Monthly Archives: April 2015

Feature story draft

Matt Wu: Food vs Fuel Feature Story

Environmental science professor of Emory University, Dr. Lance Gunderson, recalls when gasoline with ethanol was so popular it was like “industrial scale moonshine.”

10 years ago was an important time for the world. It was the warmest year in human history and President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This policy forever changed the energy industry through the required mass addition of ethanol into gasoline.

At a rate of increase of nearly 2 billion gallons per year, more ethanol use seemed logical. In theory, it would stop this new climate phenomenon, global warming, by lowering carbon dioxide emissions.

Unfortunately, ethanol did not solve the problem. Global warming is still here today and world temperatures are still rising.

In the U.S., ethanol is primarily made from corn. As a fuel source, it has helped the situation, but not as much as promised. Since corn’s increased use in ethanol, another problem has also worsened: worldwide hunger. Justifying using corn, as a fuel source, then becomes a tougher issue.

While it is easy to play the humanitarian argument, the economics involved with rising oil prices play a key role in ethanol’s increased use. The dilemma then becomes less clear: should corn be used for food or for fuel?

As a fuel, corn-based ethanol has many benefits. One of which is decreased reliance on foreign-oil supply. By producing ethanol within the country instead of getting fuel overseas, it increases energy security and lessens transactions with foreign volatile countries. The Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, explains how fuel is a top vulnerability to the Navy and Marine Corps in terms of safety for the country’s soldiers.

In response to foreign oil dependency, Mabus states, “we give them a say in whether our ships sail, our aircraft fly, our ground vehicles operate.” This sense of strength and independency from other countries has also given rise to more jobs for ethanol production.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, ethanol production in 2013 added 87,000 new jobs and accounted for $30.7 billion in household income. Moreover, a recent survey of ethanol industry employees found that 91% of them were satisfied with their jobs, which greatly surpasses the overall national average of 47.6%. Not only has ethanol production created jobs for people in need, but it also has made them happy with their new work.

Ethanol production from corn has also limited the amount of toxic chemicals that are associated with gasoline production. For example, Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a common additive to gasoline, is not required to make ethanol.

Prior to 2005, the heavy use and exposure to MTBE posed health concerns such as nausea, headaches, and in high levels, cancer. According to the U.S. Environmental Protective Agency, the additive is known to contaminate groundwater and is “more resistant to natural biodegradation.” Consequently, MTBE levels remain relatively unchanged, but ethanol production is certainly not making the situation worse here.

However, this is where it takes a turn for ethanol and its darker side emerges.

Emory University’s Environmental Science Professor, Dr. Eri Saikawa, explains how even though the ethanol tailpipe emissions may be less than those from gasoline, it isn’t the full story. While the process of obtaining gasoline is fairly understood, the same cannot be said for ethanol.

In comparison to gasoline, which has been used since the 16th century, ethanol has barely left a mark in history since it only became readily used 10 years ago. Therefore, the overall process of turning corn into ethanol and its effects are not as well understood.

Tremendous amounts of fertilizer are needed to keep up with the mass amounts of corn required for U.S. ethanol production. While fertilizers can have a natural origin, the rate that ethanol is made requires for the production of synthetic fertilizers.

This technique, called the Haber Process, uses natural gas to make fertilizer, but makes high amounts of carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse gas originally thought to be lessened by ethanol use. What’s more are the emissions from the fertilizers themselves.

High amounts of nitrous oxide are emitted from the soil additive used to grow corn. According to Dr. Saikawa, nitrous oxide is currently the 3rd largest greenhouse gas and is a major stratospheric ozone depleting substance. The crux of the problem is that “so many (emissions) are coming from the natural soil.” Since nitrous oxide already occurs in natural fertilizer, it is difficult to regulate additional emissions from man-made fertilizer.

Dr. Saikawa is a firm believer that corn should be used for food and not for fuel. Her work in developing countries has found that those struggling with food security sometimes have ethanol as a top exported good. Even though farmers are growing the exported goods, the money isn’t necessarily going back to them. Instead, the elite benefit more from the process of exportation.

If current practices continue, the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Dr. Saikawa predicts that the “disparity will continue” if ethanol production occurs.

