Category Archives: Environment
Research Poster
Academic Research Poster
Argumentive Essay
Pros and cons of Solar energy
Tyler Vammino
April 20, 2022
Introduction
What are the Pros and Cons of using solar energy in the United States? Is it viable economically, and how much power can it provide realistically? Solar energy has been around for many years now. As the United States starts to turn away from oil and pollution to start using solar energy and wind energy, it is essential to look at the pros and cons of solar and wind energy.
Solar energy originated in the 7th century B.C. “In 1876, William Grylls Adams discovered that exposing selenium to sunlight produced electricity. Inventor Charles Fritts developed the first designs for photovoltaic cells to contain said electricity in 1883 but was never quite able to build an operational model” (CFI, 2). In 1954, three American researchers from Bell Labs in New Jersey developed the first effective photovoltaic cell. Although inefficient, the cell did produce enough useable energy to run small electrical gadgets. The Arab oil embargo of the 1970s provided the catalyst for the United States to commit time and resources to develop sustainable solar energy institutions, products, and applications. With so many benefits linked with solar energy, the United States passed the Energy Policy Act in 2005, This offered a 30% investment tax credit (ITC) to companies and individuals making use of solar energy systems” (CFI,4). With how much solar energy benefits the environment, solar energy has become more popular every year.
Solar energy is a hot topic in today’s world. Now that scientists notice that global warming is getting worse and worse every year the United States has started to use more eco-friendly energy so that global warming does not take over. Solar energy is one of the most efficient ways to keep our environment cleaner. “The average American home produces 14,920 pounds of carbon dioxide each year. By installing solar panels, you can reduce your carbon footprint by 3,000 pounds annually” (Parkman,4). By switching from fossil fuels to solar energy, you are making a significant change in helping the United States turn ecofriendly.
Pros of Solar energy
There are many pros to solar energy such as how it has meant to create Heat and electricity which would benefit everyone and, more specifically, people who do not live near power grids. Another huge upside is that its renewable power, so we are not just wasting our fossil fuels. Once these “Solar panels are in place, it only costs around $300 a year to maintain” (CFI, 9) then, which may sound expensive but, in the long run, will be cheaper than using fossil fuels. Now that inflation is starting to take a toll, fossil fuels are getting more expensive, which is another positive of converting over to solar energy instead of using fossil fuels. Solar energy will help reduce your electricity bill or even get rid of your electricity bill which is another reason people are starting to switch over to solar energy. Solar energy works in many climates; some people believe that solar panels will not work in cold temperatures, which is not valid. Solar panels tend to be more efficient in cold weather because too much heat can reduce the voltage the solar panels produce. Lastly, a great pro of solar energy is that the government will give financial support to anyone that switches from fossil fuels to solar energy. “Taxpayers could potentially claim 30 percent of installation costs, with benefits varying by state. In some instances, it may be possible to get a solar home installation with no out-of-pocket costs” (Parkman,4), which is an excellent benefit of switching from fossil fuels to solar energy.
Cons of Solar energy
On the other hand, some of the downsides to using solar energy are expensive to install. “To purchase a Solar energy system, you need to pay for the panels, a substantial number of batteries, wiring, and then pay more for all the components to install the solar panels” (CFI, 11). Solar panels are not only expensive to install, but they are also challenging to install. “In most cases, you will need to hire professionals to plan, install, and maintain your solar. Solar involves complex technology and expert knowledge to set up correctly. However, an expert solar company will be able to handle these difficult processes with ease” (Marlin,30). Another Con of getting a solar energy system is that it takes up much space, so to have one of these, you would not be able to live in the city or an apartment complex. To get one of these, you would have to live in a place where you own many lands. To have one of these, you also must live in a place that gets enough direct sunlight. Using the sun as a source of energy requires that the sun is accessible. Most people do not know that solar energy is not 100% healthy for the environment. It is better for the environment than fossil fuels are, but “Manufacturing solar panels use chemicals and energy, and when solar panels go to the landfill, the toxic materials they contain can leach out as they break down” (Marlin,36). In other words, toxic chemicals are still released into the environment. However, Solar panels do not harm the environment nearly as much as fossil fuels.
