A Homemade Scientific Method Experiment

In class, we discussed the benefits and methods of the STEM field in solving some of the most complex problems facing us today. We examined the methods typically used by scientists and engineers and explored through in-class activities the differences in approaches of these two related fields. Whereas engineers typical approach a problem with prototype designs and a desire to efficiently solve a problem, the scientific method generally tries to explain a problem to pave the way for engineering design. For instance, we might want to extend the time period of plant growth by delaying the color change of leaves. To address this from a scientists perspective, it might be helpful to know if leaves on a plant change colors and fall off due to cooler weather, less light, or both. (I have been told it is both, but have not asked a biologist or verified this comment.)  We could set up an array of growth lights on a timer to extend the light exposure for plants that are outside without changing the exposure to cooler weather. By bringing some of the same type plants indoors and growing them on a windowsill of an unused room, we can test if the light cycle triggers leaf changes without the change in temperatures. As a final control, we could expose a 2nd set of indoor plants to growth lights. The engineer would benefit in designing a automated system that extends plant growth with the least amount of energy by knowing which factors (light or temperature or both) need to be controlled efficiently.

Population Explosion

Without reducing rapid population growth, will it will be possible to solve the world’s global
Challenges? My first thought was that population would continue to put an increasing burden on our natural resources and force a confrontation on the issue to continue solving other environmental issues. Then, I discovered the statistics that undernourishment and those without access to clean drinking water have declined rapidly over the past 30 years. In 1987, 19% of the world's population were undernourished and 27% did not have access to clean drinking water. Today, those numbers have dropped to 11% and 9%, respectively. This is despite the fact that the world population has increased from 5 billion to 7.5 billion people. Add to this that the population growth rate that exploded after the industrial revolution (0.5% - 0.6% between 1700 and 1927, increasing sharply to 2.1% in 1974) has started to decline (1.2% today). Some population models predict a leveling off of population around 11 or 12 billion people in 2100. This suggests that population is not yet a crushing burden on our resources and that we can solve many of today's environmental issues without immediately addressing world population growth.

Pollution Needing Our Greatest Potential

We talked about many types of pollution related to the Food Energy Water Nexus. I indicated that I thought the most pressing environmental challenges with this connection were air pollution, climate change (global warming), deforestation, loss of biodiversity, eutrophication, and soil erosion. Although I mourn the loss of biodiversity and make contributions to charities to fight the loss of endangered species (especially my poor Siberian tigers!), I do not believe that this is the most pressing issue. I believe the two issues that need to be confronted first to stem off the decline of the human race and life as we know it are climate change and eutrophication. Of these, I believe eutrophication will be the more devastating one, in part because it is somewhat under the radar. Eutrophication, which is nutrient pollution, leads to massive overgrowth of algae, which block sunlight and consume all dissolved oxygen in larger bodies of water. This results in large dead zones. I believe the dead zones in oceans is also linked to this, though in the more turbulent oceans waters, there could be other factors at play. The added pressures of growing human populations and over-“fishing” will create a relatively abrupt halt in food supplies. I can’t help but be reminded of the movie “Soylent Green,” as corny as it is.

There are several challenges to addressing the problem of eutrophication. First, as efforts to address undernutrition and malnutrition in developing countries grow, there will inevitably be larger pressures for Green Revolutions in these countries. A cornerstone to Green Revolution is large use of fertilizers to ensure large crop yields. Then, there is the before mentioned challenge that over use of nutrients is not discussed much in public and political circles. This will result in lack of interest and funding for developing novel solutions to the challenge. Finally, since fertilizers are helpful for farmers and small runoffs can actually benefit neighboring wildlands, finding a sweet spot of effective use of fertilizers will be extremely challenging. Addressing “too much of a good thing” and promoting moderation has been a daunting challenges no matter what the thing is. Just look at coffee, alcohol, food, antibiotics, attention, economic stimulus, political correctness, debate before making a decision, etc., etc.

Despite these challenges, I know we have the ability to address this issue. Through education, innovation, willingness to promote ideas, and the hard work of follow-through we can find the sweet spot of providing enough nutrients to grow large yields of crops without the massive run-off that leads to ecological disasters. When we set aside our differences and work towards a common goal (such as the survival of our future), we can achieve great things. Inclusion, diversity, and compromise will work to our advantage!

