Earth Wise

Earth Wise

By Randy SimonScience Education Self-Improvement Natural Sciences Nature

Download on the App Store

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play

Earth Wise episodes

February 15, 2019 The Problem Of Microplastics
In recent years, there have been multiple reports of microplastic contamination seemingly everywhere: in the ocean, in lakes and rivers, in beverages and foods, and in the bodies of birds, fish, and even people. As the world tries to come to grips with this growing problem, there are many things that we simply don’t know.
Microplastics are usually formed by the breakdown of larger pieces of plastic. Shopping bags and cups degrade into
microplastics. Microfiber clothing
generates microplastics in washing machines.
And some manufacturers still intentionally add microplastics to personal
care products like toothpaste and facial scrubs.
Technically, a microplastic is any piece of plastic measuring five
millimeters in size down to one micron – which is one thousandth of a
millimeter. But there can be even
smaller plastic particles classified as sub-microplastics and even
nanoplastics.
A real concern is that it is not actually clear how dangerous
microplastics are for living organisms.
We know that aquatic and terrestrial species – including humans – can
and do absorb microplastic particles, but whether there is actual toxicity and the
nature of any detrimental effects is not yet well understood.
Another real problem is that it is actually not easy to distinguish
microplastics from other particles in a given sample. When you are looking at a particle that is
smaller than a millimeter in size, it is not easy to tell whether it is a grain
of sand, a bit of cellulose from a plant, or a microplastic. There are reliable and definitive ways to
analyze samples for microplastics, but they are not as simple and commonplace
as just looking through a microscope.
Microplastics are a rapidly growing problem and we don’t even really know how big and how bad the problem is.
**********
Web Links
How dangerous is microplastic?
Photo, posted January 10, 2015, courtesy of Daria Nepriakhina via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
February 14, 2019 Wildlife And The Border Wall
The border between the United States and Mexico is nearly 2,000 miles long, stretching from San Ysidro, California to Brownsville, Texas. Discontinuous barriers currently cover approximately 650 miles of our southern border. As the particulars of how to better secure the remaining 1,350 miles of border are worked out, one thing is abundantly clear: extending physical barriers would negatively impact wildlife and the environment.
The Trump Administration has called for a 1,000-mile wall, which would
cut across land that includes important habitats for wildlife. According to an article signed by nearly
3,000 scientists, this plan would “threaten some of the continent’s most
biologically diverse regions” by inhibiting species movement and triggering
flooding. The paper, which was published in the journal Bioscience, highlights
how more than 1,500 native animal and plant species would be affected by the
wall, including 62 that are listed as endangered or vulnerable.
An extended border wall would not only impede movement of many
wildlife species but it would also put pressure on creatures already in peril,
such as the Mexican gray wolf and the Sonoran pronghorn. Other at risk animals include the ocelot,
black bear, and desert bighorn sheep.
According to researchers, extending the border wall could cause problems for low-flying birds and insects. Even plants, including the endangered wildflower Zapata bladderpod and the threatened whiskerbush cactus, are particularly at risk.
According to a 2011 study, bird-watching and other forms of ecotourism
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley brought in more than $344 million in economic
activity and approximately 4,400 jobs.
Preserving our natural heritage must be part of this national security
discussion.
**********
Web Links
Nature Divided, Scientists United: US–Mexico Border Wall Threatens Biodiversity and Binational Conservation
Photo, posted December 14, 2014, courtesy of Tony Webster via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
February 13, 2019 Bigger Is Better For Wind Energy
Bigger is almost always better for wind power. Bigger wind farms are better than smaller wind farms and bigger wind turbines are better than smaller ones.
The biggest turbines currently available produce nearly 10 MW of
power, which is enough to supply over 2,000 homes with electricity. A wind farm with just a few of these turbines
could produce enough electricity for a small town. A big wind farm, like the giant 1,550 MW Alta
Wind Energy Center in California can generate enough power for a small city.
Vestas Wind Systems, an industry leader based in Denmark, has
announced a 10 MW turbine that will be ready for installation in two
years. The rotor diameter of the giant
machine is 538 feet and the blades sweep out an area of 227,000 square feet,
