If you haven’t done so already please check out the Poster Presentation and Printing site. As you might imagine, that is where you can sign up both to print your poster and to present your work during the STEAM Festival. In both cases each group (rather than each individual student) should sign up for one printing session and one presentation session. If you have any questions, check out the FAQs on the homepage and then email me.
Best,
Benjamin
Carbon tax does not have much support in the United States from our politicians. Bill Clinton once proposed a tax that followed a similar plan, however it passed in the House but not the Senate. Many years later, the effects of global warming have become more pronounced yet many politicians deny its credibility. Many of these climate change skeptics hold this point of view because they receive funding from companies like Exxon mobile or the Koch industries, companies that would be hurt the most from legislations that seek to protect lower green house emissions. These companies have support from many politicians in the republican party, making it difficult for the government to pass any significant legislation that would seek to protect this world.
Sources:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-tax3.htm
The effects of lead poisoning are dramatic, even at lower blood levels. In children, consistent exposure to lead may result in intellectual disabilities, abdominal problems, slowed growth, and behavioral issues. Pregnant women may experience miscarriage or premature birth due to lead exposure. Unfortunately, the majority of people who suffer from these consequences are low-income Asian and Hispanic children in unsafe living conditions. In addition to lead poisoning in NYC, other recent examples of environmental racism include the Flint, Michigan water crisis, which primarily affects black people, and the Dakota Access Pipeline, which threatens water quality on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation.
The basic steps of recycling are the collection and processing of recyclable materials, the manufacturing of new products, and the purchasing of products made from recycled materials. The obvious benefits of this are that it reduces the amount of waste in landfills, while conserving natural resources like timber. Recycling also prevents pollution by lowering the need to collect new materials, and helps reduce greenhouse gasses. A final benefit is that it also creates new jobs.
People against recycling often argue that it is too expensive both on the government and the taxpayer and that the collection of recyclable materials helps contribute to the total pollution. However, a cost-benefit analysis of efficient recycling will show that over time it actually helps save money. Take how New York handles its waste today, because it has no more room it has to pay Pennsylvania to accept it, and pay to transport it there. Recycling reduces the cost of what we have to pay to get our waste transported. Also recycling is proven to help save energy which in turn does not raise the price of energy, which saves you money. Finally, our waste has been proven to hurt the environment, lowering our natural resources. Pretty soon basic resources such as coal, timber, and drinking water will raise in price due to the fact that they may become limited. Recycling not only helps postpone that, but prevent it.
Sources:
“Recycling Basics.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.
“Recycling: Beyond the Bin.” NRDC. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016.
Not only is it expensive to transport this trash out of the city and to a landfill, a staggering $350 million a year, but it is not good for the environment. Stuff leeches into ground water and conditions become worse. It isn’t sustainable to live in a throw away society. There is an island of plastic the size of Texas out in the ocean and global water/temperature levels are rising constantly. It’s more important than ever to make a sustainable earth. We can start with the waste we produce, and continue to work from there. De Blasio commented about OneNYC, “[our goal is to have] the cleanest air of any large city, and a dramatic reduction in emissions, this is a bold and ambitious plan – and New York City requires nothing less.” It is absolutely exciting and I can’t wait to see the outcome. I commend the mayor for taking such a drastic step in what seems to be a marathon of improvements that the earth desperately waiting for us to make.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/05/meet-zero-waste-zealots
http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/257-15/mayor-de-blasio-releases-one-new-york-plan-strong-just-city#/0
http://www.ibtimes.com/new-york-city-reduce-waste-90-2030-new-waste-management-program-de-blasio-1891604
Donald Trump has stated that “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive” (Yes, Donald Trump…). Assuming that this was none other than an irrational statement to spark controversy, it still highlights the nature of his position. Our next president will not place a priority on fixing the very problem we started. As of April of this year, 97% of climate scientists agree that “climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities” (NASA). So far, Mr. Trump has vowed to cancel the International Climate Accord, bring back “clean coal,” and keep fracking for natural gas. America should be worried if Mr. Trump stands by what he has said so far stands true.
Of the many troubling things he has said, his claim to bring back “clean coal” has to be the most absurd. According to a report by the World Health Organization in 2008, coal pollution is estimated to shorten approximately 1,000,000 lives annually worldwide. The detrimental effect is multifaceted. The physical burning of coal that is used for energy aerosolizes numerous derivatives of compounds containing mercury, uranium, arsenic, and other toxic substances. Aside from that, the physical mining for coal is extremely detrimental to the surrounding habitat. The biodiversity is drastically reduced in areas of mining. Aside from this, nearby water sources can easily be contaminated from the mine area.
Regarding jobs, renewable energy creates 3 times as many jobs as fossil fuel does, yet receives 1/4 of the subsidy. Eventually, the fossil fuel supply will run out and we will need to use renewable energy. However, before this is a concern, we would have polluted the earth so drastically that it will probably be inhabitable. Right now, scientists in MIT are working on a nuclear fusion reactor that is capable of producing “huge” (to quote the Donald) quantities of energy, with little to no byproduct. Without the proper funding for such a project, which Stephen Hawking called the penultimate in alternative energy, we will not be able to ever create such a device.
To quote Donald Trump, “To solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is” (Trump Says Clinton Won’t…). However, he refuses to admit this one. I take this opportunity to combine science with the current political affairs to demonstrate what we have gotten ourselves into by voting for this individual. Seriously, what the f**k America?!?
