Pollution Archives - Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development http://silvica.site/category/pollution/ Greening our world through content Sun, 07 Jun 2020 13:38:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7 https://i0.wp.com/silvica.site/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/cropped-silvica_image.jpg?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 Pollution Archives - Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development http://silvica.site/category/pollution/ 32 32 162136420 Is Nuclear Energy an Environmentally Friendly Energy Source? https://silvica.site/is-nuclear-energy-an-environmentally-friendly-energy-source/ Sun, 07 Jun 2020 13:31:31 +0000 http://silvica.site/?p=1100 Nuclear energy is often left out of environmentally friendly energy source discussions. There are cases for and against nuclear energy. Be the judge

The post Is Nuclear Energy an Environmentally Friendly Energy Source? appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>

By David Okul

When someone talks about clean energy, nuclear energy is usually not the first choice. Instead, people would go for sources such as solar and wind. However, there is a reasonable call for the inclusion of nuclear energy as a sustainable source. As a matter of fact, nuclear is the second-largest source of low carbon electricity after hydroelectric power. Still, there are some environmental impacts of nuclear energy. We have identified five reasons for and five reasons against nuclear energy as an environmentally friendly energy source.

Why is nuclear energy an environmentally friendly energy source?

1. It protects air quality.

Nuclear energy is a clean energy source with a 100% zero-emission.  It produces energy via fission, whereby uranium atoms are split to produce electricity.  In return, the heat generated is used for purposes of making steam. The steam is then used for spinning turbines hence generating electrical power.

The entire process of generating nuclear energy doesn’t entail using harmful byproducts such as those emitted by major fossil fuels.  Nuclear energy doesn’t emit carbon emissions. It helps with maintaining clean air by eliminating harmful air pollutants from the atmosphere.  Such contaminants are responsible for smog and acid rain, not to mention the adverse implications they have on the overall air quality. They further cause diseases such as cardiovascular disease and lung cancer.  

2. It produces minimal waste.

Nuclear fuel is way denser than other conventional energy sources such as coal. While nuclear fuel is known for producing nuclear waste, the waste is rather minimal. Furthermore, nuclear waste can be easily recycled and reprocessed. For that reason, nuclear energy is widely perceived to be part of a clean energy solution. In some nations like the US, nuclear scientists are developing advanced reactor designs that will operate using used nuclear waste. This development will make nuclear energy highly renewable in comparison to other energy sources. Also, there is a global effort to make nuclear power a clean energy solution in the future, considering that other energy sources face possible extinctions due to rising global populations.

3. It has a relatively small land footprint.

Nuclear energy produces vast amounts of clean energy. It further provides more electrical power on less land more than other clean energy sources. For instance, a nuclear facility producing about 1,000 megawatts requires just 1 square mile of land to operate effectively. This productivity is contrary to wind energy, whereby wind farms require vast areas to produce a similar amount of electrical power. Solar plants also need 75 times more land space to generate a similar amount of energy to nuclear energy. In other words, approximately 4 million solar panels are required to produce 1,000 megawatts. Also, 430 wind turbines are needed to create a similar amount of electricity. The fact that nuclear energy boasts the smallest footprints of all the traditional energy sources makes its environment friendly to a more considerable extent.  

4. Nuclear energy produces less radiation.

Unlike coal, alongside other fossil fuels, nuclear power produces less radiation. Primary energy sources are considered environmentally unfriendly, given the vast amount of radiation they release into the environment. For instance, coal releases the biggest amount of radiation than any other energy source. Burning coal releases a vast volume of thorium and radioactive elements into the environment. Such elements are potentially disastrous to the environment. Apart from radiation, the risk of nuclear energy contaminating the air is significantly low. Today’s nuclear plants have sophisticated security and safety features, hence preventing nuclear accidents and causing widespread air pollution alongside other serious environmental concerns.

5. It reduces overreliance on fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy eliminates the over-reliance on fossil fuels, ultimately making it exceptionally environmentally friendly. Its usage discourages the continued exploitation of the few remaining fossil fuel reserves.  The over-reliance on fossil fuels causes multiple environmental hazards. For instance, the burning of these fuels increases carbon emissions, consequently exposing the world to climate change and global warming. The pollution caused in the process of burning fossil fuels contaminates the atmosphere, further affecting air quality. 

Why nuclear energy isn't an environmentally friendly energy source

1. Environmentally harmful nuclear waste

Although nuclear energy is associated with zero carbon emissions and minimal waste, the resulting nuclear waste can pollute the environment if disposed of inappropriately.  For instance, when this waste is buried in the soil, the chemicals can diminish soil quality, eventually maiming plant species. Once disposed in oceans alongside other water bodies, it leads to thermal water pollution. Long-term thermal water pollution contaminates water and kills marine life.  The process of generating nuclear energy, which entails mining of uranium, is highly hazardous to the environment. Besides, it places human life at risk as miners are exposed to possible mine collapses. 

2. The entire process of harnessing nuclear power isn’t environmentally friendly at all.

Nuclear energy may be perceived as clean and renewable.  However, nuclear power plants impact the environment negatively. The process of mining and enriching uranium isn’t environmentally friendly as such. Mining uranium leaves the soil with huge pits, which causes erosion in return. The radioactive particles left behind in the process of mining uranium pollute the soil and nearby water sources. Again, underground mining exposes the atmosphere to vast amounts of radiation, which causes ailments such as skin cancer.

3. Nuclear accidents are disastrous

While accidents at nuclear facilities are minimal, they can be fatal when they happen. The radiations resulting from accidents are harmful to the environment. They lead to the loss of human life and animal species once they contaminate the environment. The plutonium released into the atmosphere in the events of accidents can expose humans to multiple types of cancer, including bone, lung, and liver cancer. The byproducts of nuclear fuel can further ruin plant species upon encountering the soil. Accidents at nuclear facilities are safety concerns for the environment, animals, humans, and plants.

