OUR DIGITAL WORLD IS NOT SO CLEAN

OUR DIGITAL WORLD IS NOT SO CLEAN
Allan Maynard, MSc. – October 2021

A 4 MINUTE READ — The internet and associated technologies have taken over our lives with an ecological impact that is impossible to ignore.
This is the next article in the series – “FOOTPRINTS – By the numbers” – addressing the environmental impact (or FOOTPRINT) of some of our normal, everyday lives.

When I was growing up in the 1950s – phones were attached to the wall with the phone lines shared with neighbours – “the party line” as it was called. The first computer I encountered was in 1966 at Simon Fraser University. It was the size of a living room and basically processed calculations. Fast forward to now.

In the space of 50 years, the digital world has grown to become crucial to the functioning of society. Computer processing power has increased a staggering 1 trillion times between the early 80s and now. The revolution has proceeded at breakneck speed — approximately 4.1 billion people, or 53.6% of the global population, now use the internet. No technology has reached more people in as short a space of time and it is far from finished.

The benefits of digital technology are immeasurable – society can no longer carry on without it. However, the negative aspects of the internet are also many and growing – One of the many significant negative aspects is — THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

ONE OF GOOGLE’S DATA CENTERS

CARBON FOOTPRINT

Every single search query, every streamed song or video and every email sent, billions of times over all around the world all adds up to an ever-increasing global demand for electricity by the central servers and data storage centers. Our increasing reliance on digital tools has an environmental impact that’s becoming increasingly harder to ignore.

One of the difficulties in working out the carbon footprint of our internet habits is that few can agree on what should and should not be included. In reviewing the literature though – most reports calculate that the carbon footprint of our gadgets, the internet and the systems supporting them account for about 3.4 to 4% of global greenhouse emissions – comparable to the global airline industry. These emissions are expected to double by 2025.

Most significant in energy use is cryptocurrency. Solving the equations to acquire new bitcoins (referred to as “mining”) requires large volumes of computer hardware that frequently overheats and is extremely energy intensive. Estimates put the annual energy usage of bitcoin mining equivalent to that of Sweden or Malaysia.
And as these “mines” multiply, their operations begin to stretch and even overwhelm national power grids. Iran banned bitcoin mining last month after it led to blackouts. Multiple provinces in China, one of the world’s biggest producers of bitcoin, banned mining too, leading miners to relocate their hardware to sites of more traditional underground extraction in Canada and South Dakota.

POLLUTION FROM PRODUCTION OF OUR DEVICES

For their production, green energy and digital technologies require a variety of precious and rare earth metals. For the most part, they exist in minute quantities in metal ores that also contain more abundant metals such as copper. For example, a tonne of rock produces ONLY four to seven grams of the precious metal – platinum (about 0.0004 to 0.0007 %). The extraction of these minerals is difficult and complex, requiring abundant labour, chemicals, water, and land. Two examples (of many) are provided.

Example 1 – China produces 45% of the world’s metals and 95% of some of the key rare earth metals. It is also now the biggest consumer of metals in the world. China also has some of the most polluted rivers and land areas in the world due to this prominence. From north near the Mongolian border to south in Guangdong, China is struggling to clean up the environment polluted by mining. The clean-up process is expensive and time-consuming, and some say it could be 50-100 years for the environment to recover. A 2019 US Army report highlights a central issue driving rare-earth pollution in China: “China is less burdened with environmental or labor regulatory requirements that can greatly increase costs incurred in mining and manufacturing rare-earth products.”

Example 2 -In Malaysia, Mitsubishi Chemical is now engaged in a $100 million cleanup of its Bukit Merah rare earths processing site, which it closed in 1992 amid opposition from local residents and Japanese politicians and environmentalists. It is one of Asia’s largest radioactive waste cleanup sites, and local physicians said the thorium contamination from the plant has led to an increase in leukemia and other ailments.

WASTE FROM DISPOSAL (also called E-Waste)

An international study by Global Waste (see link below) concluded that the world dumped a record 53.6 million tonnes of e-waste last year. To put that in perspective this is equivalent to the weight of 350 cruise ships the size of the Queen Mary 2, To make matters worse, just 17 per cent (approximately) of it was recycled, meaning that an estimated $57 billion worth of gold, silver, copper, platinum and other high-value, recoverable materials used as components were mostly dumped or burned rather than being collected for treatment and reuse.

Planned Obsolescence – One important factor exacerbates the issue of E-Waste – Planned Obsolescence. This is the well documented fact that some of the world’s biggest companies have been selling products either knowing full well that they will only last a couple of years or having deliberately built a short lifespan into the item or its software. As an example, in the US – Apple paid millions to users related to allegations that software updates caused older iPhones – such as the iPhone 6, 6s Plus, 7 and 7 Plus – to slow down.