The odds of most people switching from fossil fuels to solar energy is about half and half. When market people switch over to solar energy, people have to also look at it like this: many people live in apartments, so they cannot switch. There will be people who live in a place like Alaska that does not get enough sunlight, so they are out. Then, there will be people will not feel like or do not want to switch because they think installing or maintaining might be a pain, so the United States is also starting to make eco-friendly cars. The people who cannot use solar panels for their houses or apartment can still help make the United States more eco-friendly.
Conclusion
Solar energy systems are a great way to protect the environment and still live the same way we do now. Solar energy is a great way to step aside from fossil fuels and move towards more eco-friendly products. If everyone in the United States started using solar energy, our environment would be cleaner, and we would not be as close to global warming as we are right now.
Work Cited
Pros and cons of Solar Energy. Corporate Finance Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/pros-and-cons-of-solar-energy/
Power, S. (2022, March 10). The Pros and cons of Solar Energy. SunPower. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from https://us.sunpower.com/pros-and-cons-solar-energy
McCloy, J., & MS, J. Y. (2021, December 17). Pros and cons of Solar Energy: What you need to know. Green Coast. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from https://greencoast.org/pros-and-cons-of-solar-energy/
Kaltenekker, B., & Parkman, K. (2022, February 17). What are the disadvantages and advantages of solar panels? ConsumerAffairs. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from https://www.consumeraffairs.com/solar-energy/solar-energy-pros-and-cons.html
Carlsson, B., Meir, M., Rekstad, J., Preiß, D., & Ramschak, T. (2016, January 7). Replacing traditional materials with polymeric materials in Solar Thermosiphon Systems – case study on pros and cons based on a total cost accounting approach. Solar Energy. Retrieved April 4, 2022, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X15006647
Humans: The Real Predators
Emily Stout
Apr. 19, 2022
INTRODUCTION
Modern media dictates discourse that influences the way that its audience thinks. Through biased opinions circulated by media outlets, sharks have come under scrutiny as being viscous, cold killers. Sharks have been portrayed by “the fic-tionalized and predominantly negative narrative experienced through media representations” (Kwietniewska 2013). Over the years, media variations such as movies, news articles, and conversations regarding sharks have conditioned humans to fear these natural predators. Although there have been many reported cases across various platforms on shark attacks resulting in human fatalities, the stories can be seen as one-sided. Because of the biased reports broadcast throughout the world, the undeniable truth that sharks are killed at exponentially higher rates often gets overlooked. It is estimated that “for every 100 million sharks killed per year, about six to eight humans are killed by sharks every year” (Park 2022). From this one data report, it can be seen that the number of human deaths caused by sharks does not come close to that of shark casualties by human hands. Even with this information, it is often not enough in changing the minds of society. As the negative connotation of sharks rests in the minds of the majority of humans, sharks have received ratings of being “one of the least popular species” as well as “strong perceptions of sharks as unlovable, and negative perceptions of their importance” (Panoch et al. 2017). These instituted stereotypes lead to a lack of attention to many of the issues sharks are now facing. Due to these neglections, sharks now face complications such as shark finning, overfishing, population declines, plastic pollution, and endangerment. These many obstacles will impact the shark population as a whole, which will be catastrophic for the entire ecosystem.
SHARK FINNING
As a consequence of the reputation encompassing sharks, society ignores one of the biggest difficulties they face. Shark finning, which originated as a result of the favored ‘shark fin soup,’ was created in Southern China around 1000 CE (Carrier n.d.). Shark finning has drastically increased in popularity over the years as technology advances. While sharks are protected under The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 in the United States (“Shark Conservation Act” 2021), a minimum of only fourteen states have fully respected and responded to the act, along with countries outside of the United States such as Ecuador and Canada. While certain acts like the S.C.A. have tried to prohibit this illegal operation from continuing, they can only go so far in prevention, as this issue directly corresponds to Chinese culture. Innumerable amounts of people would agree that it should be illegal everywhere; but others contradict this opinion by calling it “a discriminatory law that insults cultural practices dating back over 2000 years” (Latchford 2013). In respect for differing cultures and their traditions, the matter of shark finning is easily overlooked. Despite the fact that it is a matter of conservation versus culture, it is time to regard shark finning as a more urgent matter of survival.