Ben Perlmutter, an environmentally conscious undergraduate student at Emory University, also believes that corn-based ethanol production should be discouraged. Perlmutter explains that corn is an “effective food source and also an incredibly important one.” He also adds, “corn’s value as fuel source is much more in doubt.”

Researchers have also found that when corn is used for ethanol, parts of the world experience other serious problems related to a lack of corn for food.

Dr. Colin Carter, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Davis, explains in his NY Times op-ed, “Corn for Food, Not Fuel,” that compared to other food crops, corn’s yield as a fuel is relatively low. Because of its improper use as a non-food source, countries around the world feel the effects of inflation, slower economic growth, and political instability. Because of the rising frequency of droughts, the effects are heightened and countries have a harder time bouncing back.

However, some scientists question whether corn should even be grown in the first place. In a study that analyzed energy input-yield ratios of various crops made into biofuels, Dr. David Pimentel and Dr. Tad Patzek, found that corn uses more herbicides and pesticides than any other crop in the U.S. They also explain that corn, compared to any other crop grown in the U.S., requires more nitrogen fertilizer, which is a major groundwater and river water pollutant.

Today, the food versus fuel debate may not have the same urgency or weight as other issues, but it should still be of concern to everyone. As a crop, corn is highly versatile and brings benefits to both sides, but there is no clear winner. If anything, both sides are losing because practices for growing corn and producing ethanol haven’t changed much since this issue began 10 years ago.

It might be that corn simply isn’t the ideal crop for either use. Other crops should be studied more to serve as potentially better fuel and food sources with less drawbacks.

However as long as economic gain continues to be a goal for many, corn might be around for a while. Dr. Gunderson explains, “The economic systems are not neutral. There are preferences in terms of guiding the trajectory of development.” Right now, the “agricultural system drives corn-based ethanol and supports a corn-based ethanol solution,” says Dr. Gunderson.

Changing to a crop that replaces corn could solve many issues in the food versus fuel debate, but it might not happen anytime soon.

—-

Works Cited

Gunderson, Lance. Personal interview. 23 Mar. 2015.

Saikawa, Eri. Personal interview. 26 Mar. 2015.

Perlmutter, Ben. Personal interview. 15 Apr. 2015.

Copulos, Milton. “Ethanol Facts: Energy Security.” Ethanol Facts: Energy Security. 6 Apr. 2007. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

“Ethanol Facts: Environment.” Ethanol Facts: Environment. Ethanol Renewable Fuels Association, 2 May 2015. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

“Ethanol Offers Growing Environmental Benefits.” Ethanol Offers Growing Environmental Benefits. National Corn Growers Association, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

Green, Rob. “Restaurants Need an End to the Corn Ethanol Mandate.” Restaurants Need an End to the Corn Ethanol Mandate. 16 Apr. 2015. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

Natter, Ari. “Ethanol Advocates ‘Encouraged’ After Clinton Expresses Support for Renewables.” Ethanol Advocates ‘Encouraged’ After Clinton Expresses Support for Renewables. 16 Apr. 2015. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

Pimentel, David, and Tad W. Patzek. “Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, And Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean And Sunflower.” Natural Resources Research (2005): 65-76. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.

 

Claire Brisse

Feature Story: Oil Use in the US

Students buzz around the cafeteria as Aubrey Tingler and I discuss her future vehicle choices during lunch, electric versus gasoline. She is a senior at Emory University who is passionate about the Keystone Pipeline and oil use in the United States.

“I’m one of those optimists that thinks if you can make if your voice heard, things will start to happen.” She believes that students can have an influence on the government and preventing oil’s business as usual mentality.

In her opinion, she described the future as mixed energy, and prefers to transition away from oil stating that, “I don’t think digging deeper and causing more environmental degradation is the solution.”

Aubrey is discussing one of today’s hot topics in society – oil use in the United States.On February 24 of this year, President Barack Obama vetoed the construction of the final 60% of the Keystone Pipeline.1

If passed, this pipeline would have connected Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. Stretching 2000 miles in total, the pipeline would have transported 830,000 barrels of oil a day.2

This controversial issue has highlighted oil use in the United States, reminding individuals of how they get their energy. Currently, America is the number one user of oil in the world, with roughly 18.9 million barrels of oil that are consumed daily.

