We Can All Prevent Forest Fires (Article Review)

Climate Change Behind Surge in California Wildfires
Climate Central
John Upton
October 10th, 2016

For the first time scientists can finally prove that human influence was the cause of  the "new normal" regarding the now constant presence of wildfires during California's dry season. What has always existed, wildfires that is, now seems to have constant presence during the state's dry months. Many veteran firefighters have wondered why; asking themselves questions as to why on earth are they suddenly seeing a change in the magnitude of the fires they are now working to stop-efforts which are just causing issues in regards to their own professional capacity and bandwidth.

The study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that more than a century of fossil fuel during, deforestation, and commercial farming has moved California to what can be called an "explosive climate." Which the exact rate of blame is one that cannot be measured, the acknowledgement that human influence has played a role has been made and is now a stable argument. In this regard the study primarily focused on the the states dryness and the relationship in the increase of fuel aridity, fires days, and fire extent. Their analysis showed that temperature caused rising levels of greenhouse gases have had a drying effect, which in turn has had an effect on over 10 million acres. Their review of the land affected concluded that 44% of it was associated to global warming (in acres that's anywhere between 6 and 16 million acres).

The graph below demonstrates their findings:



So what do we do now? What level of work is going to be needed in order to address this and the other issues that are marking global shifts in the ecosystem? For one there's the reminder that for every degree of warming there is an even bigger impact on the warming that has already negatively affected the environment.  It's also a reminder of the importance of ditching coal energy in favor of cleaner alternatives.

Link to Article: LINK

Caring for Others (On Environmental Racism)

Eight Horrifying Examples of Corporations Mistreating Black Communities with Environmental Racism
Atlanta Black Star
Nick Chiles
2/12/2015

"What exactly is environmental racism? It’s a policy or practice that differentially affects or disadvantages (intentionally or unintentionally) individuals, groups or communities because of their race and/or class. It has been well-documented around the world that environmental hazards often impact poor communities and communities of color disproportionately. Three out of every five African-Americans living well below the poverty line are also living in areas situated close to toxic waste sites, according to the federal government’s General Accounting Office. Living near these dangerous facilities has significant impacts on all aspects of their lives. Their air, water and food can all be affected; noise pollution and vibrations become a problem; the awful stench permeates everything; schools, workplaces and homes become unsafe places; and a multitude of different health effects can result."

The above paragraph is the opening for what was yet another disturbing look at how marginalized communities continue to be affected by cruelty and injustice.The horrifying examples provided in the article lead to incredible thought and discussion towards the poor treatment of human beings and the lack of support that vulnerable communities have received from the government. I do not have to look very far, living in San Francisco, to see environmental racism. The Hunters Point area was for years considered a waste zone and yet it housed many individuals who relied on government housing for themselves and their families. Richmond, CA was an example by Chiles and the long-term health effects experienced by the residents of the area proved that close proximity can be a very bad thing since many of the residents developed respiratory issues due to the poor air quality.

It was hard to see that larger communities abroad are affected and that they receive absolutely no support because global institutions like the World Bank have determined that it's in the best interest of the elite (we are the elite in this case). When considering social determinants I cannot help but think about the obvious fact that we as a species are responsible for our own demise, for our own misfortunes and while major effects have been the result of capitalist greed the truth of the matter is that as misinformed consumers we too (because we are all privileged in our own way) have a responsibility to act and right now we are not doing enough. This article reminded me of the video presentation by Naomi Klein on the concept of "other-ing in the warming world," and that it is the same behavior that causes us to not consider the lives of others in relation to the production of our own goods that is going to cause our coastal cities to be under water one day.

The same responsibility that I have to people of Richmond CA, is the same responsibility that the whole United States has to the people of Durban. What I found to be really important when reviewing the article and my feelings afterwards was that there has to be consistent work across the board. In the United States we are really lucky that agencies and foundations exist in order to provide support to individuals and communities at-risk and who fall prey to corporate mishandling- we just have to speak up and fight for them. The same goes for people and communities outside of the United States- we have to fight for them! Environmental racism will continue to be a problem because there will always be an "other" there will always be those who will just "have to deal" with the card that they were dealt-but it does not have to.

There can be change, there can be improvement in the health outcomes of individuals who reside in these hazardous zones, and there can be hope that one day one racial group won't be targeted and treated as second-class and non-human. The cruelty experienced is one that is dealt with because of the social structure that is in place. People need a place to live, they need jobs, they need to provide for themselves and their families, and it is in getting the basics taken care of that the opportunity for change is lost. Many people do not see injustice, and if they do, they're too tired from just trying to stay afloat to do something about it. Communities who reside in these zones, and who deal with these environmental stressors on a daily basis need support from those who are fortunate enough to acknowledge their own carbon footprint. After-all, we all walk together and in turn are susceptible to the same misfortunes when it comes to our global environment.

