The Green Beat

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.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.

2. 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/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

2. 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/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Wu–Anecdotal Lead

What do a dartboard, an African mask, and electric bug zapper have in common? They can all be found in the Kitron-Prokopec lab of Emory University.

Located in Emory University’s Math and Science Center, the Kitron-Prokopec lab is one of the nation’s leading environmental science labs and studies emerging diseases and environmental risk factors.

A native of Minnesota, Andrea Lund, has a master’s degree in global epidemiology and is the lab manager of the group. Wearing a vibrant red scarf, sweater, and jeans, you would never guess that her current research involves the transmission of a deadly disease, West Nile Virus (WNV).

Moreover, her work is very important to a certain group of people: the residents of Atlanta.

Prior to her involvement, the old Atlanta sewer system discharged high volumes of sewage and rainwater into creeks whenever it rained. This discharge or combined sewage overflow (CSO) provided the essential nutrients for mosquitoes to rapidly grow and reproduce. It gave rise to high numbers of Culex quinquefasciatus, an urban mosquito and known carrier of the disease.

As rain is a common occurrence in Atlanta, the sewage overflows therefore put the citizens at risk for contracting West Nile Virus. However after Lund and her group treated the sewage discharges, mosquito levels were greatly reduced and people were much less likely to get the disease.

West Nile Virus is a vector-borne disease that is transmitted between birds and mosquitoes, and sometimes humans. Left unchecked, it can lead to encephalitis or swelling of the brain and symptoms such as seizures, stroke, and brain hemorrhages.

Before 1999, West Nile Virus existed only in the temperate and tropical parts of the world.

Fast forward to 2015 and this disease has spread across the entire continental U.S. “No matter what, you’re going to get bitten,” explains Lund regarding when mosquitoes are present.

Anecdotal Lead:

“Atlanta is a city within a forest,” Andrea Lund, the manager of the Emory Vector Ecology Lab explains. This makes Atlanta the perfect home for wildlife and birds and mosquitoes are the main pools for West Nile Virus.

The slow hum of the Caron insect growth chamber rumples peacefully in the background, growing who knows what. Andrea, who holds an MPH from Rollins School of Public Health, sits comfortably in a rolling chair as she explains the concerns of West Nile Virus.

Sunlight streams in from the big windows lining both sides of the lab. “West Nile Virus is a scary disease, it can get into your brain and cause death or permanent damage,” she discusses. The lab focuses on mosquito collection and WNV testing.

Nut Grafs:

Due to massive fines, the old Atlanta sewer system was transitioned to a newer model. After the system got fixed, the lab monitored these mosquitos’ reservoirs.

There was a dramatic drop in the mosquito counts. The lab continues to monitor these creeks, where the mosquitoes breed. However, they are moving on to new projects.

Matt Wu

The world’s drinking water supply is running out. In just 15 years, we will need 40 percent more water than is available.

Emory University is tackling the water crisis head-on, both locally and globally. Emory is lessening the waste of drinking water through the utilization of water reclamation and the new WaterHub plant located just off of Eagle Row.

Mother Nature is the star. Instead of harmful chemicals, WaterHub harnesses the power of natural biological systems to obtain clean water.

This plant process extends the life cycle of used water by turning waste into a valuable resource. Reclaimed water, while not consumed in the U.S., can be distributed for tasks that do not require drinking water, such as plumbing and plant irrigation.

Water reclamation also cuts down on pollution since less energy is used to transport drinking water from distant places such as the Chattahoochee River, metro-Atlanta’s main water source. The use of nearby sources lowers the carbon footprint because water does not have to travel far.

As the first major water reclamation site in North America, Emory is the pioneer in major water recycling efforts. A difficulty in being first is Emory can’t model Harvard, Johns Hopkins, or other prominent institutions. However, WaterHub offers the university a novel and sustainable way forward.

The process begins when you flush the toilet, sending wastewater into the sewer line and back to Emory’s primary treatment system.

The primary treatment system uses reactors made of BioQuartz, a synthetic material, which acts as a surface where bacteria can grow. Live bacteria then have the job of converting unwanted compounds to harmless ones. They also minimize toxic hydrogen sulfide formation, which is deadly like cyanide or carbon monoxide.

The process of humans using bacteria for positive gains has actually been around for some time. If you’ve eaten yogurt, then you’ve benefitted from bacteria. Special bacteria turn milk into the healthy breakfast alternative!

After primary treatment, the water is transported to a greenhouse and lower sites, located just off of Eagle Row. These facilities have hydroponics, which are plants grown without soil.