– Andrew Resnick
1) Protecting ecosystems state and biodiversity
2) Improving ecosystem functioning and promoting ecosystem services
3) promoting social wellbeing and health
4) supporting the development of a green economy, and sustainable land and water management (EUROPE GI PDF)
It is important to note that these functions inter lap and are co-dependent because there could be a situation where you had a flood. You cannot say that only one of the listed functions would be provided if green infrastructure happens. Instead, if a flood occurred not only would GI protect biodiversity but it would also promote ecosystem services because in order to protect the diversity you need people to help with maintaining the GI. The reason as to why the 3rd reason “promoting social well-being and health” is listed is because GI is a beneficial outcome to not just the environment but to us as well. (EUROPE GI PDF)
“The benefits of green infrastructure are numerous. From the broadest environment benefits to site-specific ones, green infrastructure is an effective and cost-efficient tool for absorbing and sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide (C02); filtering air and water pollutants; stabilizing soil to prevent or reduce erosion; providing wildlife habitat; decreasing solar heat gain; lowering the public cost of stormwater management infrastructure and providing flood control; and reducing energy usage through passive heating and cooling.”(ASLA.COM)
These benefits are acknowledged because in “September 2010, New York City released the NYC Green Infrastructure Plan which presents an alternative approach to improving water quality that integrates “green infrastructure,” such as rain gardens and green roofs, with investments to optimize the existing system and to build targeted, cost-effective “grey” or traditional infrastructure.” (NYC PROGRAM) Overall we need GI because it would provide so many benefits for the environment and human beings.
SOURCES:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/docs/Green_Infrastructure.pdf
“NYC Green Infrastructure Program.” NYC Green Infrastructure Program. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
(http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/nyc_green_infrastructure_plan.shtml)
Professional Practice. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from https://www.asla.org/ContentDetail.aspx?id=43532
In order to minimize the cost of transporting waste from New York City to other states, the amount of waste produced must be minimized. In New York City, 25% of the waste produced is recyclable paper. Commonly found recyclable paper include newspapers, magazines, mail, paper bags, and soft-covered books. These should be placed in the mixed paper and cardboard bin (usually a green colored bin)! Used tissues, napkins, paper towels, laminated papers, cups, and plates, however, cannot be recycled. But food-soiled papers, free of toxic cleaners and chemicals, can be composted, further reducing the amount of paper waste produced. Another way of reducing the amount of paper waste produced is to reduce the amount of paper mail you receive, by opting to get things through email and/or opting out of useless, unimportant catalogs. All such actions can reduce the amount of solid waste produced.
Solid waste is buried in the ground, burned, or recycled into new products. Because New York City does not have any landfills or incinerators, non-recyclable waste is sent to landfills in other states, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio, or incinerated in nearby states, such as New Jersey. It cost New York City $290 million, all of which are taxpayers’ money, to send solid waste to other states in 2007. If all recyclable paper was actually recycled, New York City could gain $7.5 million after paying for costs of solid waste transportation! By reducing the amount of paper waste created, taxpayers’ money can be put into further developing better communities throughout the city.
Aside from recycling paper, action must also be taken to reduce the amount of non-recycled paper being produced. More than 90% of writing and printing paper do not come from recycled paper, but rather virgin tree paper. Greenhouse gases are released from virgin paper when it is deposited into landfills. By reducing the amount of “new” paper produced and producing paper from recycled materials can reduce such gases. Greenhouse gases are further reduced when less trees are cut down to make paper because trees store carbon dioxide, rather than releasing it into the air. Cutting down less trees also prevents deforestation and minimizes damages to ecosystems. According to Paper Newt, a Canadian environmental initiative, if one ton of 100% recycled paper was used instead of virgin paper, then there will be 4 tons less wood consumed, 11,218 less gallons of water used, and 751 less pounds of solid waste.
Recycling paper and making recycled paper reduces the amount of solid waste produced and helps keep the environment intact. New York City produces a lot of unnecessary solid waste, especially by not recycling paper. If New York City recycled all their paper, then New York City taxpayers can save money and live in a better environment.
Sources:
https://www.grownyc.org/whats-your-wastehttps://www.grownyc.org/recycling/factshttp://paper-newt.org/paper-neutrality/recycled-vs-non-recycled-paper/
While many solutions and compromises have already been implemented, one of the most underrated solution to water conservation is the use of grey water. Grey water is the the relatively clean waste water from baths, sinks, washing machines, and other kitchen appliances. This water is not polluted with chemicals and can be easily cleaned. Obviously, grey water is not safe to drink and would not be used as an alternative to drinking water. However, grey water can be used as an alternative to water that we don’t ingest; such as for our toilet water (which accounts for a house holds biggest water usage) and for irrigation uses in your backyard. One misconception people often make about grey water is that it has come into contact with feces and other similar substances. In reality however, it is only the relatively clean waste water you use for laundry, or washing your hands. The water has never come into contact with feces or any other extremely dirty substance.
If we are able to unlock the potential benefits of grey water then we might just be able to take another step in the right direction. we would be able to save millions of gallons of water per year and continue to live our lives comfortably, knowing that our water isn’t running out
Source: http://greywateraction.org/contentabout-greywater-reuse/
