions in such a scenario” providing necessary roadblocks to this potential approach to dismantling the Clean Power Plan.

long with emphasizing the necessity for domestic emission cutting plans, the Paris Agreement aims “to make all financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low-emissions, climate-resilient development.” This aim is in alignment with the third overarching goal—”to achieve net zero emissions in the second half of this century”; the Paris Agreement hopes to provide the guidelines for developed and developing countries alike to restructure their current energy infrastructure to a more green future. Furthermore, the agreement stresses that globally the nations “...can achieve our climate objectives while creating new jobs, raising standards of living and lifting millions out of poverty.” 2 That is, developing countries should not perceive emission-limits as a hindrance in their efforts to improve quality of life, but as a new guideline and an internationally supported opportunity in the clean energy sector. Additionally, the agreement calls upon developed countries to provide political, financial and consultative resources to developing nations.

he United States sets a global precedent for climate change policy The US Environmental Protection Agency describes the international effects of the Clean Power Plan as “[showing] the world that the United States is committed to leading global efforts to address climate change.” 7 Rambo, Lienke and Harvey, among other experts, would agree that although Trump has many potential paths to dismantling the Clean Power Plan, most (if not all of them) could prove to be ineffective and time-consuming to pursue. While optimistically, the Clean Power Plan will conhe Obama White House tinue on its previously intended pledged $3 Billion in clipath, there are other ways in mate aid in 2014 and which Trump could jeopardize called for an expansion of that the United States’ commitment role after the agreement.2 This to the Paris Agreement. money is part of global “climate finance,” a term used to denote funds used “for both mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries.” 2 Yet this is under threat. Trump stated that “[the United States] can’t be sending our money all over the Alex Jodoin world.”

Global Citizen | Issue 1

his reneging also makes it less likely other countries will maintain their own pledges.The New York Times notes that “Indian officials have made clear that their steps to cut emissions will depend on financial aid from rich countries.” 6 Furthermore, why should China, the world’s number one carbon emitter follow through on their financial contributions if the next-higher emitter, the United States, cannot? Not only might other influential nations not feel obligated to follow through on their financial commitments, but if the Trump administration were to cut back on domestic emission regulations—such as the Clean Power Plan—the U.S. lack of contribution to carbon emission cuts alone, could render the Paris Agreement’s goal unreachable; reducing the incentive for other nations to cut back.

ltimately, President-elect Donald Trump threatens to enact changes domestically that could lead to the catastrophic failure of the Paris Agreement as a whole, even if he doesn’t withdraw from it as he has promised. The Paris Agreement was a singular and

extraordinary step in the right direction in the global fight against climate change. The basis of the agreement--voluntary contributions-- is greatly undermined if the largest historical contributor fails to voluntarily contribute.What led to the worldwide approval and consensus of the Paris Agreement, however, potentially also gives Trump the necessary leeway to effectively pull the United States out of the agreement. While Trump’s views are fairly enigmatic we can be sure that the United States’ strengthen the Paris Agreement-and global standing--will suffer.

“Ultimately, President-elect Donald Trump threatens to enact changes domestically that could lead to the catastrophic failure of the Paris Agreement as a whole, even if he doesn’t withdraw from it as he has promised.”

Veeterzy

Sources: Davenport, Coral. “Donald Trump Could Put Climate Change on Course for ‘Danger Zone’.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Nov. 2016. Web. 14 Dec. 2016. Harvey, Fiona. “Paris Climate Change Agreement Enters into Force.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 03 Nov. 2016. Web. 14 Dec. 2016. “Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days.” NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016. “The Nature Conservancy.” The Paris Agreement - What Does It Mean? | The Nature Conservancy. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016. “SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP.” Donald J Trump for President. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016. “U.S. Leadership and the Historic Paris Agreement to Combat Climate Change.” The White House. The United States Government, 12 Dec. 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2016. “What Does the Paris Agreement Do for Finance?” What Does the Paris Agreement Do for Finance? | World Resources Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016. “What Is an INDC?” What Is an INDC? | World Resources Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.

Global Citizen | Issue 1

A Short History of Everything By Will Robertson

n some sense, the story of scientific progress is a series of demotions for the human race. In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus’ On the Revolutions of Celestial Bodies caused a revolution in its own right within more worldly orbits; booting Earth and its inhabitants from their 2000year perch at the center of the Universe. Three centuries later, evolutionary theory reversed the notion that Earth was made for us; instead we are made to suit the Earth. Another demotion. In the twentieth century we discovered that our solar system is just one of many hundreds of billions in our galaxy and that our galaxy is just one of countless others. We discovered how ephemeral not only our own life, but our existence as a species truly was. And yet. We may now live in the Anthropocene epoch-- an era defined by humanity’s impact on the environment and globe. In this respect, anthropocentrism is resurgent; our planet is defined by our impact on it.