the size of nearly 4 football fields.
Not to be outdone, General Electric is developing a 12 MW offshore
wind turbine that will stand 850 feet tall and sweep out an area of more than
400,000 square feet. GE estimates that
its 12 MW turbine will achieve nearly twice the capacity factor of its 6 MW
turbine.
Companies are building bigger and bigger wind turbines because they
are more cost effective. The capacity
factor, which is the actual energy production divided by the potential energy
production, goes up as the turbines get bigger and more efficient. In terms of dollars spent to produce a given
amount of power, larger windfarms are less expensive to build than smaller
ones. A wind farm of 200-500 MW capacity
is about 40% cheaper per MW capacity than a 25 MW wind farm.
When it comes to wind energy, there is no doubt that bigger is better.
**********
Web Links
Wind Energy — Where Bigger Is Better
Photo, posted February 14, 2012, courtesy of Aaron Warner via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
February 12, 2019 The Labeling Of GMO Foods
American consumers will soon be able to discern whether or not foods contain genetically-modified ingredients. The USDA’s so-called ‘National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard’ will be required for foods that have been altered in a way that doesn’t occur naturally. The mandatory compliance date is January 1st, 2022.
While this does sound like great news, there are some major
drawbacks. The new guidelines use the
uncommon term “bioengineered” instead of “genetically-modified” or “GMO.” The
guidelines also allow the disclosure of bioengineered (or B.E.) ingredients in
several formats: as text, a symbol, a phone number (that consumers can call for
more info), or a digital link printed on the packaging. Companies are allowed to use a QR code that
asks consumers to “scan here for more food information.” Scanning the QR code will bring consumers to
a website where the GMO disclosure can be found.
Advocates of the various labeling options say it’ll make it easier and faster for companies to comply with the new guidelines. But critics worry consumers will find it confusing and restrict access for those without smartphones. They say that companies who elect to use a QR code or phone number should be required to include the word “bioengineered” on their packaging.
Another drawback is that products won’t have to be labeled as
‘bioengineered’ if they’ve been processed to the point where their bioengineered
DNA can’t be detected. Examples include
refined beet sugar, soybean oil, and high fructose corn syrup.
The fight over the labeling of GMO foods has raged for many
years. But this labeling mandate falls
short of consumer expectations by hiding the information about GMOs instead of
disclosing it. We should expect better.
**********
Web Links
Government lays out the rules for labeling for genetically modified foods
Photo, posted August 24, 2015, courtesy of Rob Bertholf via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
February 11, 2019 Bee Friendly Amsterdam
Scientists around the world have been sounding the alarm for years about the decline of bees and other pollinators that are crucial to the growth of crops. One place where this trend has been bucked is in Amsterdam. The diversity of wild bee and honeybee species in the Dutch capital has actually increased by 45% since 2000.
The city attributes this success to creating bee-friendly environments
including the installation of so-called insect hotels. There has also been a ban on the use of
chemical pesticides on public land.
Four years ago, Amsterdam set a goal to convert half of all public
green spaces to native plants including species that produce flowers and fruits
that provide nourishment for bees.
Developers in Amsterdam are encouraged to install green roofs on new
buildings which reduce reliance on heating and cooling systems and also create
habitat for wildlife.
Residents can request to have a 16-inch strip of pavement adjacent to
their homes removed in order to plant shrubs, flowers or climbing vines. When a new highway was built in the area in
2015, local activists planted wildflowers along the sides of the road that
otherwise would have been left with only gravel or grass. This practice has spread to other major
routes and along dikes and railways and is referred to as the Honey Highway.
All of these efforts seem to be having a positive effect. An initial survey was conducted in 2000 to establish a baseline. A 2015 survey of pollinators found 21 bee species not previously documented in the city. The rest of the Netherlands has not done as well, and the Dutch government has recently introduced a pollinator strategy to revive bees, butterflies and other insects crucial to the country’s food crop.
**********
Web Links
Bees are dying at an alarming rate. Amsterdam may have the answer.
Photo, posted December 28, 2006, courtesy of Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
February 08, 2019 Misconceptions About Electric Cars