4. Nuclear waste takes years to decompose.

Perhaps the most significant environmental concern raised by nuclear energy is nuclear waste. Even when it is properly disposed of, nuclear energy takes so many years to decompose. For this particular reason, nuclear power becomes an environmental and safety concern. Before the nuclear waste decomposes to the appropriate safety levels, it can pose serious environmental concerns. For instance, it can continue releasing radioactive radiations, which can affect and even kill animal species.

Again, it can contaminate the soil adversely affecting its quality. Worse still, undecomposed nuclear waste can contaminate water sources making the water unfit for both animal and human consumption. Furthermore, contaminated water as a result of nuclear waste can suppress and kill marine species if it drains in rivers, lakes, or oceans. Most importantly, nuclear waste can continue emitting pollutants into the atmosphere before it decomposes fully. This pollution ruins air quality and causes ailments as well.

5. Nuclear energy may be unfair to poor countries

Establishing a nuclear plant is an expensive affair. As such, it may result in poor countries relying on rich countries in fulfilling their energy requirements.

Worse still, the poor countries may decide to build nuclear plants anyway. Of course, they may not follow all the necessary protocols. As a result, the plants may be unsafe for humans and the environment.

A more political concern is the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is a short leap from producing nuclear energy to nuclear weapons.

Is nuclear energy good or bad for the environment?

This billion-dollar question is hard to answer. For sure, the world’s energy demands are increasing every day. On the one hand, nuclear energy is a solution. For it can produce massive amounts of energy from ‘fewer’ natural resources hence minimal environmental impacts. On the other hand, the production of nuclear energy leads to the production of toxic pollutants that have adverse effects on biodiversity. You be the judge of whether nuclear is an environmentally friendly energy source or not.

David Okul is an environmental management professional with over 10 years experience on donor projects, conservation, forestry, ecotourism, and community-based natural resources management. When not working on  active environmental management projects, I spend my time writing for Silvica on a variety of topics. The views on this blog post are personal.

The post Is Nuclear Energy an Environmentally Friendly Energy Source? appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>
1100
Get involved in addressing ocean pollution through CleanMyBeach application https://silvica.site/get-involved-in-addressing-ocean-pollution-through-cleanmybeach-application/ Thu, 04 Jun 2020 03:41:22 +0000 http://silvica.site/?p=1085 Marine pollution is an urgent environmental issue. CleanMyBeach application provides a free and easy to use platform to conduct ocean cleanups

The post Get involved in addressing ocean pollution through CleanMyBeach application appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>

By David Okul

Marine pollution is one of the serious environmental issues the modern world is facing. Plastics and other wastes are choking our oceans. CleanMyBeach App offers a practical solution to tackle the plastic waste problem. The free Android application allows individuals and organizations worldwide to interact with members of their local communities through public beach cleanups, increasing the scope and influence of any beach cleanups that are completed through visual integration with Google Maps and social media.

A young environmentalist, Arjun Sharma, developed the application after realizing that local beach cleanups were less coordinated. He says, ‘I hope that the app can raise awareness about plastics and pollution in local communities, while simultaneously being effective on a global scale.’

Since the start of the year, the platform has helped complete dozens of cleanups.

But how did we get here?

Oceans are an essential component of the earth’s system. The earth is a blue planet, as the oceans make over 70% of the surface. Among its most important functions include producing oxygen (70% of the oxygen on our planet is from it), and it is the home of a crazy variety of species.

But marine pollution is threatening the system. In particular, plastic pollution is literally choking the planet. At the current rate, there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish by the year 2050.  

The life span of a plastic bag is 15 minutes. Think about it. A product made to last for centuries is only usable for 15 minutes. It is time to stop using single-use plastic as they have devastating consequences to the marine ecosystem. 

Additionally, the potential dangers of microplastics are scary. Get this, every plastic ever manufactured still exists. And it is mainly in the oceans. The sun and bacteria break the plastic into smaller pieces called microplastics. The scary part is that microplastic is getting into the food chain as the sea life ingests it. 

If you are a frequent eater of seafood, you should know that about 67% of seafood contains microplastic. Although scientists haven’t confirmed that microplastics have negative effects on human health, the toxic chemicals in plastic could only mean that microplastics are bad for our environment and health.

climate change pollution overpopulation
Plastic pollution is rampant in oceans

It is time to clean up the oceans using tools like CleanMyBeach Application.

It will be illogical to ask the world to ban the use of plastics completely. However, we can do away with single-use plastics. Several countries and states are implementing a ban on single-use plastics. These bans are great news, except that coronavirus has stalled the implementation of the restrictions.

Even if we are successful in banning all the single-use plastic, our oceans are still polluted. The Ocean Conservancy estimates that 150 million metric tons of plastic are circulating in the marine environment. The addition of eight million tons enters the system each year.

Someone needs to collect the enormous trash from the oceans. Governments and big organizations can organize extensive a sustained cleanup of beaches, but you can contribute to the cleaning too. Do not say that you and your friends can have little impact on the cleanup. Every gram took away from the oceans count!

That is where developments such as CleanMyBeach Application come in handy. It enables you to create, join, or organize beach cleanups with ease. Try it today!

Although the application is only available to Android users, for now, Arjun Sharma says that he is almost releasing the iOs version of CleanMyBeach Application.

CleanMyBeach App has been used to conduct cleanups in a number of beaches

David Okul is an environmental management professional with over 10 years experience on donor projects, conservation, forestry, ecotourism, and community-based natural resources management. When not working on  active environmental management projects, I spend my time writing for Silvica on a variety of topics. The views on this blog post are personal. 

The post Get involved in addressing ocean pollution through CleanMyBeach application appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>
1085
Definitions, types and potential microplastics effects on human health https://silvica.site/microplastic-effects-on-human-health/ Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:29:53 +0000 http://silvica.site/?p=1059 Marine pollution is an urgent environmental issue. CleanMyBeach application provides a free and easy to use platform to conduct ocean cleanups

The post Definitions, types and potential microplastics effects on human health appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>

By David Okul

What are microplastics?

