The prevalence of environmental racism is evident in the inconsistent levels of lead poisoning throughout various populations in New York City. The imbalance of lead poisoning can also be seen by looking at rates by neighborhood. Half of child lead poisoning cases occurred in children living in just 9 of 42 NYC neighborhoods. For example, 86% of the children affected by lead poisoning were Asian, black, or Hispanic. Asian and Hispanic children were particularly over-represented in having a blood lead level at which care coordination and environmental intervention must be initiated. Although Hispanic children account for 33% of the children in NYC, they made up 37% of lead blood level cases requiring intervention for 2009. Asian children were the most over represented, accounting for 27% of the lead blood level cases, despite only being 11% of the total child population. On the other hand, white children experienced lead poisoning at much lower rates. Although they comprised 27% of the children in NYC, they only represented 11% of lead poisoning cases. The discrepancy of lead poisoning between white people and people of color also extends to pregnant women, with 94% of pregnant women with blood lead poisoning being foreign-born, mostly from Mexico, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

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.

As almost every intellectual has been aware of, we have elected a new president. I for one am deeply concerned about everything he brings to the table, but perhaps one of biggest disagreements I have with our president-elect is his policy on climate change.

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

As a country, United States produces ⅓ of the world’s solid waste. To put in perspective, the United States only contains 4.6% of the world’s population. Within New York City residents, 12,000 tons of waste are produced every day. Such waste includes paper, food, metal, glass, plastics, and textiles, in which paper is the highest contributor. New York City must be aware of the costly effects of waste production in order to understand that recycling and reducing the amount of paper waste is a huge factor that can reduce our carbon footprint.

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/

The world of urban sustainability is extremely vast and covers all sorts of environmental issues. One of the most significant and pressing issues however, is the issue of water conservation. Water is one of earths most abundant resources and we use it for so many parts of our lives. the average person uses about 80-100 gallons of water per day! Although there is plenty of water on earth, it is not as unlimited as we would like to imagine. Water conservation is an extremely important solution that we have to find if we wish to continue living our everyday lives.

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/