Tesla’s Model 3 was one of the best-selling cars in the United States last year, eclipsing all but a handful of sedans. This was the first time that an electric car had that honor and is indicative of how electric cars are finally becoming mainstream. A host of other new electric models from multiple manufacturers will be the entering the market over the next couple of years.
Despite all of this progress, there is still a great deal of
misinformation about electric cars. A
new study commissioned by Volkswagen revealed some of the widespread misconceptions
about the vehicles.
Some people believe that electric cars can’t be driven through
puddles. Nearly one in five people
believe that electric cars slow down as the battery depletes. Many people believe that electric cars are
fundamentally less safe than gas-powered cars.
More generally, people are unaware of how far current electric cars
can drive on a charge. More and more
models can go 200 and even over 300 miles between charging sessions. People also don’t know how quickly cars can
charge up either. Fast chargers like
Tesla’s Superchargers can add 200 miles worth of charge in about 20
minutes. And people don’t know what it
costs to charge electric cars. In most
places, it is only a fraction of what it costs to drive the same distance using
gasoline.
Despite their limited knowledge about electric cars, the 2,000 people surveyed in Britain were positively disposed towards them with nearly 6 in 10 saying that they would like to own an electric car some day and would even consider one as their next vehicle.
Electric cars will become more familiar and less exotic as more and
more of them are on our roads and highways.
**********
Web Links
Major misconceptions prevent drivers from buying electric cars, study claims
Photo, posted April 6, 2018, courtesy of Brian Doyle via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/electric-cars-misconceptions-battery-charging-safety-volkswagen-study-results-a8700536.html
2 min
February 07, 2019 Droughts And Hydropower
Recent droughts in several western states have led to well-publicized problems including wildfires, loss of trees, and damage to crops. A lesser-known impact of drought conditions has been increases in emissions of carbon dioxide and harmful air pollutants from power generation.
When hydropower runs low in a drought, western states tend to ramp up
power generation – and therefore emissions – from fossil fuels. According to a new study from Stanford
University, droughts caused about 10 percent of the average annual carbon
dioxide emissions from power generation in California, Idaho, Oregon and
Washington between 2001 and 2015.
Water is used in electricity generation both directly for
hydroelectric power and indirectly for cooling in thermoelectric power
plants. When water for hydropower comes
up short because of drought conditions, natural gas or coal-fired power plants
are brought online to pick up the slack.
These drought-induced shifts in energy sources led to an estimated 100
million tons of carbon dioxide across 11 western states between 2001 and
2015. That is the equivalent of adding
1.4 million vehicles to the region’s roadways.
California, whose legislature has mandated that the state be carbon-free
by 2045, contributed about half of this total.
Washington, which is considering a similar mandate, contributed nearly a
quarter of the total.
Western states in recent years have suffered intense droughts that
scientists expect to become more common as global warming continues to
intensify. The new study indicates that
in regions where clean, reliable hydropower has been an important part of the
energy mix, it will be increasingly necessary to provide clean backup energy
sources in order to meet emission reduction targets.
**********
Web Links
Droughts boost emissions as hydropower dries up
Photo, posted March 7, 2016, courtesy of Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
February 06, 2019 Collecting Clean Water From The Air
Clean water is an essential requirement for human life and there are
many places where it is a scarce commodity.
In the world’s deserts, getting water to people requires feats of
engineering and irrigation that can be cumbersome and expensive.
Researchers at Ohio State University have produced a couple of new
studies that explore options for gathering water from fog and condensation that
are based on principles of biomimicry:
copying strategies already in use by plants and animals.
The researchers looked at how cactus, beetles and desert grasses all
collect water condensed from nighttime fog, gathering droplets from the air and
filtering them to roots or reservoirs.
The cactus they studied collects water on its barbed tips before
guiding droplets down conical spines to the base of the plant. They learned that
conical shapes gather more water than do cylindrical shapes. This is because of a physics phenomenon
called the Laplace pressure gradient.