OVERFISHING AND PLASTIC POLLUTION
Whilst the issue and prevention of shark finning has gained popularity in recent years, other matters these large carnivores face must not be overlooked. Overfishing, when more fish are caught than what can naturally reproduce, causes fish population declines and additional plastic pollution. The Caribbean, for instance, has personally experienced the effects of overfishing. Larger shark species in that area were among the majority of those affected by overfishing. As a result, this problem “may have caused trophic cascades that contributed to the degradation of Caribbean ecosystems” (Ferretti et al. 2008). As smaller classifications of fish die out, the survival rates of sharks dwindles.
Along with the declining shark prey populations, overfishing also leads to the amplification of plastic pollution in oceans. With additional boats and individuals catching numerous fish every day, more fishing nets, lines, and hooks are discarded into the water. For sharks specifically, they face many dangers with fish hooks. The metal hooks can catch on the jaw and cause dislocation, or catch in their body, causing intestinal damage or hunting issues (Katz 2020). In regards to other marine animals, fishing lines and nets can get wrapped around corals, strangle fish and coastal birds, and damage vital internal organs. In direct correlation to fish populace issues, the merging of man-made objects and animals is not natural in this instance. As popular prey for sharks gets entangled in these nets, such as sea turtles and squid, there are less for the sharks to consume. Without an adequate amount of nutrients needed for sharks to survive, starvation is added to the ever-growing list of conservation drawbacks.
SPECIES ENDANGERMENT
Population deterioration from overfishing, shark finning, and starvation commonly leads to species endangerment. It can be said that “many people fear sharks and don’t care whether they survive or not. But, ecologically, as top predators their disappearance will disrupt entire ocean ecosystems” (Panoch et al. n.d.). Sharks are one of the main predators of the oceans, regulating and maintaining smaller species of aquatic animals by way of consumption; losing sharks means losing the animals above and below them on the food chain. Locations prone to overfishing, for example, have seen a decline in native shark populations. Losing the larger, predatory sharks can cause other marine animals to die out. Northern coastal counties in the United States have seen a “decline of great sharks from coastal ecosystems [that] has triggered a trophic cascade that collapsed a century-old fishery for bay scallops” (Ferretti et al. 2008). The bay scallops were just one of many species negatively impacted by the exponentially decreasing shark populations. Our ecosystem works together to regulate balance; when one species is affected, they all are. Shark reproductive rates have been an issue throughout history, as they “are extremely vulnerable to overexploitation as their life history characteristics include slow growth rates and have low reproductive levels” (Latchford 2013). With the addition of overfishing, shark finning, and other detrimental circumstances, various shark species are experiencing survival rates of next to nothing.
CONCLUSION
With the ever-expanding problems sharks face, even just one news story, social media post, or article can cause vastly horrendous effects on the shark population, which ends up affecting us in the end as well. As we race against climate change and pollution, the root of the problems must be where the starting line is placed. Banning shark finning globally, regulating the amount of fish caught in certain periods of time, reducing the use of plastic, and starting the spread of accurate information in the media are all good places to start in making this world a better place for sharks and humans to cohabitate. As technology takes its place as an important part of our growing world, the information being sent out to each nation must be factual and in favor of the truth, rather than a good story.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Hailey Futrell
April 19, 2022
An Introduction to Wilderness
The Wilderness Act of 1964 moved to preserve lands that were unimpacted by man, allowing them to be enjoyed through “outstanding opportunities of solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation”. While encouraging these activities, prohibition of “structure or installation”, unless established prior to wilderness status, is maintained. The enjoyment of these places is not exclusionary, but argument as to whether the “installation” of fixed hooks for rock climbing should be permitted creates an environment challenging these permitted uses. Arguably, fixed anchors rock climbing allows the public better accessibility to recreate safely. With planned establishment of policy and the benefit of increased economic development in surrounding communities, the activity should be permissible under the Wilderness Act.