Karsten Würth

leashed was perhaps the biggest positive development for humans ever. Life expectancy shot up to around 80 years in much of the industrialized world, up from its “natural” level a little above 40. We have laid claim to a vast store of knowledge, coming to understand the universe being the only species that we know of to grasp for the stars. These are remarkable achievements and must not be diminished, and yet before we declare a triumphant, unambiguously happy ending for humanity, we must recognize the cost of these achievements.

ers and industrialists to pump all that they can, causing water tables to plummet globally, the hammer falling particularly hard on California (over 50 cubic kilometers of fresh groundwater has been sucked from the central valley in the last century). If glaciers and mountains continue to melt, rivers which spring from the Himalaya icesheets (and which provide water to 40% of the Earth’s population) threaten to turn from a roar to a whisper. Between 2000 and 2005 we lost roughly 7 million hectares (more than 9 million American football fields) of forest annually-- the lungs of the planet and an important income source for over 1 billion people. Perhaps most precious of all the very life of the planet is slipping away with species extinction occuring thousands of times the natural “background” rate. The planet-and life on it-- will recover as it always has. The key question is, will humanity?

he earth is only able to replenish so much of what we use in a given year and we have been running over budget for a long time. The US alone loses 3 tons of topsoil per acre per year-- it takes around 1,000 years for 1 ton to replace naturally. Humans have used up over half of the Earth’s “carbon budget”-- the rough amount of carbon that corresponds to 2Cs of e are racking up huge o be sure, the explosion warming-- of 1,000 gigatons of debts now which must in human productivity the CO2. Inefficiencies in water exbe paid back later. Industrial Revolution un- traction and incentives for farm- Earth overshoot day-- the day in

T 38

Global Citizen | Issue 1

the year when humans use more resources than the Earth can replenish in that year-- continues to come earlier and earlier; some researchers estimate that we will lose all or most of our topsoil wihin 60 years, increasing dependency on nitrogen fertilizers which are themselves a significant sources of carbon emissions and which are prime suspects in the case of the vast gulf sea “Dead Zone”-- a [X square mile region where sealife is impossible].

ome argue that the solution to all of these problems is a form of eco-marxism: that capitalism demands an exponential increase in resource extraction and that humanity as a whole must commit itself to a no-growth economy which will not only stop, but roll back humanity’s environmental rampage.

thers take the opposite view-- that the problem of resource extraction is ultimately a series of “commons” problems-- profiteers are free to use resources that are

the common heritage of mankind without paying the social cost for them and that therefore forcing companies to bear the social cost of deforestation, pollution, water extraction or carbon emission would create powerful incentives to conserve dwindling supplies on an increasingly volatile planet.

fossil fuels hold great promise in reducing our global footprint. The Earth may not have been made for our own sake, but key innovations in technology may yet promise to help remake humanity for the Earth’s sake and therefore our own.

egardless, technological innovation in carbon storage, clean energy and energy storage will play key roles in more efficiently using the resources we extract. We, the editors, writers, artists and designers of The Global Citizen are dedicated to building a resilient, stable global community committed to becoming the first generation in history to leave the next one an environmentally wealthier, healthier planet than the one we inherited. The explosive advancements in technology over the past few centuries have accelerated humanity’s stress on the environment; but emergent ones like renewable energies, batteries, communications devices and even, potentially, more efficient extraction of

Jason Blackeye

“We, the editors, writers, artists and designers of The Global Citizen are dedicated to building a resilient, stable global community committed to becoming the first generation in history to leave the next one an environmentally wealthier, healthier planet than the one we inherited.”

Forrest Cavale Global Citizen | Issue 1

VOICES

There Is No Free Lunch: The Desert Tortoise Or Big Solar Plastic Coffin: How Plastic Bottles Can Turn The Pacific Into A Watery Grave

Global Citizen | Issue 1

There Is No Free Lunch: The Desert Tortoise Or Big Solar

By Jeffrey Berman

“

If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put it,” said then California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.1 He was responding to the passage of a bill in the U.S. Congress, in 2009, sponsored by California Senator Diane Feinstein. This bill placed one million acres of unspoiled Mojave Desert land off limits to solar development. These contrasting views crystalize the quandary faced by the entire environmental community. Do we save pristine desert land—symbolized by a foot long Desert Tortoise which is part of an entire ecosystem, or do we establish large solar installation in the Mojave Desert, where there is sun three hundred days a year, to produce carbon free energy— symbolized by the Ivanpah Solar Power Station. The California legislature established statewide goals of 25% carbon free energy by 2020, 50% by 2030. The only practical method of meeting these goals is large solar instillations. These large power plants will likely destroy the tortoise, and its ecosystem. There is no