Oil is one of the three regularly used fossil fuels, oil, natural gas and coal. America has progressively moved away from coal, due to its environmental consequences, however, the states are still extremely reliant on the oil industry.

The primary uses of oil in the US is transportation, roughly 70% of total use.Due to America’s infrastructure and size there is a strong dependency on private vehicles and long travel times. Gasoline, the primary fuel for these vehicles is made from oil.

The concern over oil use is the negative impact on the environment. Oil spills, climate change and the impacts on human health are arguments against oils’ use and production.

This strong reliance on oil, in addition to other fossil fuels, has caused America to lead the way in CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is the primary byproduct of oil use. Out of the 32,155 metric tons of CO2 emitted annually, the US is responsible for 5,270 of those.6

Carbon dioxide is an example of a greenhouse gas. These gases include water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide.4 They act as a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat close to the Earth’s surface. This allows humans to live comfortably with the temperatures on earth.

Currently, average temperatures have climbed roughly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.3 By the year 2100 this number is predicted to raise another 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit.3 This increase in temperature is due to a parallel increase in these greenhouse gases.

Dr. Barry Ryan from Rollins School of Public Health discusses that, “We’re at a point of saturation in carbon dioxide,” and the consequences of this are more energy in the atmosphere. This results in more dangerous and powerful storms.

This increase in global temperature also affects sea level, melting ice, and increases in oceanic acidity and extreme events. Dr. Ryan specifies that many countries have low altitude and would be greatly impacted by this sea level rise.

Another environmental danger is oil spills. Gary Harper from the Environmental Protection Agency describes the protocol for oil spill clean ups. Roughly once a week or 50 times a year the EPA responds to an oil spill in the southeast.

The oil spills range dramatically in size. However, they can impact the local water and wildlife. Any coated vegetation either dies or is removed by the state or EPA. Birds and other wildlife are particularly influenced and there is always the potential need for human evacuation due to health hazards.

Despite the negative environmental issues, oil remains one of the key drivers of the United States and other global economies. “Oil is liquid money,” and “it helps keep our country strong,” Dr. William Size a geologist from Emory University clarifies.

Oil has a high content of energy compared to other energy sources like coal and wood. There’s very little waste from burning, it’s easily transported, has a strong infrastructure base and is a political and economic giant. It boosts other industries that use oil for their production.

Oil brought the US into the industrial age. It provided a method for economic development. However, besides the environmental flaws, oil is also only 30% efficient. The other 70% is lost energy.

However, this economic power isn’t distributed equally and causes political and economic disparities between countries. It has caused wars and conflicts in the past.

Dr. Ryan from Rollins also mentions that oils use is a balancing act. Removing oil from the economy may boost human health by removing the pollution from the atmosphere, stop rising greenhouse gas levels and preventing oil spills.

However, what would the consequentially health effects be? He mentioned the loss of jobs and the loss of health insurance, which could trigger a decrease in overall human health. “It’s a balancing act,” between human health, environmental health, oil and economics.

In order to eventually move away from fossil fuels it’s important to invest in alternative energy. However, so far according to Dr. Size, there have not been enough substantial financial investments in this field.

Dr. Size goes on to explain that, “It’s human nature not to get serious until things really get bad. It may take a calamity,” to shift away from the massive oil industry.

The Keystone Pipeline controversy had similarly strong arguments for and against. The project would have created 42,000 temporary jobs and roughly 50 permanent jobs, boosting the economy.

However, the pipeline would have increased CO2 emissions by 24.3 million metric tons per year.9 Plus the oil from Alberta, Canada is extremely dirty. The area holds several tar sands, which once refined and burned release three or four times more CO2 emissions than conventional oil.7,8

Others argue the oil will continue to be pulled from the tar sands and delivered to the gulf even without the completed pipeline. The alternative will simply be by trains, which have much larger carbon footprints.

The pipeline would also cut through one of the largest natural aquifers in the US, the Ogallala Aquifer. This aquifer provides water for farms and people in eight states in the Midwest.

If the pipeline were to run through that area, it may trigger contamination and reduction of this essential water source.