Barriers to Accessibility
Gear used for rock climbing include both removable anchors as well as fixed anchors. While the use of removable anchors may reduce the need, it does not completely eliminate the need for fixed anchors. The National Park Service currently upholds that the use of these anchors does not “necessarily impair future enjoyment of wilderness or violate the Wilderness Act” (Grijalva). Use of fixed anchors challenge the lack of specification the Act has. Despite being interpreted as an installation by different agencies, fixed anchors are fundamentally in line with the wilderness philosophy. This philosophy states that these areas are to be used for the enjoyment of the public while also preserving them for future generations (Congress). Despite a small number of climbers placing fixed anchors, most climber rely on them for their ascents. By limiting fixed anchor use it also increases the risk of climbing, encouraging more free-soloing climbs. Free-soloing climbs are climbs without a harness or rope that are higher than 40 feet. While free soloing is dangerous on its own, it is even more dangerous in remote wilderness areas. Without close proximity to hospitals and lack of infrastructure to safely rescue free-solo climber, encouraging this practice for anyone but professional is dangerous. Lack of fixed anchors also limits accessibility to a small fraction of highly experienced climbers, sometimes making it impossible to traverse the terrain otherwise (Sammartino). In addition to jeopardizing climber safety, prohibition of anchors would make it impossible for people to climb America’s most iconic routes like Yosemite, Rocky Mountains, and Gunnison (Outdoor Alliance).
This is image was posted by Michael Reddick
Limiting accessibility to an elite few is unreasonable in that it directly contradicts the fundamental philosophy of the preservation system. By restricting use, the Wilderness act is directly violated by not allowing enjoyment of these areas by the public that funds their preservation. In addition to this, limited accessibility in turn limits connection to the Wilderness. The public, in order to connect with the Wilderness on a personal level to support its preservation, must be able to experience it in a safe and sustainable manner.
Increased Accessibility, Increased Revenue
By continuing to promote accessibility within Wilderness areas, increased tourism to designated Wilderness and their surrounding community increases as well. As is well documented, increased tourism promotes economic growth in surrounding communities. In one study, it was found that climbers visiting the Gunnison Wilderness contributed to a total labor income of roughly $270,000, added value of $400,000 and a total economic output of $750,000 (Maples & Bradley). An economic analysis published in the Journal of Society and Natural Resources estimated that, in 2012, 9.9 million wilderness visitors generated a total economic impact of $700 million. Another analysis done by the Bureau of Economics stated, “The U.S. outdoor recreation economy accounted for 2.2% of current-dollar gross domestic product in 2017.” (BEA). With a large portion of local economies being supported by outdoor recreation in the area, making rock climbing accessible to larger amounts of people increases economic growth in surrounding communities. Guide services, accommodations, and food are all added expenses to rock climbing trips to wilderness areas that add to the local economies.
Solutions and Proposed Management Plans
As the sport of rock-climbing continues to grow and expand, flaws in policy point out the impact the sport has on the areas it is performed in. In February 2019, the “Ten Sleep Canyon Controversy” pointed out the climbing management approaches taken on by the United States Forest Service to protect these areas. Rock in the canyon had been “intentionally altered by gluing or chipping for the purpose of creating of enhancing holds.” (Sammartino). The U.S.F.S responded by removing fixed protections and holds on nearly 60 manufactured routes, halting route development until the completion of a climbing management plan. Currently, there is no formal management plan. This controversy and the agencies response has led to criticism over the approach to climbing management.
This image was posted by Olga Subach
There is no formal framework, limiting the ability of climbers to enjoy public lands as well as having adverse effects on the sustainability of the lands themselves (Sammartino). To combat environmental impacts, a structured management plan would be effective in solidifying routes and reduce the changes climbers have on the area. A proposed Wilderness Stewardship Plan would incorporate climbing management strategies and a wilderness education program. This would encourage the public to appreciate wilderness character, resources and climbing ethics (Grijalva & Berrens). The proposed plans would combat lack of education on sustainable use of these areas as well as establishing framework for use of fixed anchors and low-impact routes. Paired with greater accessibility, Wilderness education and appreciation helps protect the areas by encouraging public sentiments to side with their preservation.