Link to Article: LINK

Into the Depths We Go (Deep Sea Mining)

Watch the Advent of Deep Sea Mining Unfold with this Big Data Tool
Vince.com
Becky Ferriera
October 5th, 2016

Deep sea mining while not new is something that will soon begin to reach major expansion as manufacturing on tools needed to extract precious minerals from within the earth have reached maturity and approval for use. The new tool, which was revealed at the Dreamforce conference uses the automated identification system (AIS) that is already used by large vessels in order to determine distance from other large vessels (to avoid collisions), and protection agencies who use AIS in order to track fishing vessels in protected areas. The tool would allow individuals to see where the mining is taking place and would work more for transparency on what action was taking place in the open waters, and more importantly where; tracking the mining vessels in order to promote responsible behavior.

The bigger question is should this (deep sea mining) be happening in the first place? The phrase "unchartered waters" holds a lot of truth in this situation and while those who reside above the surface will most likely benefit from the various resources that are to be extracted from the beneath the sea floor, the truth of the matter is that in doing such an extraction we will no doubt be causing major disruption to an incredibly delicate eco-system that we as a species know nothing about. What are the long term effects? What marine life will be lost? What will be the structural repercussions to diving in to the deep end?

Regulations for deep sea mining are happening as more and more companies emerge in order to extract resources. There is high demand for minerals like copper and while some can make the argument as to why there should not be mining, especially when considering global warming and the potential to disrupt the absorption methods of the ocean for carbon dioxide (which is does at a max rate) mining companies are not really experiencing a lot of "no" from authorities in regards to their actions.
Link to Article: LINK

Caring for Whales and other Sea Life

Darryl Fears
The Washington Post
What's the Best Way to Save Whales?
10/8/2016

What do you do when you know that you are in some way causing negative effects in a major way and that entire systems of living are disrupted and ruined? Do you stop what you are doing? Or do you simply continue under the guise that while you are causing such disruption, you are studying to see what your long-term effects are? While one answer could be as simple as "I just pull out and stop what I'm doing," others could be as complicated as "I acknowledge that what I am doing is wrong, but in the meantime that I prove what I am doing is wrong, I will continue to just cause disruption and chaos to those that are affected by my actions."

While the harvesting of whales has created some protection for them, they are still hunted and endangered creatures, in order to secure their place on the planet there has been little advocacy in relation to other methods of disruption to this group. And while there has been the acknowledgement that overfishing, climate change, pollution, and human created ocean noise have all affected whales negatively, there is no proof on which is worse and which one should be given the priority.

The article looks at the issue of sound, and that while there is an acknowledgement that manmade ocean noise is an issue, scientists cannot determine if by shutting the sound off they will be providing benefit. Marine life has had years to evolve, but the surge in ocean noise has altered their environment and there is not enough evidence that proves that they have not been affected by this (besides the obvious answer of YES it has affected them and all other ocean life).

Expansion in manufacturing has allowed for ocean traffic to grow, military ships are on rotation, and pollution has increased the amount of carbon dioxide that the ocean absorbs. So the answer is, yes, there has been a change to their environment and while there is little study on the subject matter, there is also proof that marine life has been negatively affected by mans manipulation of their environment. So what is needed? What can be done about this? As of now there is going to be very little change, but an area of research that is suggested is to focus more on the promotion of resilience for the marine life in the current underwater environment they live in- one that is filled with a multitude of stressors.

Link to Article: LINK

Tap'n In To My Water Quality

Every morning I make my way to kitchen sink and drink from the tap. In the 29 years that I have been on this earth I have always preferred to drink from the tap than anywhere else. Part of that is just based on the fact that I'm from San Francisco and have really just loved the taste, but also because it's free and really safe to drink. While at times I can find myself being the modern day conscious consumer at CVS or Walgreens buying a fancy bottle of water because of poor planning on my part, overall I try to carry a bottle of San Francisco's own with me in order to stay hydrated and happy. In reviewing the quality of San Francisco's water, I wasn't surprised at what I found to be in the water, after all the source is not next door, but at the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite. So acknowledging that the road to me is a great one, I was able to make justification for the San Francisco water commission and its efforts in providing residents of the City and County great drinking water.

What's Put In the Water? San Francisco follows state law by putting fluoride in the water that goes to all individuals who consume the drinking water. This practice has been proven to prevent tooth decay and has been approved by the CDC. Chloramine is also put into the water in order to disinfect it, thereby making it ready for consumption.

Run Off and that Fun Stuff! Some items that have been found in the water include: aluminum, chloride, and sulfate which all seem to naturally occur and make its way into the water supply as runoff from the natural deposits. Looking at the source in particular the Water Commission makes special note to inform consumers that the source water is vulnerable to viruses and other bacteria and other inorganic contaminates that are due in large part to pollution. While the water is treated and tested before it makes its way into the homes and drinking stations people use it is important to note that the presence of this organic and inorganic material can cause harm to individuals, especially those with compromised immune systems (HIV/AIDS is an example) therefore it is important to do personal tests on ones own drinking water and to consult with ones personal physician regarding next steps.

Filtration: I do not use a filter. I know it's bad, and it's something that I have always thought about especially when considering my home's history of not being updated. I live in a pretty old part of San Francisco's Mission District (right off of 24th) and while I know that the main water lines were updated in my lifetime (I will never forget a very dry summer as a kid), I have no recollection of the lines that go to my sink being updated. That being said, I most likely will not be using a filter anytime soon.