Power to the People!

A PhD student presented her study, “Planting Gardens Over Garbage Cans,” documenting her interaction with a local association in Santo Domingo (Mexico City). Many in this community moved to the region seeking better economic and social opportunities, but are currently poor. The land they live on is coveted by large corporations and government planners because it sits on volcanic rock, which is stable and proven to be quite earthquake resilient. The electric and natural gas companies raised prices in an attempt to force the people out. In response, many in the local association stopped paying their bills. The companies reportedly countered by cutting electrical lines to the communities and associating with local gangs to intimidate. This has led to deep distrust and animosity between the local associations and the power companies. Due to history of corruption in the government, they are not trusted to resolve the conflict. So what can be done? One possible solution for the people is the same type of efforts being made in Bangladesh and Africa to move “off the grid” with renewable energy. The documentary, e2 Energy (PBS), describes the development of small voltaic panels and biogas generated in rural areas of Bangladesh. Similar efforts are being made in Africa (http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/12/08/africa-goes-grid-bring-power-rural-villages). Although half of Africa’s population does not have access to electricity, the use of microgrids has been powering local communities towards energy independence. Both cheaper voltaic cells and more efficient LED lighting has been fueling the move forward. Since it still costs quite a bit of money, the systems are often “rent to own”.  And, to alleviate the difficulties of traveling to cities for banking and financial transactions, a text-based, e-money has been established. The same type of system can be promoted in Latin America.

Negotiating a Power Plant

I asked three groups to negotiate a deal / set of policies for establishing a power plant in or near Town X. This was based on the activity, "Environmental Justice: Whose Resource Is It?" published on the web by the Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics at Virginia Tech.  (https://aaec.vt.edu/content/dam/aaec_vt_edu/extension/cee/files/environmental-justice.pdf)
In this activity, a new power plant is proposed to be built in Town X, which is a low income community that has had to deal with environmental and health concerns from the past. I asked one group to review all 5 characters to brainstorm a solution that was amenable to all parties. For the other two groups, I asked each participant to play the part of one of the characters. I was surprised to find that this did not change the dynamics much; in both cases, the participants openly discussed their point of view and worked to find common ground. I was pleased to hear several differences. For instance, one group suggested that the town build roads to alleviate congestion that was inevitable while another group thought the company should build a back road for employees to minimize traffic issues. As another example, in two groups, the participant playing the role of the company spokesperson compromised on environmental / health concerns by promising to either provide health care for employees and/or adhere to environmental inspections. In the third group, the participant representing the company was quite inflexible and only compromised on the traffic issue that was raised. This raises a very important lesson: although many individuals will work to find common ground and compromise to minimize friction in discussion, there are some who will remain inflexible and give up very little in negotiations. In this latter case, it may be that either the deal favors one party over the others or the deal may fall through with no winners in the end. Unfortunately, compromise has often been associated with weakness or failure, when in fact, it is a must with the diverse perspectives and viewpoints in today's society.

Food Energy Water Footprint

Karen Kirk and John Thomas devised a rubric for calculating an individual's food, energy, water, and waste footprint in a web available document entitled, "LIFESTYLE PROJECT" (https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/enviroprojects/lifestyle.html). I modified the calculations a bit to include public transportation, water use in food, and more detailed food energy values. I recorded as much food and energy usage as I could remember over a two day period. I found that I use about 250,000 BTU/day and 850 gal water/day. 85% of the water use was in the preparation of my food (using numbers from farm to table). I was surprised by two things. Even though I used a car for only 14 miles over the two period, it accounted for 67% of my transportation energy. This was surprising because I travel close to 30 miles each way to work (by bus & train). The environmental value of using public transportation during rush-hour was very apparent here. The second surprising revelation was that my refrigerator accounted for 25% of my total energy use. Upon further thought, it does not seem to be unreasonable; after all it is one of the few energy draining appliances that runs 24 hours per day. I will definitely shop around for a more energy efficient refrigerator.