Microplastics are minute plastic particles that originate from the breakdown of large plastics. These particles can also arise from commercial and industrial product development. Nevertheless, microplastics’ effects on human health are largely unknown.

Microplastics aren’t a particular type of plastic. Instead, these particles are in the form of plastic fragments that don’t exceed 5 millimeters in length. They enter ecosystems from various sources, including clothing, industrial processes, and cosmetics.  There are two major categories of microplastics. They include primary and secondary microplastics (we will talk about them later). These particles are prevalent in the environment at remarkably high levels, particularly in marine and aquatic ecosystems.

Like plastics, microplastics degrade rather slowly. They can take thousands of years to degrade. This slow rate increases their chances of being indigested by organisms. Once ingested, they accumulate in the bodies and organs of various species. Microplastics are quite stubborn and thus difficult to remove from the ecosystems. Once washed down a drain, wastewater treatment does not eliminate them. They spread rapidly across the oceans.

Some of the toxic chemicals in microplastics include dioxin, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs)

 

Secondary and primary microplastics

As stated, microplastics exist in two categories. Primary microplastics are largely manufactured as capsules, microbeads, pellets, and fibers. A classic example of these microplastics includes the microbeads used in the manufacturing of personal care products and cosmetics. Other types of primary microplastics include the textile industry’s microfibers, industrial scrubbers utilized for abrasive cleaning, and the resin pellets used in the manufacturing of plastic.

Secondary microplastics are derived from the breakdown of larger parts of plastics. The prolonged exposure to sunlight makes it possible for plastic to fragment into smaller pieces.

Are microplastics dangerous to humans?

Plastic waste accounts for millions of metric tons of waste disposed of in oceans annually. This plastic waste breaks down and becomes microplastics in the long-run.  Some of the marine animals that humans consume, such as fish, have extreme amounts of microplastics.

Although the health impacts of microplastics are unknown, the toxic chemicals in these particles can be dangerous to humans. In regards to human health, microplastics’ main concern is the high levels of carcinogenic chemicals and toxins they introduce to the human body.  Some potentially harmful chemicals in microplastics have been found in humans and other animal species, including birds and a variety of marine species.

Research on the marine species in the Pacific Ocean shows that 25% of the fish spices have microplastics. When people eat the fish, they pose a severe dietary risk thanks to the contaminants associated with them. Away from marine species, microplastics are also prevalent in household dust and air. As such, humans are likely to breathe them on an everyday basis. Exposure to such contaminants can lead to a host of diseases. For instance, some microplastics have plentiful of chemicals believed to ruin the respiratory system when they come into contact with humans.

In a nutshell, microplastics may be dangerous to human beings since the chemicals and toxins in them can impact human health adversely. Nonetheless, scientists need to conduct extensive research to point out the specific implications that these particles have on humans.

What are some of the potential health effects of microplastics?

The severity of the health effects of microplastics depends on the levels of toxins in the microplastics that humans are exposed to. While microplastics’ health effects aren’t documented, preliminary research shows that these tiny particles have several potentially harmful effects on humans.

For instance, microplastics are associated with increased inflammatory response. This response can lead to inflammation and a host of inflammatory ailments. Mammalian systems modeling insinuate that some microplastics can replicate across living cells, eventually accumulating in organs. These particles can, after that, affect cell health and further impact the immune system. Scientists recently observed that microplastics could aggravate inflammation in the tissues. In their high levels, they can cause necrosis and cellular proliferation.

Prolonged exposure to microplastics and the harmful chemicals contained in them can affect biological systems. A recent study has linked microplastics with multiple conditions and diseases such as hormonal cancers, metabolic disorders, asthma, reproductive problems, and neurodevelopment conditions like autism, learning disorders, and spectrum disorders.  

To understand the scope of the severity that microplastics have on human health, the World Health Organization (WHO) has called for additional research into these tiny plastic particles. According to the global health body, research will help unearth the specific implications that microplastics have on human health. 

climate change pollution overpopulation
Plastic pollution is rampant in oceans

Products that contain microplastics

The vast number of products that humans use on an everyday basis contain microplastics. These harmful environmental particles are also present in foods that humans consume daily. Below are some of the products that are plentiful with microplastics.

  • Personal care products-microplastics have already been detected in some everyday personal care products, including soaps, sprays, body oils, toothpaste, and facial cleansers.
  • Tires- tires contain about 60% of plastic. Pressure, heat, and friction wear tires down to an extent whereby they produce plastic dust. Once this dust has been washed into the rivers, drains, and oceans, it is consumed by fish alongside other marine species hence gaining a freeway into the food chain.
  • Synthetic clothing-synthetic clothing is derived from polyester, nylon, and spandex, all of which shed thousands of microfibers with every wash. Once the water is contaminated with these microfibers, it is difficult to filter them out.
  • Wet wipes-hand wipes, baby wipes, and other types of wet wipes are typically manufactured from polyethylene and polyester. These two are the largest sources of plastic fibers. They hardly breakdown and are challenging to eliminate from the water.

 The precautionary principle of environmental management should apply in dealing with microplastic.

In environmental management, the precautionary principle is common. It states that innovations with the potential for causing harm when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking are best avoided.

Undeniably, microplastics’ effects on human health should be considered. Afterall, microplastics contain dangerous chemicals. Global efforts must be concentrated on eradicating plastic products to ensure these products don’t drain in oceans, eventually becoming potentially hazardous microplastics.

David Okul is an environmental management professional with over 10 years experience on donor projects, conservation, forestry, ecotourism, and community-based natural resources management. When not working on  active environmental management projects, I spend my time writing for Silvica on a variety of topics. The views on this blog post are personal. 