Global Citizen | Issue 1

free lunch! Hard choices have mer temperatures may reach to be made. So far they are not. 140 F. According to that paper, it survives by digging “underground burrows with its powerful front limbs […] three to six feet deep.” When the tortoises abandon their burrows for new ones, other animals—reptiles, snakes, sometimes birds-- use them to protect themselves from the desert environment; thus, these tunnels are part of entire ecosystem. The tortoise spends almost ninety-five percent of its life underground. When it does emerge from its burrow, it stays in its own neighborhood; Butler Levi Jones notes it strays no more than 100 he Desert Tortoise (Go- to 200 square yards from home. pherus agassizii) star- The “Basic Facts” article notes tles you—if you are lucky that it leaves its burrow in the enough to see one—as it crawls late spring or late fall, for a periacross the Mojave Desert. What od of days, to find food and wais a turtle doing in the desert? ter. If the animal is frightened, it This is a tortoise, not a turtle. urinates almost all its stored waDefenders of Wildlife developed ter—causing certain death from a paper, “Basic Facts about dehydration during its extended Desert Tortoises”, stating, “no hibernation. other tortoise in North America shares the extreme condiortoises reproduce slowly. tions of habitat occupied by The “Defenders of Wildthe desert tortoise.” Its home is life” article comments that the Mojave Desert west of the the animals don’t reproduce until Colorado River--where sum- fifteen to twenty years of age, of

it sixty to eighty year life spans. Even though they produce six to eight eggs per hatch, only two percent of the newborns survive to adulthood. This slow replacement rate is a big disadvantage when your main predator is man. Elizabeth Kolbert points this out in her Pulitzer Price-winning book The Sixth Extinction. “When the world changes faster than the species can adapt, many fall out.” In the last fifty years—hardly a blink of the eye in terms of evolution--rapid change has come to the Mojave (highways, casinos, urban centers), and more is to come. The U.S. Department of the interior “ has fast-tracked approval of 26 large-scale solar plants on public lands since 2009, including Ivanpah and nine that it cleared in August 2012.” Species just can’t adapt that fast, especially if they are slow to replace themselves. That is how animals become extinct. Man is now proposing more and more solar installations in this desert.

dangered Species List. Still many think destroying the tortoises is unimportant. The Sierra Club’s former national chairman, Carl Pope, stated, “If we don’t save the planet, there won’t be any tortoises left to save.” Yet, if man continues to destroy the desert ecosystems, the Desert Tortoise will be a distant memory long before we have “saved the planet.”

any think like Pope. To produce large amounts of clean energy, you need large solar power station, as exemplified by the Ivanpah facility. Located on 3500 acres of pristine land, forty miles south of Las Vegas on Highway Fifteen, it will produce--according to BrightSource Solar, its owner and designer--enough power to light 140,00 homes. It deploys over 340,000 mirrors aimed at three separate towers. According to Ken Wells (1), the towers rise 459 feet (about forty five stories) above the Mojave. Suddenly sighting these towers while driving Highway Fifteen, is like detecting three missiles ready to launch. The computer guided mirrors aim the sun at the towers, boiling water at a temperature approaching 1000 degrees F., producing steam, which allows generators to produce electricity. The same article shows how expensive was the construction --“$2.2 billion.” Jeremy Bishop NRC, the operator of the installation, added “three hundred Defenders of Wildlife,” notes million, Google $168 million […] that the tortoises’ popula- and the Obama administration tion has already fallen from awarded Ivanpah a 1.6 billion over a million in the 1950’s, to dollar loan guarantee. Groundabout 100,000 presently. Thus, breaking took place in 2010, it has been placed on the En- officially opening in February

“

2014. It has taken two years of operation, according to BrightSource, to meet “ 97 percent of its contractual obligations.” Pacific Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison have purchased the power.