Dr. Tracy Yandle an environmental science professor at Emory says, “It [the veto] was an empty gesture. It’s not going to accomplish anything,” because ultimately the oil will continue to be refined and travel through alternative measures.

Ultimately, oil use in the United States has its limit. Environmentally, there will be a point when it’s no longer economically viable to continue using fossil fuels.

It is important to begin now by researching and creating alternative energy sources and building the infrastructure so that eventually the other options are available. This is essential to keep the US economy strong, even without its oil industry backbone.

Word Count: 1179

Contacts:

Dr. Tracy Yandle

tyandle [at] emory [dot] edu

404-727-6314

 

Dr. William Size

404-727-0203

wsize [at] emory [dot] edu

 

Dr. Barry Ryan

404-727-3826

bryan [at] emory [dot] edu

 

Aubrey Tingler

Aubrey [dot] elise [dot] tingler [at] emory [dot] edu

 

Daniel Rochberg

Daniel [dot] rochberg [at] emory [dot] edu

 

Greg Harper

harper [dot] greg [at] epa [dot] gov

 

 

Resources:

  1. Brady, Jeff, and Scott Horsley. “What You Need To Know About The Keystone XL Oil Pipeline.” NPR. NPR, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
  1. FactCheck. 2014. “Pipeline Primer: The Keystone XL project: We examine the facts about jobs, spills, climate change and gasoline prices.” Accessed: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/
  1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014.“Climate Change: Basic Information.” Accessed: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/
  1. Facing the Future. Accessed: https://www.facingthefuture.org/IssuesSolutions/ClimateChange/ClimateChangeF astFacts/tabid/175/Default.aspx#.VOJuXJUmW0s
  1. The Sierra Club. http://myscsierra.org/chapter/oil/60-energy/258-oil-dependence- facts.html
  1. http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US
  1. Friends of the Earth. “Keystone XL Pipeline.” Accessed: http://www.foe.org/projects/climate-and-energy/tar-sands/keystone-xl-pipeline
  1. Pembina Institute. “Climate Impacts.” Accessed: http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/climate
  1. Levi, Michael A. 2009. “The Canadian Oil Sands: Energy Security vs. Climate Change.” p 11. Council on Foreign Relations.

Feature Story Rough Draft

An Inside Look into the Greening of Schools

Through metal gates and atop a sprawling green hill sits the new Drew Charter School Senior and Junior Academy. Five minutes after the beginning of classes and there are no tardy or loitering students in sight. From the outside looking in through the ceiling-to-floor windows, students dressed in forest green blazers trumpeting along with the band director’s baton can be seen.

The Senior and Junior Academy began construction in 2012 and was completed in 2014 as a capstone project for the East Lake Foundation’s cradle-to-college pipeline. The pipeline worked to send children in the East Lake community all the way from early education to higher education. During the design phase of the new academy, the administration decided to pursue Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification.

LEED is a rating system with a set number of points earned by incorporating green building practices and sustainable systems into design, construction, and operations and maintenance of building. The number of points achieved determines the building’s certification level from “Certified” being the lowest to “Platinum” being the highest. Categories include Sustainable Sites, Transportation and Location, Energy and Atmosphere, Water Efficiency, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Innovation.

Drew’s Senior and Junior Academy is still in the tracking phase of the certification process, but they are aiming for LEED Gold, the second highest certification possible. Laura Bollman, Director of Program Design and Implementation for Drew Charter School, says she “truly believes that our school is an environment that we want our students to learn in and learn from, so along the way we decided to pursue LEED as we saw the overlaps continuing to happen between what we wanted to do green building wise and what LEED was offering.”

Drew Charter School is one of a handful of schools in Atlanta pursuing LEED. Leesa Carter-Jones, former Executive Director of the U.S. Green Building Council- Georgia Chapter, believes schools should pursue LEED for two reasons. She says the first is “it makes better sense to the tax payer over the long haul because the cost to operate is less and you’re not misusing the resources that are the resources of the community.” Secondly, “the schools are healthier for the students meaning that they have less volatile organic compounds indoors and they aren’t allowed to use harsh chemicals when they’re cleaning the schools, so the kids who have allergen response to that or who may be asthmatic have a much lower incidence of inhaler use in schools that are green.”