The post Definitions, types and potential microplastics effects on human health appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>
1059
Sources, effects and how to prevent marine pollution https://silvica.site/sources-effects-and-how-to-prevent-marine-pollution/ Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:58:28 +0000 http://silvica.site/?p=1056 Marine pollution is an urgent environmental issue. Trash and chemicals from land and ships pollute the vital aquatic ecosystems, with plastics being a major pollutant.

The post Sources, effects and how to prevent marine pollution appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>

By David Okul

The marine environment is vulnerable to pollution from various human-made sources.  A staggering 80% of all the pollution in the marine ecosystems originates from land. Shipping accidents and oil spills make up the rest of the contamination. In general, the sources of marine pollution include:

  1. Nutrients nutrients from sewage, farming, and forestry runoff are the leading contributors to marine pollution. Nutrients are also prevalent in nitrogen oxides from automobiles and power plants. They pollute the marine environment by feeding algal blooms present in coastal waters.  Nutrients further play a role in decomposing algae, consequently robbing the water of oxygen and eventually killing marine life. Nutrients spur red tides, producing toxins responsible for poisoning people, and killing fish.
  2. Sedimentssediments are a result of erosion from farming, mining, forestry, and coastal dredging. They pollute the marine environment by clouding water hence hindering photosynthesis below the surface waters. 
  3. Pathogens– the primary source of pathogens include livestock and sewage. Pathogens contaminate ocean waters and seafood, further spreading typhoid, cholera, and other diseases.
  4. Plastics– millions of plastics in oceans contribute heavily to marine pollution. The main source of plastics in the marine environment include fishing nets, beach litter, and wastes from the plastic industry. Plastic litter coasts and beaches and they can remain in the ocean water for hundreds of years. Plastic debris is known to entangle marine life, causing deaths and severe injuries. Plastic causes about 60-90% of all pollution in aquatic ecosystems.
  5. Radioactive substances– these substances come from military waste and a discarded nuclear submarine. They can further originate from industrial wastes and atmospheric fallout.
  6. OilOil from cars, industries, oil tankers, and heavy machinery accounts for 33% of marine pollution. Oil contamination in the oceans can kill marine life. Tar and other petroleum by-products litter coastal habitats and beaches.
  7. Noise Noise from large water vessels such as supertankers also pollutes the marine environment a great deal. Loud noise can be heard miles away underwater. Noise suppresses marine life. It even scares away fish and various types of marine life.

In summary, marine pollution is either caused by trash or chemicals. Of importance is to appreciate the role of plastics in marine pollution. As a significant pollutant, plastics also disintegrate into microplastic, which is consumed by organisms in the oceans. Scientists have not identified with certainty the effects of microplastics.

Effects of marine pollution

The overabundance of marine pollution has adverse consequences. Below are the major implications of marine pollution.

  • Kills marine life and jeopardizes human healthpollution leaves debris in the water. The waste is hazardous and chemically harmful. They can kill a wide array of marine life. Courtesy of marine pollution discarded broken glass, plastic and metal cans can harm fish and humans. Trash litters beaches alongside coastal areas, hence affecting human life. When in large quantities, debris can hinder ships from navigating.
  • Pollutants in the food chain- fish and other water creatures can consume pollutants, including chemicals, heavy metals, and garbage. Since humans consume these animals, the pollutants in them can quickly get to the food chain, finally accumulating in various seafood consumed by humans. Marine pollution contaminates shellfish and mussels that the seafood industry relies on.
  • Source of ailments– marine pollution exposes humans who come into contact with contaminated water to several illnesses. For instance, a reproductive system failure can occur from prolonged exposure to toxic agricultural and industrial chemicals. Pollutants in ocean waters can expose humans to eye and skin irritation. Moreover, liver and lung problems can develop following exposure to oil by-products and oil spillages in the oceans. 
  • Disrupts the aquatic environment– the excess phosphorous and nitrogen resulting from widespread water pollution can lead to algal blooms. This disruption affects the ecosystem since algae overrun the ecosystem over time. Once alga blooms start to decompose and sink, the ocean waters’ oxygen levels can deplete drastically. This creates dead zones since marine life is unable to thrive in that hostile aquatic environment. Eventually, the disruption caused scares away fish and other marine species, prompting them to leave. Other fish species die if they are unable to flee.
Plastic pollution is a problem
Plastic bags are a major cause of pollution. They often end up affecting domestic and wild animals. Sea creatures are perhaps the most affected by plastic (Image by Francis Ray from Pixabay)

How can we prevent marine pollution?

As detrimental as marine pollution is to the environment, this pollution can be prevented. Below are actionable ways of preventing marine pollution.

  1. Embracing biodegradable plastic options

Plastics have various adverse effects on the environment and are leading contributors to marine pollution. Plastic containers that we utilize on an everyday basis are non-recyclable. They end up in waterways, eventually getting into the oceans.

We should switch to biodegradable plastic options. Such options aren’t hazardous to the environment, and they decompose rather quickly. As such, the chances of biodegradable containers getting to the oceans are minimal.

  1. Managing ballast water effectively.

Ballast water helps with maintaining the ship’s stability and maneuverability as it navigates in oceans. This water hosts sea animals, and hence it has implications on the aquatic ecosystems once discharged.

The environmental pollution caused by ballast water can be dealt with effectively by the maritime authority. For instance, maritime companies can switch to huge containerships since they use a smaller volume of ballast water. Again, ships can use blast water that contains fewer creatures. 

  1. Installing tight air seals in ships

Oil spillages are prevalent in the oceans. They kill many fish spices each year. To prevent such disastrous spillages that jeopardize the marine environment, ships should have tight air seals to prevent accidental spillages.

  1. Taking part in beach clean-ups

Trash is detrimental to the marine environment since it litters beaches and further contaminates ocean waters. Eliminating trash is an excellent precaution measure to counter marine pollution. Since rubbish will forever find its way to the marine environment, the public should be encouraged to take part in regular beach clean-ups.