Asia Chang

here are major problems with the Ivanpah solar station. Garrett Herring, in an editorial for REV Business Sustainability Workshop, elaborates on two drawbacks that are particularly important. Number one is the “ecological impact.” The need to relocate the Desert Tortoises cost 56 million dollars; in addition, a fence was built around the location to prevent animals from encroaching on the station. One of the biologists hired by BrightSource to save the tortoises, told Peter Laufer of High Country News, “ Everybody knows that translocation doesn’t work,” since tortoises never stray far from home. Moving to a foreign location will only stress the animal, causing it to urinate-- essentially killing the animal. Another big problem is killing birds from the heat. Shawn Smallwood, a biologist hired by The Center for Biological Diversity to study Ivanpah’s impacted Global Citizen | Issue 1

on birds, estimated that “28,380 bird deaths per year caused by Ivanpah.” The deaths are mostly from burns caused by the 1000-degree heat generated by the mirrors. The second important reason is price competition. Hering points out that the California Public Utilities Commission documents state that the cost of electricity from “Ivanpah is 12 cents per kilowatt-hour (kw/h)” (3). The average price for a large PV (photovoltaic system—that is solar panels) system […] varies from 8-11 cents kw/h in 2013.”3 Hence, the Ivanpah technology is non-competitive in price with PV, let alone coal and natural gas. In an article titled “Electric Generating Costs: A Primer,” notes coal is 3.23 cents per kw/h, natural gas, 4. 5 cents/kw/h. (1&2). Consequently, the Ivanpah typed of solar power station will unlikely be replicated: the cost of solar panels has now decreased to the point where they have an economic advantage. None-the –less, because solar energy cost more per kw/h than coal and natural gas, the average consumer electrical bill will rise as more solar and wind produced energy comes on line. However, most economists’ feel that cost differential will be solved as the costs of solar panels drop.

hat will be much harder to solve, is the conflicts among environmental groups between saving the ecosystem, and developing large solar systems. After all, the main point of green energy—solar power, wind energy— is to save our ecosystems from global climate change. Does

Global Citizen | Issue 1

man need to destroy these systems to save our planet? Man, forcefully removed the Desert Tortoise to make way for the Ivanpah development; he destroyed the ecosystem with bulldozers and other heavy construction equipment. David Meyer, executive director of the Wildlands Conservancy, commented, “You have this incredible landscape [referring to the Mojave Desert] […] you couldn’t put a project in a worst area […] It’s a philosophic non-sequitur that you destroy hundreds of thousands of acres to save the Earth from global warming.”1 It makes no sense to save the Earth from carbon emission by destroying its landscape. This man “put his money where his mouth is” by raising money to buy desert property from a large development company. Next, he influenced California Senator Dianne Feinstein to help pass the bill already mentioned Mojave bill..1 Kolbert notes a plaque in the American Museum of Natural History: “ Right now we are in the midst of the Sixth Extinction, this time caused solely by human transformation of the ecological landscape”. Both of these strong environmentalists are asking, what will be left to save, if we destroy what we are trying to save along the way?

The author quotes The Natural Resources Defense Council’s website, “ massive concentrating solar-power plants will be built in the Southwest, providing clean electricity for millions of homes and businesses in the region”. No consideration is given to the ecosystems of the deserts, as if the land is barren dirt. The Sierra Club has seemed to have the most trouble with this important issue. Its website describes solar as “the cleanest, most abundant, renewable energy source available.” The national organization has endorsed large solar installations. Yet, its local chapters don’t agree. Stein tell us “there is an ongoing dispute within the club; several of Sierra’s local chapters don’t want solar installations anywhere near them.” The local chapters know the ecosystems better than the national establishment. They are the ones who have fought to protect the local environment.

he environmental establishment seems to be turning a blind eye to this dilemma. Most, strongly endorse large solar projects on the Mojave Desert. Steven Stein’s article comments that the Friends of the Earth, and the Environmental Defense Fund are “strong advocates of large solar projects.

Aaron Burdon

rotecting the local environment is important to a third group of environmen-

talist. They want to improve efficiency standards. Stein quotes the Sierra’s Club website “ Energy efficiency is the foundation on which all of our other recommendations are based.” They mean efficient auto fuel standards, energy efficient electrical appliances and housing. The problem is that this will not help California meet its clean energy goals in the allotted time. Older models of autos, and large and small appliances and older homes often last many years.

thers agree that energy efficiency is part of the solution, but only part. They propose putting all solar powered facilities on top of big box stores, and in their parking lots—in addition to homes. However, as Stein points out, San Diego has enough sunny days to meet its requirements, but does San Francisco, Eureka, or going north, does Seattle? What will be the cost of the power per kw/h? Those in this last group are reflected in the comments of Johanna Wald, quoted by Stein. She is a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We don’t have to choose between having renewable energy development of complying with the Endangered Species Act. That statement seems to this observer “pie in the sky thinking,” and an unwillingness to face the music. To meet California’s goals, one will need large solar projects placed in areas of many sunny days.