Carter-Jones’ first point focuses on the economic advantage LEED certified schools have on the community. Charlie Cichetti, CEO of Sustainable Investment Group, a LEED consulting firm, says “I think those that would be opposed to LEED certified schools are more opposed to idea that it’s going to cost a lot more for this school that we can barely afford in the public environment.” The increased cost he is referring to is the “green premium,” which is higher upfront costs when designing with sustainability in mind. Some of these higher costs are results of increased energy- or water- efficiency systems, locally sourced or renewable resources, and low-chemical furniture, carpet, and paints. However, this only takes into account the construction budget. When thinking about green schools, it is important to think long term to truly understand the cost-benefit analysis. A green school may have a higher initial cost, but when viewed through the lens of the life cycle of the school, tremendous savings may be accounted during the operations.

A majority of these operational savings are through monthly utility bills. In a study performed by the U.S. Green Building Council, a green school will typically use an average of 33% less energy over a traditionally functioning school. This means there is an average savings of $0.38/ft2 per year in green schools. Additionally, this does not account for rising electricity prices. The U.S. average electricity price rose 3.2% from 2013 to 2014. The highest increase was seen in New England where they witnessed an 11.8% jump. Energy prices are not projected to decline any time soon, so designing for energy-efficiency is a smart way to plan ahead.

Green schools accomplish energy savings by installing energy-efficient heating and air conditioning systems, providing natural ventilation, or even installing their own renewable energy source, such as a solar panel or wind turbine. By investing in these practices during the construction phase and incurring the “green premium”, they are able to compete with the rising electricity prices and allocate funds previously spent on energy to more needed areas such as teacher development or educational resources. In a study by The Center for Green Schools, they claim “on average, green schools save $100,000 per year on operating costs — enough to hire at least one new teacher, buy 200 new computers, or purchase 5,000 textbooks.”

On top of the savings from green schools, LEED schools have a big influence on the students and teachers. Students spend an upwards of 943 hours in the school building a year, so a building that encourages student function and health is imperative to a healthy school.

Cichetti has previously worked with schools helping them to implement, track, and document LEED credits. One of his favorite requirements and also most challenging to provide is minimum acoustical performance. He says, “You must have a certain decibel level for your [heating, ventilation, and air conditioning] system. If you have a child sitting in the back of the room and they can’t hear the teacher in the front of the room, that’s just not productive.”

Other enhancements to improve student productivity include providing views and daylighting. Daylighting is the practice of locating classrooms on the outer perimeter of the school building and including large windows to allow students to see outside. An increase of natural light from the outside also lessens the amount of artificial light needed in the classroom. A study by the Heschong Mahone Group showed “that students with the most daylighting in their classrooms progressed 20% faster on math tests and 26% on reading tests in one year than those with the least.”

LEED certified schools also claim to be healthier for students. The LEED rating system puts heavy emphasis on indoor environmental quality, which awards points for mold prevention, using low-emitting materials, and janitorial plans that eliminate hazardous and chemical laden cleaning supplies. These measures can help prevent symptoms in student suffering from asthma, flu, respiratory problems, and headaches. In an analysis of 17 studies reviewing relationships between air quality and health, Carnegie Mellon “found positive health impacts ranging from 13.5% up to 87% improvement, with average improvement of 41%.”

Overall, LEED certified schools seem to have numerous beneficial effects. “It’s a real sense of pride in this community, “ Bollman notes, “We wanted to design this building so that when you show up here every morning you know that you’re important and that education is important, and I think that’s something our teachers, our administrators, our students, and our parents all feel on a daily basis.” By incorporating LEED into their building design she says it promotes the environmental responsibility that is shared throughout the Drew Charter School community.

Carter-Jones says when students are located in a LEED certified school and surrounded by new technologies in waste and energy reduction, high recycling and compost recovery, and green cleaning, it raises their awareness and initiates a conversation. “It begins to create a community change and transformation which I think is at the heart of what the green building industry is trying to do.”

 

 

References Cited

Baker, Lindsay, and Harvey Bernstein. The Impact of School Buildings on Student Health and Performance. Rep. McGraw Hill Research Foundation, 27 Feb. 2012. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.