  1. Reducing rubbish and recycling

We should reduce our quantities of rubbish. These actions significantly reduce the amount of waste that usually gets into the oceans. Recycling is an effective way of reducing litter. Papers, plastic containers, and cans can be recycled. Companies also need to lower their packaging to reduce rubbish in the long-run.

  1. Avoid draining sewage into the oceans.

Sewage leads to massive water pollution. It also packs infectious bacteria that cause diseases such as typhoid and cholera.  Despite a booming construction industry, builders should be prohibited from draining sewage into oceans to save the marine environment.

Let us work at addressing the marine pollution problem

Marine pollution is rife. Worse still, this pollution is caused by multiple factors, all of which are challenging to keep at bay. Nonetheless, action ought to be taken to counter marine pollution, preventing it from compromising the marine life and human health.

Marine pollution is an urgent environmental issue. Trash and chemicals from land and ships pollute the vital aquatic ecosystems, with plastics being a major pollutant.

David Okul is an environmental management professional with over 10 years experience on donor projects, conservation, forestry, ecotourism, and community-based natural resources management. When not working on  active environmental management projects, I spend my time writing for Silvica on a variety of topics.

The post Sources, effects and how to prevent marine pollution appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>
1056
The coronavirus is causing an increase of plastic pollution https://silvica.site/major-environmental-concerns/ Mon, 25 May 2020 18:04:38 +0000 http://silvica.site/?p=1014 Coronavirus plastic pollution is rife as most of the medical supplies have plastic components. This is aggravating an already serious plastic waste problem.

The post The coronavirus is causing an increase of plastic pollution appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>

By David Okul

Various blogs, NGOs, and news agencies have documented the environmental benefits of coronavirus. Notwithstanding the short-term ecological advantages, coronavirus plastic pollution is rife.

Plastic is a significant component for most of the things we use to manage the virus, such as gloves, masks, sanitizer bottles, and other medical equipment. Unfortunately, most of the public discard plastics poorly such that massive plastic pollution is looming.

The coronavirus pandemic is responsible for massive plastic pollution.  This article delves into the solid waste pollution effects of COVID 19, specifically plastic pollution.

Unbanning the use of single-use plastics

Some countries and cities had banned the use of single-use plastic bags. Nonetheless, industry players are pushing for the ban purportedly lifted to supply the much-needed protective equipment.

In response, nations and cities are reinstating the use and manufacturing of single-use plastic bags during the pandemic.  After all, many people believe that avoiding the use of reusable bags is limiting the spread of the virus. As such, governments are encouraging supermarkets to give free disposable plastic bags. These developments are a threat to the hard-won environmental benefits associated with the ban on the use and manufacture of plastics.

Environmentalists have expressed worry that lifting the plastic ban will undermine all the efforts aimed at reducing single-use plastics. 

Reduced recycling of plastic waste

The recycling industry, like other industries, has been shut down following the pandemic.  The shutdown means that recycling plants are not recycling the additional plastic products emanating from the management of the virus.

Even more concerning is the higher cost of recycling plastics. Oil is a primary raw material for the manufacture of plastics. The coronavirus has made the price of oil go to a record low, which means that it is easier to manufacture new plastic instead of recycling.

As such, coronavirus plastic pollution will continue to surge during the pandemic. Worse still, nations will lack the capacity to recycle the massive volumes of plastic waste after the pandemic.

An increase in plastic medical waste

Plastics have been vital for keeping hospitals and health facilities running smoothly during the ongoing pandemic. They are the bedrock of protective gear and medical equipment. The pandemic has resulted in massive production of plastic medical supplies. For instance, Ferrari, which is among the world’s leading automobile companies, recently started production of the thermoplastic components required for respiratory valves.

On the other hand, Apple has embarked on massive production of plastic face shields specifically for medical professionals. Simply put, the pandemic has encouraged the overproduction of plastic medical supplies.  As the demand for plastic medical supplies skyrockets, one thing is apparent. The volume of plastic medical waste will rise rapidly. Over time, this waste will contribute to the billions of tons of plastic waste.

Plastics are ubiquitous, more so during medical pandemics (Source Image by Klaus Hausmann from Pixabay)

Sustainability has been thrown out of the window.

COVID 19 has significantly altered how consumers use plastic bags alongside other disposable products.  The dangers of disposable plastics seem to be overly assumed, notwithstanding the concern over hygiene and health during the Coronavirus pandemic. Players in the food industry are encouraged to offer to take away options and home deliveries. Some even prohibit consumers from bringing their food containers. As such, consumers are somewhat forced to switch to disposable food packaging options. Such options only generate extensive plastic waste in the long-run. In such instances, most consumers can do little to cut their plastic waste.

Ironically, the same ‘hygienic’ plastic expose others to health risks

Certain groups of the world’s population are at high risk of adverse health risks from exposure to plastic waste. For instance, garbage collectors, cleaners, and people who spend countless hours in public spaces are vulnerable to COVID 19. The people responsible for keeping the environment clean are highly susceptible to coronavirus as well.  Droplets lingering on discarded gloves and masks may infect such people. Apart from being exposed to COVID 19, these people can also get other types of infections from pathogens lingering on discarded protective equipment. For instance, they can catch Hepatitis B and meningitis. 

The oceans’ plastic burden is worsening

The COVID 19 pandemic has sparked a demand for personal protective equipment across the world. Nations insist that their citizens should wear face masks and gloves in public. While such precaution measures are vital for keeping the coronavirus spreading at bay, the impact of protective equipment is palpable on the streets across the world. There are dozens of discarded masks and gloves all over the residential places in virtually all states.

Eventually, the wastes reach into the oceans following heavy rains. This waste is now worsening the oceans’ plastic burden, which is already choking under the massive volume of plastic waste.