aving the Earth, or saving the land is a quandary facing not only environmen-

tal groups, but also each and every person on earth. When state and local governments set hard goals, such as California, the bureaucracies charge ahead, and businessmen see an opportunity—often with unforeseen consequences. That is exactly what is happening in the Mojave Desert. Jeffrey Lovich, who has extensively studied the disruptive effects, caused by major construction projects in the Mojave. He warns, “ science is playing catch-up to energy concerns […] This is all a grand, experiment, and we need more research.” This writer strongly agrees with this argument. Yes, this will delay targets, which may be a political problem for the leaders; yet, more importantly, it will save many animals, and pristine land from poorly thought-out destruction. Man has already contributed enough to the “Sixth Extinction.” When it comes to this important impasse, very hard choices have to be made—there is no free lunch.

“Man has already contributed enough to the “Sixth Extinction.”

Sources: Woody, Todd. “”It’s Green Against Green In Mojave Desert Solar Battle.”.” Yale Environment 360. February 01, 2010. Wells, Ken “Where Tortoises and Solar Power Don’t Mix” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, n.d. Hering, Garrett. “4 Reasons the Ivanpah Plant Is Not the Future of Solar” GreenBiz. N.p., n.d. Stein, Steve. “The Environmentalist’s Dilemma.” Hoover Institution. N.p., n.d. Artz, Kenneth. ”Mojave Solar Project Killing Threatened Desert Tortoises.” Free-Market Public Policy.

Lili Popper

Global Citizen | Issue 1

Plastic Coffin: How Plastic Bottles Can Turn The Pacific Into A Watery Grave By Shreyes Nallan

he Hawaiians tell a story about how the monk seal came to be. They say it was once a dog. A dog that had grown too fat for its own good. Without a purpose on land anymore, it was reviled as a ʻilio ha (overweight dog). Then two gods – Kāne, the god of the land, and Kanaloa, the god of the seas – teamed up to make it a sort of amphibian, terrorizing fish underwater while also lazing about on land. The Hawaiians call it ʻilioholoikauaua, or “dog running in the rough waters” (Kittinger et al 13). Back then, it was just running for the sake of freedom. But now, it has something to run from: us. Or, more precisely, our fixation on accumulating enormous amounts of non-biodegradable plastics and then casting them off into the sea. According to a 2015 study by Jambeck et al., Between 10 and 28 billion pounds of plastic are dumped into the sea every year. Ocean currents concentrate that debris into one particular region -- the monk seal’s habitat – an area now referred to as “the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” In an analogue to Pulit-

Global Citizen | Issue 1

zer prize-winning science writer Elizabeth Kolbert’s “islands on dry land,” the seal’s habitat now comprises “islands on wet land,” spots of open sea free from the clear bits of killer material. But even this last vestige is threatened as we create more and more plastic to eventually dump in. We are told that the three Rs (Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle) are the key to breaking free of this destructive cycle. But much more is needed – a solution called the three Is: Inform, Interdict, and Innovate. In following the three Is, the Hawaiian Monk Seal is given a second chance at running free once more.

stavros_m - Morguefile

lazy, impossibly cute earless seal endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. Westerners weren’t aware of its existence until the 19th century, when they christened it the “monk seal” after its balding hair pattern. The seal had inhabited the islands for 14 million years, but once humans showed up, it started disappearing. Soon, it was exterminated from the main islands. However, it found refuge in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, a sprawling, uninhabited archipelago stretching from Ni’ihau to Midway Island. In these isolated atolls, Seal population boomed. In 1909, the region became a wildlife refuge (Antonelis et al. 82), making it even more protected, and a stable subpopulation soon recolonized the main islands. All seemed to be going so well for the ’ilioholoikauaua. Then the rules of the survival game changed -- and the monk seal suddenly found itself barreling towards extinction again.