This is perhaps why the average time an individual keeps a smartphone is reckoned to be between two and three years. Astonishingly, according to EU research, the average lifetime of desktop printers is a mere five hours and four minutes of actual printing time. This is simply scandalous. However, a push back movement is developing – see link below on the “Right To Repair” movement.

While the overall damage done to the environment from all the unrecycled waste may be incalculable, the message from the Global Waste report was conclusive: “The way in which we produce, consume and dispose of e-waste is unsustainable.”

IS IT WORTH IT?

One wonders – where is all this headed? Even though we managed in the past, there is no doubt our world can no longer function without the internet and the associated technology. It allows people to be connected globally, it allows much better access to education, it allows rapid processing of data and an unprecedented ability for predictive science. Data storage and retrieval is many orders of magnitude better than before such digital powers were commonplace.

But in my view – and shared by many evaluating society — it is TOO MUCH. Do we need technology to open and close our curtains, to track the ‘best before’ dates of food in our fridges or to continuously monitor our back yards with a video cam? Do we need to see what our friends are having for dinner or watch silly pet videos or teenagers dancing in what should be their private spaces? Even more detrimental is the accelerated spread of misinformation and disinformation. I firmly believe that without the nonsense on Facebook etc., there would be much less resistance to the safe and effective CoVid vaccines.

Digital technologies have given rise to a new machine-based civilization that is increasingly linked to a growing number of social and political maladies. Accountability is weak and insecurity is endemic, creating disturbing opportunities for exploitation. Moreover, society is well entrenched in an era of surveillance capitalism. The companies at the core of the social media revolution — Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the like — vacuum up our personal data turning us into products for sale.


THE ANSWER – A BIG RESET: The manufacture, use and disposal of technology products is unstainable. Moreover, the benefits to society are being offset by many detrimental aspects. I believe that less is more. A great reset is needed to restore the initial intention of the internet. There is a very definite need for this massive industry to be much better regulated in all ways. Ron Deibert is Chair of the “The Citizen Lab”, an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. I agree with this conclusion in a CBC article about his research “In order to combat authoritarian practices, environmental degradation, and rampant electronic consumerism, Deibert urges restraints on tech platforms and governments to reclaim the internet for civil society” (see link below to Ron Deibert’s book).

https://www.myclimate.org/information/faq/faq-detail/what-is-a-digital-carbon-footprint/

https://www.army.mil/article/227715/an_elemental_issue

https://globalewaste.org/publications/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/global-ewaste-monitor-2020-1.5634759

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/02/apple-iphone-slow-throttling-lawsuit-settlement

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/apr/15/the-right-to-repair-planned-obsolescence-electronic-waste-mountain

CLIMATE CHANGE – INDUSTRY KNEW THIS WAS COMING

CLIMATE CHANGE – INDUSTRY KNEW THIS WAS COMING
Allan Maynard, MSc. August 5th, 2021.

Sometimes a picture can express many words. This graphic does just that. Many believe it’s already too late to stop the warming that was predicted decades ago.

UNPRECEDENTED EXTREMES

There is little doubt now. Climate change is dangerously impacting societies the world over. As forests burn and cities drown, as crops wither and people die, the question looms louder than ever this summer: What will it take for leaders to finally act? Consider the following recent extreme events – many unprecedented.

• In late June 2021, it was a deadly heat wave in the north-west Americas that smashed Canada’s all-time temperature record by more than 5 degrees C and caused around 500 to 600 heat related deaths in each of British Columbia, Oregon and Washington. The World Weather Attribution Organization (see link below) reports that this was the “the most anomalous heat event ever observed on Earth.”

Burnt-out cars stand in front of a ruined building in Lytton, B.C., on July 9, 2021. (Bethany Lindsay/CBC News). In late June 2021, Lytton recorded Canada’s highest ever temperature of 49.6 degrees C (121.3 degrees F).

• About 10 days later, it was devastating floods that turned streets into rivers and trapped people in cellars in Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and the UK.
• A few days after that, we observed horrifying visions of Chinese commuters trapped in Zhengzhou subway trains as flood waters pushed air out of the carriages. At least 33 people died in the city after a year’s worth of rain fell in four days.
• Other heat records were recently set in Turkey, Finland, Estonia and elsewhere, while savage forest fires in North America continue to rage, filling the skies with toxic smoke over a good portion of the continent.
• Massive floods are also deluging Nigeria, Uganda, and India in recent days, killing hundreds.
More than a million people are close to starvation amid Madagascar’s worst drought in history.
• In Siberia, tens of thousands of square miles of forest are ablaze. New data is now showing that the drastic warming in Siberia is unleashing methane stored in the frozen ground below. Methane is 84 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Forest fires in Siberia. The resulting smoke from forest fires such as this one and other fires and others around the world are highly dangerous to human health.