Bollman, Laura, Interview, 13 Apr. 2015

Carter-Jones, Leesa, Interview, 24 Mar. 2015

Cichetti, Charlie, Interview, 10 Apr. 2015

“Green Schools Save Money.” The Center for Green Schools. The Center for Green Schools, n.d. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.

Hodge, Tyler. “U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis.” Residential Electricity Prices Are Rising. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2 Sept. 2014. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.

Kats, Gregory. “Greening America’s Schools: Costs and Benefits.” (n.d.): n. pag. U.S. Green Building Council. Capital E, Oct. 2006. Web. 19 Apr. 2015.

Langdon, Davis. “Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in the Light of Increased Market Adoption.” (n.d.): n. pag. The Center for Green Schools. The Center for Green Schools, July 2007. Web.

 

Post podcast script rough drafts

Post feature story rough drafts

Claire Brisse

Feature Story: Oil Use in the US

Students buzz around the cafeteria as Aubrey Tingler and I discuss her future vehicle choices during lunch, electric versus gasoline. She is a senior at Emory University who is passionate about the Keystone Pipeline and oil use in the United States.

“I’m one of those optimists that thinks if you can make if your voice heard, things will start to happen.” She believes that students can have an influence on the government and preventing oil’s business as usual mentality.

In her opinion, she described the future as mixed energy, and prefers to transition away from oil stating that, “I don’t think digging deeper and causing more environmental degradation is the solution.”

Aubrey is discussing one of today’s hot topics in society – oil use in the United States.On February 24 of this year, President Barack Obama vetoed the construction of the final 60% of the Keystone Pipeline.1

If passed, this pipeline would have connected Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. Stretching 2000 miles in total, the pipeline would have transported 830,000 barrels of oil a day.2

This controversial issue has highlighted oil use in the United States, reminding individuals of how they get their energy. Currently, America is the number one user of oil in the world, with roughly 18.9 million barrels of oil that are consumed daily.

Oil is one of the three regularly used fossil fuels, oil, natural gas and coal. America has progressively moved away from coal, due to its environmental consequences, however, the states are still extremely reliant on the oil industry.

The primary uses of oil in the US is transportation, roughly 70% of total use.5 Due to America’s infrastructure and size there is a strong dependency on private vehicles and long travel times. Gasoline, the primary fuel for these vehicles is made from oil.

The concern over oil use is the negative impact on the environment. Oil spills, climate change and the impacts on human health are arguments against oils’ use and production.

This strong reliance on oil, in addition to other fossil fuels, has caused America to lead the way in CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is the primary byproduct of oil use. Out of the 32,155 metric tons of CO2 emitted annually, the US is responsible for 5,270 of those.6

Carbon dioxide is an example of a greenhouse gas. These gases include water vapor, methane, and nitrous oxide.4 They act as a blanket, trapping the sun’s heat close to the Earth’s surface. This allows humans to live comfortably with the temperatures on earth.

Currently, average temperatures have climbed roughly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.3 By the year 2100 this number is predicted to raise another 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit.3 This increase in temperature is due to a parallel increase in these greenhouse gases.

Dr. Barry Ryan from Rollins School of Public Health discusses that, “We’re at a point of saturation in carbon dioxide,” and the consequences of this are more energy in the atmosphere. This results in more dangerous and powerful storms.

This increase in global temperature also affects sea level, melting ice, and increases in oceanic acidity and extreme events. Dr. Ryan specifies that many countries have low altitude and would be greatly impacted by this sea level rise.

Another environmental danger is oil spills. Gary Harper from the Environmental Protection Agency describes the protocol for oil spill clean ups. Roughly once a week or 50 times a year the EPA responds to an oil spill in the southeast.

The oil spills range dramatically in size. However, they can impact the local water and wildlife. Any coated vegetation either dies or is removed by the state or EPA. Birds and other wildlife are particularly influenced and there is always the potential need for human evacuation due to health hazards.

Despite the negative environmental issues, oil remains one of the key drivers of the United States and other global economies. “Oil is liquid money,” and “it helps keep our country strong,” Dr. William Size a geologist from Emory University clarifies.

Oil has a high content of energy compared to other energy sources like coal and wood. There’s very little waste from burning, it’s easily transported, has a strong infrastructure base and is a political and economic giant. It boosts other industries that use oil for their production.