t all started in 1907, when the he Hawaiian monk seal very first commercial plastic (Monachus schauinslanwas invented. Bakelite – used di) is an innocent, pudgy, for dominoes and chess pieces

today – wasn’t exactly dumped into the ocean en masse, but it spawned other products which were. The 1923 invention of PVC started the wave, but it didn’t really pick up until the 1970s. That’s when polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a stiff, high-strength, durable synthetic polymer, became widespread in single-use disposable plastic bottles (Moore). PET bottles, crowed inventor Nathaniel Wyeth’s patent, “have excellent strength, are impact resistant, and are capable of holding liquids under pressures as high as 100 p.s.i.g. at a temperature of 50° C… making [them] useful in bottling liquids” (7). But this amazing durability came at a staggering cost. For the very qualities that made them so great in the hands of consumers made them menaces in the ocean. PET does not biodegrade (decay into an organic form which can be subsumed into the environment), but it does photodegrade (decay halfway into microscopic bits). Because of this, miniscule pieces of plastic can persist in the sea for thousands of years, ubiquitous and almost undetectable (Moore). Laced with toxins, carcinogens, and endocrine disrupters, prone to bioaccumulation, and easily mistaken for food, PET can destroy entire ecosystems once cast off into the ocean (Moore). These risks were clear and known. There was a chance to stop this environmental travesty from occurring. But instead, a choice was made to sacrifice the oceans and all the remarkable life within it for a marginally better way to store sodas.

Schick - Morguefile

he effects of this mass influx of plastic have been dire. According to the Zoological Society of London, the population has fallen 68 percent in the half-century since PET was invented. The population is now down to about 1,200 individuals, with only 630 of them mature, and is listed as “Endangered” by the IUCN. 215 seals have been spotted on the shores of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, dead, entangled in nets or having ingested marine debris (Gall and Thompson 7). The population is in such a dismal state that even if we stopped dumping plastic into the Pacific, natural pressures – predation, disease, natural disasters – could still kill it off. And while the subpopulation on the main Hawaiian Islands may be safe for now, it is only a matter of time before the Great Pacific Garbage Patch expands to that region as well. Unless something changes, the Hawaiian monk seal is virtually assured of extinction.

t the frontlines of this sacrifice was the ’ilioholoikauaua. Why? Simply put, bad luck. According to a Discover magazine article by Thomas Kontigen, A collection of ocean currents brings the debris from all over the North Pacific Ocean to a fairly small area, now universally referred to as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” This region is where plastic now outnumbers plankton six to one (Kostigen), and it completely encloses the Hawaiian monk seal’s habitat. PET and all the nasty additives within bioaccumulate – that is, amplify to lethal concentrations due to the sheer amount of plastic consumed – in top predators like the monk seal, leading to disease and death. The monk seal is also prone to ingesting “microplastics” (bits of plastic even smaller than phoAlvimann - Morguefile todegraded PET, used in prodo how can it be saved? ucts like toothpaste and hand For generations, it’s been soaps). This habitat would be lesaid that the answer is the thal to any creature living within it, and the ’ilioholoikauaua had three Rs: Reduce, Reuse, and the most unfortunate luck of in- Recycle. According to the EPA, it’s a way to “help make a differhabiting its epicenter. ence in our environment every day.” Children learning about

Global Citizen | Issue 1

plastic pollution are taught this mystical mantra, and it is common wisdom that this is the only way to reduce pollution in places like the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. But it shouldn’t be: the three Rs have failed miserably. Only 22% of PET bottles are recycled (Ban the Bottle), and the “reduce” and “reuse” parts haven’t stopped the North Pacific Gyre from becoming the largest trash dump on earth. The Hawaiian monk seal requires a better solution. A solution that amplifies the good sides of the three Rs – ubiquity, catchiness, and the “big picture” ideas – while fixing its shortcomings – its inability to get anyone to actually act, its vague, too-general ideas, and its failure to address the plastic that’s already out there in the Garbage Patch. The new solution, the three I’s: Inform, Interdict, and Innovate. Up first is Inform. For this plan to have any hope of succeeding, the message needs to get out. People, generally, know that plastic is somehow bad for the environment. But this material is presented to them so weakly that they don’t care. There’s a bunch of plastic in the middle of the ocean? Who cares? The argument needs a face, and people must see those affected directly by their actions. Acquaint them with the plump, lazy, innocent, impossibly cute Hawaiian monk seal, and let them see that they are killing off a unique creature, which has existed for tens of millions of years before us, just because they prefer the taste of Aquafina.

fter they have been informed, it’s time for them to take action. The “solutions” offered to them right now are weak, nebulous, and downright confusing. “Reduce,” is quoted. Yet this contains ambiguities-- Reduce, what? How? What should be bought and what shouldn’t? Which products hurt the environment the most? No idea. “Reuse.” This is the most puzzling one. How can it be expected that perfectly average people, once finished with their Dasani, will suddenly turn into green-design wizards who can effortlessly turn a used bottle into whatever their heart desires? It’s not like turning a few PET bottles into, say, a picture frame, or a modernist sculpture, is a piece of cake. “Recycle.” Even the most clearly-defined of the trio still has a few major caveats. The rules for what you can put in the blue bin and what you can’t are so byzantine that in San Jose, 40% of all the items citizens attempt to recycle weren’t recyclable. The fixes that are presented just aren’t that great, and any efforts to stem plastic pollution are greatly wounded because of this.