The pandemic poses a threat to the fight against plastic pollution

Environmentalists have expressed concerns that the gains made on the war against plastic pollution are quickly being reversed during the pandemic.  Before the lockdowns, the use of plastic bags was in retreat.  Various governments had subjected plastics to strict restrictions in many places. As such, the world was becoming highly mindful of plastic products. Companies were opting for more sustainable packaging options.  

As mentioned before, the use of plastic primarily for making protective gear is surging. Also, suppliers are increasingly using single-use plastic to wrap products as it is more hygienic. The scenario is threatening to undo the many years of progress witnessed after the ban of plastic products.

An overall increase in plastic pollution

The plastic pollution rate was reducing after some nations agreed to ban single-use plastic products. Nonetheless, plastic pollution is now at its peak after governments suspended the ban on these products. During the pandemic, plastic waste is prevalent in public and residential areas. If the COVID-19 situation persists for several months, plastic pollution will continue to rise drastically.  Although the UN has called for plastic pollution awareness during the pandemic, coronavirus plastic pollution is fast taking center stage.  Plastic pollution poses a risk to human health. Furthermore, plastic pollution is to blame for the death of millions of marine species. It is also a serious threat to human health thanks to the toxins that find their way to human food.

The Coronavirus pandemic has led to an increase in plastic pollution. Apart from creating plastic pollution awareness, the world must focus on more sustainable choices for all the protective equipment needed by citizens during the pandemic. Moreover, recycling plastic waste should be done expeditiously to stop the ongoing massive coronavirus plastic pollution, which is detrimental to humans, wildlife, and marine life.

David Okul is an environmental management professional with over 10 years experience on donor projects, conservation, forestry, ecotourism, and community-based natural resources management. When not working on  active environmental management projects, I spend my time writing for Silvica on a variety of topics. Views on this blog post are personal

The post The coronavirus is causing an increase of plastic pollution appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>
1014
The Positive Effects of Coronavirus on the Air Pollution Globally https://silvica.site/positive-effects-of-coronavirus-on-air-pollution/ Sun, 24 May 2020 06:59:50 +0000 http://silvica.site/?p=998 The Covid-19 has had a devastating effect globally. Regardless, the positive effects of coronavirus on air pollution are visible.

The post The Positive Effects of Coronavirus on the Air Pollution Globally appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>

By David Okul

COVID-19 has brought the world to a standstill. However, the coronavirus has had some positive impacts on the environment, at least in the short-run. One of the significant positive effects of lockdowns is the decline in air pollution.  Even the most densely populated megacities are now witnessing their lowest levels of pollution in several decades.

The scenario can be attributed to a reduction in industrial and commercial activity. Nonetheless, we know that the decrease in air pollution due to the coronavirus is temporary. That notwithstanding, there exists a fundamental connection between coronavirus and pollution. This article focuses on how the virus has contributed to the decline in air pollution.

Lockdowns have resulted in the decline of air pollution

Governments worldwide have ordered billions of people to stay in their residential areas to contain the virus.  Some governments, such as China and Italy, had placed millions of people under strict lockdown. As a result, the world has witnessed a pause in pollution, something it hasn’t experienced in so many years.

Whereas many forms of pollution have declined substantially since the onset of the pandemic, air pollution has recorded the most significant decline. Global reports indicate that air pollution has dropped by 25% during the first month of the pandemic.  Primarily because of the reduction in travel and production. In China alone, the nation has recorded a 30% and 50% decline in carbon and nitrogen oxide emissions.  Following a reduction in air pollution, the world is relatively less vulnerable to climate change, and other associated problems of air pollution.

Better still, the world has arguably experienced the best air quality in the recent past. European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA have been monitoring air pollution during the first phase of the pandemic. The two bodies concluded that carbon emissions had dropped significantly, and the world is enjoying the best possible air quality.

Clear blue skies

Air pollution usually obscures the skyline, particularly in major industrial cities worldwide. However, this hasn’t been the case since the pandemic hit the world. Nitrogen levels in industrial cities such as Los Angeles, Shanghai, and Berlin have plummeted since the start of the pandemic. Smog is clearing up over cities that were once labeled as pollution havens.

Since the start of lockdowns and quarantines, industries have slowed down their activities. As a result, some high-rise buildings that had been covered by smog for years are now visible from miles away. In Jakarta, the Philippines, air pollutants had plummeted by 180% since the Philippine government introduced quarantine measures in March 2020.

 Before these measures came into effect, the city’s skyline was synonymous with fog.  But the pandemic has led to the disappearance of the fog. 

Reduction in pollution-related deaths

Pollution accounts for over 4 million deaths worldwide. Some of the pollution-related ailments include lung cancer, heart disease, stroke, and other types of chronic respiratory conditions. Since a significant size of the world’s population lives in pollution-prone areas, billions of people are vulnerable to pollution-related ailments.

 There has been a substantial decline in all forms of pollution since COVID-19, as demonstrated by a Chinese study. Moreover, the number of people succumbing to pollution-related deaths has recorded a sharp decline even as coronavirus takes its toll on human life. Nevertheless, the reduction in pollution-related deaths is temporary thanks to the measures introduced to combat COVID 19. Therefore, a long-term approach must be embraced to ensure the trend continues long after the pandemic.

coronavirus positive effect on decline of air pollution
A town in China showing air pollution levels after and before the covid-19 lockdowns

Slashed greenhouse emissions

Greenhouse gas emissions have declined sharply, owing to reduced air and road traffic.  For instance, China reduced its CO2 emissions by 25% because of the crises. In Europe, CO2 emissions from electricity reduced by 39% while India’s carbon emissions fell for the first time in forty years. There are numerous stats on the effect of lower emissions levels from the coronavirus. Perhaps the most remarkable stat is that COVID-19 has six times more impact on carbon emissions when compared to the financial crisis of 2008. 