“The magic is in the (plant) roots,” says Corey Hagemann, Emory’s WaterHub project manager. These roots provide optimal growth surfaces for bacteria, which complete the process of converting nitrates into nitrogen gas.

This process of combining hydroponics and live bacteria cultures is natural and self-sustaining. The healthy environment created here allows for the emergence of new species

Harmless snails thrive alongside the roots and bacteria since they have everything to survive. Hagemann compares the environment to diners at the Golden Corral where, “if you have air and chicken wings, then you have happy people.” The snails are evidently very happy.

(pictured on left, Corey Hagemann holding a snail found living on the hydroponic plant roots)

Before the water can be reused, two more phases of the treatment process must occur. The first involves settling and eliminating unwanted solids from thewater. At this point, bacteria are present in the water so some live cultures are saved and recycled back into the initial steps, which utilize them.

The rest of the water is subject to cleaning out through small amounts of chlorine and ultraviolet (UV) radiation. UV is high intensity radiation, the same type of radiation that causes sunburn. It can kill microorganisms and damages DNA to prevent potential growth.

Finally, the reclaimed water can be used for non-potable (non-drinkable) tasks like washing clothes or stored for a later time.

It’s only a matter of time before reclaimed water becomes popular and is widely used!

Matt Wu

Santa Monica: Making Healthy Living Easy

If you’re looking for a change of pace from your sedentary lifestyle, look no further. Welcome to Santa Monica. Located in sunny Southern California just outside of Los Angeles, Santa Monica offers everything you need to begin your new healthy and active lifestyle.

According to Howard Frumkin’s TedTalk, “Healthy Human Habitats,” a healthy community is one that allows humans to thrive.

A healthy community can grow in many different ways. It comes through regular social interaction, routine physical activity, accessibility to nature, and the lack of a drive-thru culture (yes, finally for once, not having something is good). Thriving communities also have regular community engagement and large sidewalks for walking.

In today’s fast paced lifestyle, it’s easy to get lost in the grind and delay becoming physically active.

The longer we do, the more our health is jeopardized. An inactive lifestyle puts us at a greater risk for heart disease, the leading cause of death for both men and women in America.

Santa Monica combines healthy living with the essentials. In this city, it’s easy to do.

Everyone has to eat. We would all love to go to a sit-down restaurant but most of us simply don’t have the time to do so. So what would most opt for in a time crunch? Probably fast food–the type that’s quick, cheap, greasy, and made even before you ordered.

Instead of flocking to fast food joints, residents gravitate towards the growing culture of food trucks, a healthy alternative. During lunch hour, local food trucks park near businesses. This eliminates the need for employees to potentially drive to a fast food restaurant.

People walk to browse the selection of food-trucks and converse with vendors to find out about daily specials. What could have been a greasy lunch now became an opportunity to exercise and eat something wholesome.

There are no food deserts in Santa Monica. Instead, there are many farmer’s markets scattered in the city that occur all throughout the week. Local farmers and growers bring their produce and goods to allow the public to buy the current season’s best products.

Live music performers also showcase their talents for entertainment, which adds to the experience. The farmer’s market strengthens the community by bringing people together and promoting healthy social interaction.

After all of this eating, it should be time to hit the gym…or not. In Santa Monica, workout spots can be found everywhere. The cliffs overlooking Pacific Coast Highway and the crashing waves of Malibu are a popular place to do yoga under the sunshine. The Santa Monica Mountains offer scenic hiking trails with varying difficulties and levels of adventure.

Frumkin emphasizes that reconnecting with nature is a great way to unwind from everyday stresses. Studies have shown that being in a nature-oriented environment lowers tension and can increase happiness. Spending regular time in nature has also shown to increase the value in community and the appreciation of others.

If moving to Santa Monica is out of the question, then at least you know what to look for and do in your hometown. The lifestyle change to being healthy and active may not be easy or fast, but once it happens, you’ll be glad you did.

Matt Wu

Food versus Fuel: A Pointless Fight Right Now

Government subsidies that boost ethanol production need to stay—at least for now.

Politicians wrangle over whether to use corn for food or fuel. One faction says ethanol production from corn pays a green dividend because the fuel burns cleaner than gasoline. The other side says turning corn into fuel raises food prices and the danger of starvation.

Let’s call a ceasefire. Food and fuel are complex issues and intertwined. We need more understanding and clarity to find the way forward and proper solutions.