T jackietrains - Morguefile

Global Citizen | Issue 1

n the three Is, the second step is to Interdict. Complete bans on the products responsible are the only way that the unprecedented pollution of the Pacific Ocean can be stopped. Banning bottled water should be the first course of action. Not only is bottled water a menace to animals like the Hawaiian monk seal and one of the greatest contributors to the debris in the Garbage Patch, it is also a health risk (the very chemicals which sicken monk seals have also been shown to, shockingly, hurt humans too) and, being thousands of times more expensive than identical tap water, has no apparent reason to exist. There’s been a lot of progress in this field. Across the nation, groups have recognized that PET bottles have no place in our campuses, our stores, and our homes. Students have mobilized against PET across the country, and Foothill College joined that list. Of course, banning bottled water is just the beginning – the production of plastic bags, microplastics, fishing nets, and many other products contributing to the Garbage Patch must also be curtailed – but it’s a start, and a pretty good start at that. he last step is to Innovate. Informing and interdicting will stop new plastic from coming into the habitat of the ’ilioholoikauaua, but we must also get the plastic which is already there out. Right now, this solution is still in development. The Ocean Cleanup, a nonprofit dedicated to cleansing the North Pacific Gyre, has proposed the installation of an enormous array of giant ma-

chines, each able to sweep out a small area by utilizing natural ocean currents. That project is still in the early phases and is only slated to be deployed after 2030. In the meantime, implementing a small-scale version in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, scouring a few habitat islands and population corridors for the ’ilioholoikauaua, could help sustain the species until full deployment is attained. If pilot tests succeed, this can happen within five years. And if informing and interdiction have already been achieved by then, the monk seal will have a plastic-free habitat. A habitat where it can “run in the rough waters” freely, for the first time in a half-century.

day, dragonflies still circle monk seals, longing for their lost love (Kittinger et al 32). It’s a cute story, but it raises some more tangible issues. Are humans about to turn into monk seals? Not physically, of course, but in terms of situation. Is it possible that humans will become a victim of plastic pollution, only able to watch as past deeds make the environment less and less fit for inhabitation? The signs point to the affirmative. Thousands of species, marine and terrestrial, are now witnessing the legacy of human obsession with plastics. Unless something changes, there’s no reason to believe that soon, humans will be added to that list. There’s no reason to believe that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch won’t grow to every shore and that landfills won’t take over cities. There is no reason to believe that humans are somehow exempt from the byproducts of decades of waste. The only question now is if humanity will be ready when it comes. If we Inform, InLuca Bravo terdict, and Innovate, we stand a chance. If we don’t, we’ll be here’s another story the killed by our own stupidity. Will Hawaiians have about the we fight back, or will we let the monk seal. Once, they Garbage Patch come to us? say, there were two lovers, Kamalama and Pinao, on the island of Moloka’i. One day, they accidentally slighted the shark god, Kua. He got enraged, and quickly laid a curse on them. Kamalama was turned into a monk seal, Pinao into a dragonfly. The young lovers, pining for each other but unable to regain their human forms, kept milling about each other, only able to lose their animal forms for a few Stephanie McCabe months every year. Even to this

s I read about the situation facing the monk seal, I was reminded of the fate of Eciton burchellii, an army ant living in the Amazon rainforest. I know what you’re thinking: “What does a Brazilian ant have to do with a seal from Hawaii?” But bear with me for a moment, because their situations are in fact very similar. Eciton burchelli’s story is chronicled in Elizabeth Kolbert’s 2015 book The Sixth Extinction. Basically, the army ant is a keystone species – a species upon which many other species rely. According to Kolbert, “in their very rapacity, they support a host of other species” (184). Birds which steal the ants’ leftovers; butterflies which follow the birds’ droppings; mites which latch on to the ants’ feet; flies which lay eggs on the insects - all these species, over three hundred of them, exist because of E. burchellii. If that ant population goes, so too go the antbirds, the butterflies, the mites, and the flies. The entire ecosystem comes crashing down in an instant. We know this because we’ve tested it. Over a few decades, biologists have been conducting a giant science experiment: slicing off bits of the Amazon from the rest of the forest. Why? They’re simulating habitat fragmentation, an all-too-frequent occurrence where, due to human interference, a species loses virtually all its habitat and is limited to a tiny sliver of its former territory, a lone island in the midst of human encroachment. And while this fragmentation may be simulated, for Eciton burchellii and its ecosystem, the consequencGlobal Citizen | Issue 1