Conclusions
With climbing management practices improving through concrete plans, economic growth and increased accessibility, fixed anchor rock climbing should be allowed as a permitted use of Wilderness Areas. The rights of the public are at the forefront of this argument, as the access of these areas should not be exclusionary when the funds for their preservation are not. While increased accessibility may lead to deterioration of these lands, a call for formal management plans to be executed bypasses this problem. By fixing routes and putting it on the federal officials to maintain, funds of the public will be allotted to allow for their safe and sustainable use of these areas. As well as allowing the public to access these areas, there is a direct impact on the surrounding communities. Increased revenue for businesses that support recreation like food, guide services, and lodging allow for jobs to be created and money to be brought to remote areas. By pressuring the federal government to take action to protect the areas they have set aside for public use and preservation, the benefit of the public can be seen in multiple areas. Preservation of these areas through concrete management plans will also promote a positive sentiment within the public towards these areas as they will be more accessible and elicit a more personal connection to their use.
Citations
Act of September 3, 1964 (P.L. 88-578, 78 Stat. 897 as amended; 16 U.S.C.
Sammartino, Michael. “To Bolt or Not to Bolt: A Framework for Common Sense Climbing Regulation.” Americanbar.org, American Bar Association, 24 Aug. 2020, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/plr/20200824-to-bolt-or-not-to-bolt/.
THERESE C. GRIJALVA & ROBERT P. BERRENS (2003) Standing: Institutional Change and Rock Climbing in Wilderness Areas, Society &Natural Resources, 16:3, 239-247, DOI: 10.1080/08941920309162
James N. Maples PhD & Michael J. Bradley PhD. Economic Impact of Rock Climbing in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre & Gunnison National Forest. Outdoor Alliance, November 2018
“News Release.” Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account, U.S. and Prototype for States, 2017 | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), https://www.bea.gov/news/2019/outdoor-recreation- satellite-account-us-and-prototype-states-2017#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20outdoor%20recreation%20economy,the%20Bureau%20of%20Economic%20Analysis.
Reviewing Green College Campuses
“Greening the American Campus: Lessons from Campus Projects.”
This article examines the eco-friendly changes colleges have made and the impacts they have had on campuses. It looks more specifically at sustainable projects that work toward progress in the long run. The article also reviews plans that were adopted beginning with aesthetic changes (landscaping/agriculture) and using those changes to further integrate more sustainable plans (example in the quote below). The colleges that are examined in the article used community-based programs and ideas, allowing college students to feel involved and care about the work that was being planned.
“Building on the Vision 2020 strategic plan adopted in 2003, sustainable initiatives were proposed to meet site needs and provide educational and aesthetic benefits (see figure 3). 6 These included stormwater management facilities (e.g., rain gardens and cisterns) and renewable energy production. An additional benefit of the plan was its ability to comprehensively identify a long-range vision for growth that included multiple aspects of the campus operations and that worked toward the goal of a carbon-neutral campus”
“Understanding future energy needs, the campus’s carbon footprint was estimated and opportunities were identified for reduced energy use and for the use of alternative energy sources such as solar and wind. Throughout the exploration, students argued that the plan would succeed most fully if it were integrated into the institution’s pedagogy, a conclusion that is shared by all four case studies.”
Valuing the Loss of Rock Climbing in Wilderness Areas
http://le.uwpress.org/content/78/1/103.full.pdf+html
This article examines the economic and recreational impact of rock climbing in Wilderness areas and their surround communities. It is argued that rock climbing brings tourism to the area and sustains local economies. Policy makers and locals are working together to reduce impacts on ecology while still supporting the economic benefits to allowing rock-climbing.
“Given growing concerns about rock
climbing impacts on public lands and trends
in climbing access rationing rules, the results
from this study may provide useful input to
public land agencies…”
“After fully reviewing model results, estimating the economic losses to climbers associated with the loss in access to several sites
can now be determined…”
Scholarly Souce Selection on Climate Change
In this Scholarly Article titled “The relationship between climate conditions and consumption of bottled water: A potential link between climate change and plastic pollution”, the author Oscar Zapata communicates the connections between the usage of plastics for things that we have slowly gotten out of the habit of using with the introduction of reusable water bottles. He also makes the case that lots of the plastics that we are using to create plastic water bottles won’t ever be recycled. Throughout his research, he finds multiple sources that indicate that plastic water bottle is doing lots of damage to our oceans and our planet. this indicates that “one of these linkages relates changes in climate conditions to the consumption of bottled water, which constitutes a source of plastic pollution worldwide.”
https://www-sciencedirect-com.liblink.uncw.edu/science/article/pii/S0921800921001488
Eng201Spring22 