However, it would be a fallacy to insinuate that greenhouse gas emissions reduction is a substantial environmental improvement.  After all, the emissions will ultimately rise to their past levels once the pandemic reaches an end.  Nevertheless, green coronavirus recovery measures will help reduce emissions levels and maybe be better for the economy! 

To reiterate, the coronavirus has not reduced GHG in the atmosphere. In May 2020, National Geographic reported atmospheric greenhouse gases were at 418 parts per million- the highest in recorded history. Reduction of GHG from the atmosphere will require reduce of emissions over longer period of time. 

In short, coronavirus has led to reduced pollutants in the air

The air pollution effects of the novel COVID 19 are crystal clear. While the virus is responsible for a devastating global misery, it has provided a reprieve as far as pollution is concerned. Globally, the world is experiencing its lowest levels of pollution in modern, thanks to COVID 19. That is not to say that we want the virus to persist. Instead, we should appreciate that it is possible to reduce air pollution, a critical contributor to climate change.  

David Okul is an environmental management professional with over 10 years experience on donor projects, conservation, forestry, ecotourism, and community-based natural resources management. When not working on  active environmental management projects, I spend my time writing for Silvica on a variety of topics.

The post The Positive Effects of Coronavirus on the Air Pollution Globally appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>
998
Plastic Bans in the world: A look at the countries that have implemented full or partial plastic bags bans and taxes https://silvica.site/plastic-bans-in-the-world-a-look-at-the-countries-that-have-implemented-full-or-partial-plastic-bags-bans-and-taxes/ Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:43:59 +0000 http://silvica.site/?p=411 By David OkulJuly 18, 2019 Plastic bags were hailed as one of the marvelous inventions of the 20th century. Although the product was primarily invented

The post Plastic Bans in the world: A look at the countries that have implemented full or partial plastic bags bans and taxes appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>

By David Okul
July 18, 2019

Plastic bags were hailed as one of the marvelous inventions of the 20th century. Although the product was primarily invented in 1907 by Leo Baekelan, its widespread use occurred post World War II. Baekelan and other early inventors created plastic in small batches and the industrial production of polythene was in 1933 when a chemical plant in Northwich, England created it by accident. It was secretly used by the British military during World War 2. A Swedish company called Celloplast patented the polyethylene bag in 1965 by engineer Sten Gustaf Thulin.

It became even more popular in the 1970s in Europe and by 1980s most countries in the world had switched from the use of paper to plastic. By the mid-1990s, countries were appreciating the adverse environmental impacts of plastics. For instance, in 1997, a researcher discovered and reported the Great Pacific Garbage Patch that demonstrated how plastic was killing sea turtles as they mistook them for Jellyfish.

With the UN estimating that approximately 5 trillion bags of plastic are produced per year, plastics are often described as the number one consumer product in the world. But the plastic shopping bags are now emerging as one of the worlds’ most banned products because of their adverse environmental impacts. As of July 2018, the United Nations estimated that 127 nations have either implemented some sort of ban or tax for the bags. The bans are so widespread that even the terrorist group Al Qaeda joined in the banning. Strange world!

The European Union took steps to ban the bags as an effort to clean up the European beaches. The European Union targets that by 2025, plastic bottles should be made of recycled content and by 2029, 90% should be recycled.  In the United States, New York followed the steps took by California to ban the bags. Other states have mandatory recycling or reuse programs while at least 10 states have placed preemptive bans.  Reusethisbag presents a list of countries that have implemented some sort of restrictions

Countries that have banned plastic
Many countries are realising the harmful effects of plastic to the environment and health. Over half of the countries in the world place some restrictions on plastics (Source: Reusethisbag)

Countries in the third-world (such as Bangladesh, Cameroon, Burundi, Rwanda, Myanmar, Kenya and Nepal)are leading the world in banning plastic. More developed countries (e.g. Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom) tend to favor taxes in controlling the plastic menace. Many other countries favor partial bans or tax.

Countries are increasingly taking action against plastics

Bangladesh implemented a ban in 2002. Before the ban, there was a widespread fallacy that plastic bans and taxes would disproportionately harm poor nations and people who relied on the ‘free’ or inexpensive plastic paper bags to carry their belongings. As of April 2019, Africa led the bans with 34 countries implementing bans and taxes. 31 of the countries were in sub-Saharan Africa, among the world’s poorest regions. Kenya implemented a ban in 2017. Its ban is among the most punitive with violators facing up to 4 years in prisons and/or US$ 38,000 in fines for using or distributing plastics.

Generally, the bans have proven to be a success in reducing the number of plastic wastes generated. For instance, Denmark passed the first plastic bag tax in 1993 and on average, a person uses four plastic bags a year. In contrast, a person in the United States uses 300 bags a year.

The bans of plastic bags often spawn to the bans of other products such as plates, cups, cutlery, straws, and bottles. Single-use plastics account to 40% of the plastics manufactured on the global scale.

Despite the numerous bans on the product, plastic bags are still ubiquitous in many parts of the world. Part of the reason for the limited success of the bans is the political opposition to the bans. Additionally, the WRI (2018) report that over 90% of the countries implementing bans favored partial over total bans. Partial bans have various exceptions on thicknesses and usability. For instance, In Kenya, companies can use plastic bags to package their products as long as they label them.

At Silvica, we believe that responsible consumer behavior is key in addressing the issues of plastic menace. If consumers are to increasingly shun plastic packaged products, the industry will be forced to comply. But, the issue is not as easy as that. Plastic is probably the cheapest form of packaging and consumers will often prefer cheaper products. Talk of conundrums!

Single Use plastic is a pertinent environmental problem of the day
A banner against a backdrop of a polluted ocean, mainly because of single use plastic (Image Source: Daniel Müller / Greenpeace)

David Okul is an environmental management professional with over 10 years experience on donor projects, conservation, forestry, ecotourism, and community-based natural resources management. When not working on  active environmental management projects, I spend my time writing for Silvica on a variety of topics. 