Oil brought the US into the industrial age. It provided a method for economic development. However, besides the environmental flaws, oil is also only 30% efficient. The other 70% is lost energy.

However, this economic power isn’t distributed equally and causes political and economic disparities between countries. It has caused wars and conflicts in the past.

Dr. Ryan from Rollins also mentions that oils use is a balancing act. Removing oil from the economy may boost human health by removing the pollution from the atmosphere, stop rising greenhouse gas levels and preventing oil spills.

However, what would the consequentially health effects be? He mentioned the loss of jobs and the loss of health insurance, which could trigger a decrease in overall human health. “It’s a balancing act,” between human health, environmental health, oil and economics.

In order to eventually move away from fossil fuels it’s important to invest in alternative energy. However, so far according to Dr. Size, there have not been enough substantial financial investments in this field.

Dr. Size goes on to explain that, “It’s human nature not to get serious until things really get bad. It may take a calamity,” to shift away from the massive oil industry.

The Keystone Pipeline controversy had similarly strong arguments for and against. The project would have created 42,000 temporary jobs and roughly 50 permanent jobs, boosting the economy.

However, the pipeline would have increased CO2 emissions by 24.3 million metric tons per year.9 Plus the oil from Alberta, Canada is extremely dirty. The area holds several tar sands, which once refined and burned release three or four times more CO2 emissions than conventional oil.7,8

Others argue the oil will continue to be pulled from the tar sands and delivered to the gulf even without the completed pipeline. The alternative will simply be by trains, which have much larger carbon footprints.

The pipeline would also cut through one of the largest natural aquifers in the US, the Ogallala Aquifer. This aquifer provides water for farms and people in eight states in the Midwest.

If the pipeline were to run through that area, it may trigger contamination and reduction of this essential water source.

Dr. Tracy Yandle an environmental science professor at Emory says, “It [the veto] was an empty gesture. It’s not going to accomplish anything,” because ultimately the oil will continue to be refined and travel through alternative measures.

Ultimately, oil use in the United States has its limit. Environmentally, there will be a point when it’s no longer economically viable to continue using fossil fuels.

It is important to begin now by researching and creating alternative energy sources and building the infrastructure so that eventually the other options are available. This is essential to keep the US economy strong, even without its oil industry backbone.

 

 

Word Count: 1179

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contacts:

Dr. Tracy Yandle

tyandle [at] emory [dot] edu

404-727-6314

 

 

Dr. William Size

404-727-0203

wsize [at] emory [dot] edu

 

 

Dr. Barry Ryan

404-727-3826

bryan [at] emory [dot] edu

 

 

Aubrey Tingler

Aubrey [dot] elise [dot] tingler [at] emory [dot] edu

 

Daniel Rochberg

Daniel [dot] rochberg [at] emory [dot] edu

 

 

Greg Harper

harper [dot] greg [at] epa [dot] gov

 

Resources:

  1. Brady, Jeff, and Scott Horsley. “What You Need To Know About The Keystone XL Oil Pipeline.” NPR. NPR, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 02 Feb. 2015.
  1. FactCheck. 2014. “Pipeline Primer: The Keystone XL project: We examine the facts about jobs, spills, climate change and gasoline prices.” Accessed: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/03/pipeline-primer/

 

  1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014.“Climate Change: Basic Information.” Accessed: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

 

  1. Facing the Future. Accessed: https://www.facingthefuture.org/IssuesSolutions/ClimateChange/ClimateChangeF astFacts/tabid/175/Default.aspx#.VOJuXJUmW0s

 

  1. The Sierra Club. http://myscsierra.org/chapter/oil/60-energy/258-oil-dependence- facts.html

 

  1. http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=US

 

  1. Friends of the Earth. “Keystone XL Pipeline.” Accessed: http://www.foe.org/projects/climate-and-energy/tar-sands/keystone-xl-pipeline

 

  1. Pembina Institute. “Climate Impacts.” Accessed: http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/climate

 

  1. Levi, Michael A. 2009. “The Canadian Oil Sands: Energy Security vs. Climate Change.” p 11. Council on Foreign Relations.