While the pro-food argument appears logical, it overlooks one key factor. Oil prices complicate the situation and its role in rising food prices.

According to a study by the World Bank in 2013 on long-term drivers of food prices, oil prices are positively correlated with rising food prices. This means that as oil prices continue to rise, so will food prices.

The price of oil is highly variable. Because oil and food prices are linked, the price of food is therefore also highly variable. Kimberly Amadeo, an economic analyst and business planner for major international corporations, explains that three major factors go into setting the price of oil.

The first factor relates to traders who use certain criteria to bid and buy oil at an agreed upon price. Although the same criteria are used, the variables themselves are dynamic: output of oil, accessibility to oil supplies, and oil demand.

The second factor involves the Organization of Petroleum Exporting (OPEC). In order to keep oil exportation profitable for all countries, this organization sets the amount of oil that can be sold in a given time. Even though rising food prices/conflict affect everyone, countries are interested in immediate economic gain; therefore higher oil prices and profit trump lower food costs.

The third factor considers oil projected demand and use. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, which gathers data of national oil use, has shown that oil use is rising and will continue to do so. With a limited available oil supply, current oil spending practices are making the cost of oil rise, and consequently the cost of food.

Even though pro-food advocates incorrectly blame ethanol for rising food prices, international developments and natural disasters are actually the ones to blame. Without warning, these events can sharply lower the supply of oil and cause oil prices to skyrocket.

Outside of the control of both food and fuel supporters alike, world crises can strike. In 2012, Iran had a nuclear weapons scare so the U.S. and E.U. placed financial sanctions on the country. This greatly limited the worldwide supply of oil and the effects were tremendous. Gasoline prices rose to nearly four dollars per gallon and higher transportation costs caused food prices to soar.

Mother Nature is also unpredictable and relentless. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina violently struck the U.S. Gulf Coast causing major damage and displaced some 400,000 people. Hurricane Katrina also destroyed numerous oil refineries, affecting 19% of U.S. oil production and gas prices rose to five dollars per gallon.

It is apparent that the price of oil is very variable and as it continues to rise, it will also drive up the cost of food.

The pro-food position seems reasonable, but there is no direct evidence that ethanol production is linked to climbing food prices.

In 2012, rising food prices prompted a big push by pro-food advocates to stop ethanol production (under the Renewable Fuel Standard program) in the U.S. However, after examining 500 scenarios involving corn, food, and fuel-prices, 89% of them were not negatively impacted by the RFS and ethanol production continued.

Furthering the disconnection between corn-ethanol production and food prices are the annual rates of corn use and food inflation. If ethanol production was truly the culprit for worsening food prices, then the two rates would be similar, but it is not the case. The rate of food inflation more than doubles the rate of corn use for ethanol. There is therefore no causal relationship between ethanol production and food inflation.

Although ethanol has been speculated to worsen the food epidemic, it may do just the opposite. Because ethanol production relies on corn, farmers grow more of the crop than if it was only grown for food alone. The more plentiful supply of corn, according to the UK Department of Environment and Rural Affairs, may stabilize food supplies and thus lower the cost of food.

The process that determines the price of food is not simple. While oil strongly affects the price of food, it is not the sole driving force. Many other factors go into the price of corn flakes on the supermarket shelf.

As the world continues to advance and become more affluent, people change their preferences. For example, they may begin to prefer regularly consuming meat over grains, instead of as an infrequent occurrence. This shift in demand changes what farmers produce and their new output puts the food economy and prices into flux.

The exact formula for determining the price of food is very complex. The time and effort spent on deciding how corn should be used is better spent on discussing ways to prevent real issues like global warming. Therefore, further quarreling in the food versus food debate is pointless until new evidence from research is found.

Works Cited

Amadeo, Kimberly. “Why Are Food Prices Rising?” 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. <http://useconomy.about.com/od/inflationfaq/f/Why-Are-Food-Prices-So-High.htm>.

Amadeo, Kimberly. “What Factors Determine Oil Prices?” How Are Oil Prices Determined? 1 Feb. 2015. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. <http://useconomy.about.com/od/commoditiesmarketfaq/f/oil_prices.htm>.

Baffes, John, and Allen Dennis. “Long-term Drivers of Food Prices.” WorldBank. 6 May 2013. Web. 2 Mar. 2015.

“Corn, Ethanol, and Food Prices.” National Corn Growers Association. 3 Feb. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.

“USDA ERS – Food Dollar Series: Documentation.” USDA ERS – Food Dollar Series: Documentation. 24 May 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.