The U.N. climate officials are pleading for the world to heed the alarm bells, pointing out that these catastrophes are simply the latest in a ghastly string of warnings over decades, that the planet is hurtling down a treacherous path. Most alarming of all is that the science is now showing that climate change is making parts of the world too hot and humid for humans to survive.

PREDICTED LONG AGO (even by Industry)

In 1896, Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius created what was, in effect, the first model of climate change. After years of work and hand computations he made a striking prediction. He stated that if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubled it would raise global temperatures by 5 to 6 degrees. Today – that prediction holds up reasonably well. The CO2 concentration has almost doubled and warming in the arctic areas has increased over 7 degrees C.

Since the 1960s there have been plenty of modern warnings from scientists around the world. I can clearly recall one important warning more than 3 decades ago (1988), when James Hansen—then a NASA scientist, told the US Congress – “the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.” Another early prediction – a 1972 MIT study predicted that rapid economic growth would lead to societal collapse in the mid 21st century. A new paper shows we’re unfortunately right on schedule (see link below).

But consider this prediction from JAMES F. BLACK – SENIOR SCIENTIST FOR EXXONMOBIL – in the 1970s no less. – “There is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels … There are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert. (Some countries) would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed. Man has a time window of 5 to 10 years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical. Once the effects are measurable they might not be reversable.”

From this and other unearthed industry documents as well as highly credible research studies in the public domain – there is no escaping the fact that the fossil fuel industry knew this was coming.

INDUSTRY TACTICS – BILLIONS SPENT ON DENIAL AND DELAY

So – what was industry’s response to these dire and well-founded warnings, many from their own scientists? DENIAL AND DELAY. For the fossil fuel industry, climate change denial has been a multi-million-dollar endeavour. After all, trillions of dollars of assets will have to be left in the ground as the world moves towards renewable energy and away from energy based on fossil fuels. It is well documented that the public relations firms used to undermine climate change science are the same kinds of companies (along with their so-called ‘scientists’) that were hired to deny the truth linking lung cancer to cigarettes, industrial discharge to acid rain and CFCs (chloro-fluoro carbons) to ozone depletion. In all of these cases they have been soundly proven wrong. They fought science with junk-science but their message stuck. The denial reports, even though wrong, became the salvation for politicians who lacked the courage to confront the global warming threat, or even worse bowed to the wishes of their mega-donors.

LATEST INDUSTRY TACTIC – BLAME THE CONSUMERS

In the past few years, the denial strategy by industry has crumbled in the face of the many dramatic realities of climate change. For this reason, the fossil fuel industries have been settling on a new tactic to avoid being properly and necessarily regulated. That tactic? DEFLECTION – TO BLAMING THE CONSUMER.

You may recall my second article of the plastics series (The Myth of Plastic Recycling) describing the “Crying Indian” (played by an Italian actor) ad (see link below). The ad was a fraud. The ad was funded by the “Keep America Beautiful” organization founded and still mainly funded, by the beverage and packaging industries. While anti-littering campaigns should certainly be lauded, the sinister reality behind this campaign was to shift blame for packaging waste in the environment towards the users of the products rather than the manufacturers.

This tactic has now been embraced by the fossil fuel industries, factory agriculture and more. Michael Mann – the respected and widely published climate scientist has called this the Great Deflection Campaign in his new book “The New Climate War”. The idea, as with the packaging waste, is to shift the blame to consumers –buy smaller cars, fly less, eat less meat, buy clothes from recycled fibres, etc. It’s us consumers who are to blame – not institutions, manufacturers, or sub-standard government policies. Sure – consumer choice and individual action are needed, but these will not result in high-speed transport, funding for renewable energy research, or regulate toxic and greenhouse gas emissions.

WHAT THEN MUST WE DO?

This heading – the actual title of the Leo Tolstoy book dealing with poverty, exploitation, and greed as perennial aspects of the human condition, seemed appropriate to summarize. We are now facing a very rough road ahead. We have left it too long. Our biggest enemy is no longer climate denial but now it’s climate delay. The most dangerous opponents of change are no longer the shrinking minority who deny the need for action, but the supposed supporters of change who refuse to act at the pace that the science demands. Unless the world cuts emissions in half in this decade, we will probably lose the chance to avoid warming of significantly more than the 1.5C set out in the 2015 Paris Accord.