The beetles they studied collect drops of water on waxy, water-repellent bumps on their backs. The water then slides towards the beetle’s mouth on the flat surface between the bumps. Based on this, the researchers experimented with structures that include multiple hydrophilic cones with spaces in between where water droplets can coalesce.
From grasses, they learned that grooved surfaces move water more
quickly than ungrooved surfaces – in fact, about twice as much.
The work so far has been on a laboratory-level, but the researchers
envision scaling up to structures in the desert that can gather water from fog
or condensation and supplement public systems or wells either on a
house-by-house basis or on a community-wide basis. Copying cacti, beetles and grasses could
supply clean water to people in the desert.
**********
Web Links
Collecting clean water from air, inspired by desert life
Photo, posted February 7, 2010, courtesy of Remko van Dokkum via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
February 05, 2019 A Disastrous Year
The number and economic impact of natural disasters around the world have increased dramatically over the past 30 years. In dollar terms, the amount has actually more than doubled. While 2017 and especially 2011 hold the records for worldwide economic damage, 2018 was pretty disastrous in its own right, totaling at least $160 billion.
The year was dominated by costly wildfires in California and tropical storms
in the United States and Asia.
According to a recent report by the reinsurance company Munich Re, the
Camp and Woolsey fires in California alone caused losses of $21.7 billion,
$16.5 billion of which was insured.
Overall, insurance companies paid out $80 billion in damage claims
from natural disasters last year. This
was less than the $140 billion in 2017 but is still double the 30-year average.
Losses from wildfires have increased dramatically in recent years and
summers continue to get hotter and dryer, a likely consequence of climate
change. These mounting costs bring into
question whether people can continue to build in high-risk wildfire areas
without dramatic changes in materials and the aggressive use of other
protective measures.
Twenty-nine natural disaster events in 2018 caused more than a billion
dollars in damage each. Tropical storms
including hurricanes Michael and Florence in the United States and three Asian
typhoons caused $57 billion in damage.
A severe drought in Europe that set off major wildfires and caused
agricultural losses caused $3.9 billion in losses. Only about $280 million of this damage was
covered by insurance companies since farmers in Europe don’t typically purchase
insurance against drought. For them,
2018 was truly a disastrous year.
**********
Web Links
Natural Disasters Caused $160 Billion in Damage in 2018
Photo, posted July 26, 2018, courtesy of Bureau of Land Management California via Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min
February 04, 2019 Can Germany Meet Its Energy Goals?
Germany has been a global leader in efforts to decarbonize its massive
economy. A national initiative known as Energiewende – or clean energy
transition – has been in place since 2010 and relies heavily on renewable
energy sources, energy efficiency, and energy demand management.
The program has involved some of the most aggressive deployment of renewable energy sources in the world. Germany was the first country to install 1 GW of solar energy and still has the 5th largest amount of solar power in the world despite actually being a country with fairly limited sunshine. Germany has nearly 30,000 wind turbines, most of which are onshore, unlike many other countries in northern Europe. Over the past five years, government support and cost to consumers for the shift to clean energy have totaled over $180 billion.
However, despite these efforts, Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions
have not declined as rapidly as expected, even though nearly 40% of the
country’s electricity now comes from renewable sources.
This lack of expected success comes as a shock to the environmentally
conscious German population, nearly 90% of which supports the program.
There are two major problems Germany faces. One is that Germany is Europe’s largest
producer of coal, which still generates more than a third of the country’s
power. The other is that Germany’s large
auto industry is still married to gas- and diesel-fueled cars and emissions
from the country’s cars are a big problem.
The Energiewende program was driven by political will and investment
certainty. It is unclear whether Germany
can muster these forces again. The
Merkel government has dragged its feet on environmental issues in recent
years. It remains to be seen what effect
shifting political power in Germany will have.
**********
Web Links
Carbon Crossroads: Can Germany Revive Its Stalled Energy Transition?
Photo, posted August 15, 2011, courtesy of Flickr.
Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.
2 min

About Earth Wise

From the publisher's feed

From green business and new environmental legislation to how nature impacts our environment in ways never before considered, Earth Wise offers a look at our changing environment.