es are very real. The antbirds are the first to go, felled by the lack of a critical mass of army ants. The butterflies follow. Then come the mites, and the flies, and all the others. A once-stable system falls to its knees, and is supplanted by invasives which tear the environment apart even further. The lesson is clear: if a species unaccustomed to being separated suddenly has its habitat fragmented - forming “islands on dry land” - disastrous consequences follow. And unfortunately for the Hawaiian monk seal, long accustomed to having free passage through thousands of acres of open sea, it now lives in an island.

Cameron Kirby

get. But neither remoteness nor protection can stop the utter stupidity of humankind from killing off a species. Like it or not, we’ve irreparably tampered with the ’ilioholoikauaua’s habitat, and now it’s gasping for life. And here’s another somber truth: just like Eciton burchelli, the Hawaiian monk seal is a keystone species. Without it, the sharks which feed on it die off. The fish it predates on explode uncontrollably, killing off the organisms they eat. The plankton, already stressed by the introduction of microplastics, will decline further, unsustainably consumed by the skyrocketing fish population. Voila! Ecosystem out of whack, exotic species primed to move in and fill the niches vacated by the killed-off species, and we have an environmental travesty on our hands. That’s why it is imperative to save whatever islands on wet land we have left. Not only to save the monk seal, but to save every other species kept afloat by its existence.

“It is imperative to save whatever islands on wet land we have left.”

ot an actual island. Nothing like Mauritius, or Madagascar, or the Northwest Hawaiian Islands. No, a habitat island. An island on wet land. For the only place where the Sources: ’ilioholoikauaua can live is an area free of plastic. And today, Antonelis, George A., et al. “Hawaiian monk seal (Monachus schauinslandi): an area like that is hard to come status and conservation issues.” Atoll by. Theoretically, this should not Research Bulletin 543 (2006): 75-101. be happening. The monk seal’s Ban the Bottle. “Bottled Water Facts.” Ban the Bottle. Ban the Bottle, n.d. Web. 4 habitat is well-protected, in a May 2016. wildlife refuge, in the middle of nowhere, under the watchful eye Engler, Sarah. “10 Ways to Reduce Plastic Pollution.” NRDC. Natural Resources of the leader of the free world. Defense Council, 05 Jan. 2016. Web. 24 That’s about as safe as you can June 2016.

EPA. “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.” EPA.gov. US Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 24 June 2016. Gall, Sarah C., and R. C. Thompson. “The Impact of Debris on Marine Life.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 92.1-2 (2015): 170-79. Web. Jambeck, J. R., R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T. R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. Andrady, R. Narayan, and K. L. Law. “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean.” Science 347.6223 (2015): 768-71. Web. Kittinger, John N., Trisann Bambico, Trisha Watson, and Edward Z. Glazier. Historical and Contemporary Significance of the Endangered Hawaiian Monk Seal in Native Hawaiian Culture. Rep. Honolulu: NOAA Pacific Islands Regional Office, 2011. Print. Kostigen, Thomas. “The World’s Largest Dump: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.” DiscoverMagazine.com. Discover Magazine, 10 July 2008. Web. 3 May 2016. Kolbert, Elizabeth. The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History. New York: Picador, 2015. Print. Layton, Julia. “Could We Clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch?” HowStuffWorks.com Science. HowStuffWorks, 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 24 June 2016. McLendon, Russell. “Plastic Junk May Turn Island into Superfund Site.” MNN. com. Mother Nature Network, 21 Nov. 2013. Web. 24 June 2016. Moore, Charles. “Plastic Pollution.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2016. Web. 24 June 2016. The Ocean Cleanup. “Technology.” Technology: The Ocean Cleanup. The Ocean Cleanup, n.d. Web. 24 June 2016. Statista. “Production of Plastics Worldwide from 1950 to 2014 (in Million Metric Tons).” The Statistics Portal. Statista, 2016. Web. 24 June 2016. <http://www. statista.com/statistics/282732/global-production-of-plastics-since-1950/>. Wyeth, Nathaniel C. Biaxially Oriented Poly(Ethylene Terephthalate) Bottle. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, assignee. Patent 3733309. 15 May 1973. Print. Zoological Society of London. “Hawaiian Monk Seal (Monachus schauinslandi).” EDGE of Existence. Zoological Society of London, n.d. Web. 24 June 2016.