The post Plastic Bans in the world: A look at the countries that have implemented full or partial plastic bags bans and taxes appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>
411
Are Plastics back in Kenya Despite the Ban? https://silvica.site/are-plastics-back-in-kenya-despite-the-ban/ Thu, 18 Jul 2019 08:04:47 +0000 http://silvica.site/?p=404 By David OkulJuly 18, 2019 On the 28th August 2017, the then Cabinet Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Professor Judy Wakhungu, banned the use,

The post Are Plastics back in Kenya Despite the Ban? appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>

By David Okul
July 18, 2019

On the 28th August 2017, the then Cabinet Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, Professor Judy Wakhungu, banned the use, manufacture, and importation of plastic bags used for commercial and household packaging through the Gazette Notice number 2334 and 2356. Kenya followed the footsteps of countries such as Denmark, Bangladesh, and Rwanda that had implemented a plastic ban. And, its penalties are among the harshest in the world.

The ban affected all plastic secondary package carrier bags notwithstanding their thickness or color. Nevertheless, flat plastic bags for industrial primary packaging were exempt from the ban as long as they were not available for sale outside the industrial setting and they should be printed with the name of the company and the product. Also, the ban did not affect plastic sheets for construction and greenhouses, cling films, and adhesive tapes.

Plastics are known to cause a myriad of environmental problems.

Plastic pollution is a problem
Plastic bags are a major cause of pollution. They often end up affecting domestic and wild animals. Sea creatures are perhaps the most affected by plastic (Image by Francis Ray from Pixabay)

Plastic pollution have diverse negative effects that range from climate change to animal health. Bans on plastics go a long way in addressing some of the effects of plastics

Plastic must be the bad boy of pollution

The primary purpose of the ban was to reduce plastic pollution in the country. Although the convenience of plastic bags is virtually unmatched, it also brings extraordinary environmental problems. For instance, the material doesn’t biodegrade and would most likely end up in the ocean leading to devastating consequence to the marine life.

In theory, some of the plastic wastes could be recycled. However, only 1-3% of plastic is recycled in practice. The rest of the plastic is ubiquitous in landfills, oceans and the streets. The pollution is not only present at the disposal stage as its production process is also a concern. Plastic production uses up to 8% of global oil resources.

Kenya banned plastic because of the environmental problems associated with it. The plastic bags were, and are still an eyesore, in some of the major towns in Kenya. The eyesore was also present in some of Kenya’s unrivaled natural heritage sites such as the beautiful Masai Mara.  For the residents of cities such as Nairobi, plastic bags were a major contributor to the blockage of drainages leading to flooding. Numerous reports have also shown that plastic bags were eaten by livestock and wildlife to their detriment. Moreover, they also presented public health risks as reusing plastic is a hotbed for pathogens.

The decision to ban plastic in Kenya was certainly welcome by a variety of stakeholders including environmentalists and public health professionals.

The imperfect ban

The common saying half a loaf of bread is better than no bread could apply to the plastic ban in Kenya. An imperfect ban would be better than no ban. The ban is imperfect because of two reasons. First, polypropylene is still widely used in Kenya. Secondly, it is suspected that single-use plastic bags are making a comeback. Although they are still plastics, polypropylene reusable and are not as thin as the polythene bags that could be easily carried by the wind.

However, a more concerning issue is the observation of the re-emergence of plastic bags. The small colorless plastic bags are noticeable in most market areas of Kenya. Does this mean that the government is more relaxed about the plastic ban?

Supermarkets have complied with the ban in Kenya, but not the small scale traders
A trader in Kenya displays some of her goods in the supposedly banned single use plastic bags (Photo from The East African).

Businesses such as supermarkets have complied with the ban. Additionally, companies that used to manufacture the bags have stopped, and closed, or resorted to other businesses. Nevertheless, The EastAfrican reported in 2018 that the ‘banned’ plastic bags are back amongst small traders vending fruits, vegetables, milk, meat, and paraffin. However, the vendors rarely display the bags in public. Many choose to use the bags only for the customers they know and trust. New customers are often told to bring their own carrier bags.

The small traders claim that plastic bags are their ideal packaging material because of its convenience. The product is still cheap and is their preferred packaging material because of its hygienic and unbulky nature. Most of the traders claim that they are using plastic bags because they see their colleagues use them. The major fear that the traders have is that they may lose business to the traders who have the bags.

Ironically, the buyers claim that it is the traders fault. The EastAfrican report that one of the buyers’ claim, “I’m only buying goods, so I take them in whatever material they’re packed in.” It is difficult to assign blame, but we think the buyer should steal demand that the goods bought should be packed in ‘legal’ packaging. After all, the risks for using and distributing plastic bags in Kenya is up to 4 years in prison and fines that could range from $19,417 and $38,834.

Obviously, there are dealers who distribute the bags to traders as the bags are readily available in most parts of Kenya. The EastAfrican report that a pack of 200 flat bags used to retail at US$ 0.3 and 0.5, but it now costs at US$ 1.5. The trade of flat plastic bags must be a booming business!

It is suspected that most of the bags in Kenya emanate from Uganda. The Kenyan environmental czar, the National Environmental and Management Authority (NEMA) is aware of the mushrooming business of illegal plastic trade. It warns that users and distributors of illegal plastic risk severe punishment from the law.

At Silvica, we think the buyer has the greatest responsibility in ensuring that the plastic ban in Kenya is effective. Buyers should carry their own packaging materials when they are making purchases. They should insist on avoiding purchasing goods packaged in illegal plastic. Businesses are only responding to the demands of the buyer. After all, the plastic ban is beneficial to the small scale traders as it relieves them of the responsibility of packaging material for the products!

References and Resources

David Okul is a freelance writer, and a PhD student at a Kenyan university

The post Are Plastics back in Kenya Despite the Ban? appeared first on Silvica: Blog for Sustainable Development .

]]>
404