There is no way we will get out of this crisis without a massive intervention that is even grander in scope than the recovery from World War II. As Michael Mann points out – “there is no escape from climate change catastrophe that doesn’t involve policies aimed at societal decarbonization”. It will take behavioural change, incentivized by appropriate government policies, strict regulation, intergovernmental agreements, and massive technological innovation. Business as usual (in other words laissez-faire or hyper- capitalism) and the accompanying politics (bought and paid for by major corporations) is no longer an option. The politicians that are standing in the way of massive change and the accompanying investment must be voted out of office.

The actions we take defy the normal rhythm of political cycles. As Ed Miliband correctly points out in The Guardian “What we do in the next few years will have effects for hundreds of years to come”. Let us hope these actions take our world in the right direction as opposed. Otherwise, our children, grandchildren and future generations face an unthinkable terrifying future.

REFERENCES

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/07/07/pacific-northwest-heat-wave-climate/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xw3x/new-research-vindicates-1972-mit-prediction-that-society-will-collapse-soon

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/07/01/madagascar-climate-famine/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/climate-change-humidity/

https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/climate/

THE MYTH OF PLASTIC RECYCLING

https://unfccc.int/news/patricia-espinosa-there-is-no-path-to-15degc-without-the-g20

Michael Mann – The New Climate War – PublicAffairs – New York, 2021.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/30/climate-denial-delay-inaction-british-government

THE FASHION INDUSTRY’S DIRTY SECRET

FOOTPRINTS – By the numbers. The next few articles I will address the environmental impact (or FOOTPRINT) of some of our normal, everyday lives – buying and laundering clothes, our digital world, food production and consumption, and water use. Some of the numbers are astounding but we cannot address what we do not know. I’ll start with the fashion industry.

THE FASHION INDUSTRY’S DIRTY SECRET

BY Allan Maynard, MSc. 

OK – I know this article will not be very popular with some readers. Who does not like a little ‘retail therapy’ – a family shopping outing, touring the shops after dinner when travelling, and now, even more alluring – shopping on-line? One click – and a few days later a package arrives. And if it does not fit, we can send it back to an uncertain destiny. While I detest shopping for the most part, I also have enjoyed buying new clothes. 

But behind the glamorous ads and the alluring clothing boutiques, the garment industry has a dirty secret. I acknowledge that the title of this article is based on a highly recommended documentary produced by BBC entitled “FASHION’S DIRTY SECRETS” – see link at the end of this article. 

WHAT ARE CLOTHES MADE FROM

Clothes today are made from a wide range of different materials. Traditional materials such as cotton, linen and leather are still sourced from plants and animals. But most clothes are more likely to be made of materials and chemicals derived from fossil fuel-based crude oil – including polyester, nylon, acrylic, spandex, etc.). See figure below (note – cellulosics refers to wood-based fibers such as rayon and bamboo): 

BY THE NUMBERS 

There is an oft-cited factoid that “fashion is the second most polluting industry on the planet.”  It is difficult though to find actual proof of this and it depends greatly on the exact definition of “polluting”. It does not matter. The numbers are staggering. Here are some – not all:

  • 10% of global greenhouse emissions (CO2 and methane) come from the garment industry – more than from all air flights and shipping combined.
  • The clothing industry is the second largest consumer of water worldwide (1.5 trillion liters per year). This is especially alarming when considering that almost one-billion people do not have access to reliable drinking water.
  • Example re: water use – it takes 8,000 litres of water to create one pair of jeans / 3000 litres for one T-shirt/ 20,000 litres to make one kg of cotton.
  • Over 20% of all chemicals produced globally are used in the textile and apparel industries – as clothing fibers but also in clothing manufacturing (tanning, dyeing, bleaching, and wet processing).
  • All in all, the fashion industry is responsible for 20% of all industrial water pollution worldwide.
  • Only a small percentage of clothing that is no longer wanted by the purchaser is in turn donated or recycled. The rest goes to landfills. About 6% of waste in landfills comes from discarded clothing. The equivalent of one garbage truck full of clothes is burned or dumped in a landfill every second.
  • Every time we wash a synthetic garment around 2000 microfibers are released into the environment – resulting in an estimated 500,000 tons of microfibers entering the oceans per year. (see related article in this site on micro- and nano plastics).
  • Overall, microplastics are estimated to compose up to 31% of plastic pollution in the ocean.
  • On average, people bought 60% more garments in 2014 than they did in 2000 but only kept these clothes for half as long. The main culprit is FAST FASHION – see comments below. 

THE ARAL SEA

The Aral Sea crisis provides a very clear example of the impact of the garment industry. The Aral Sea, once considered the 4th largest lake in the world, is situated between Kazakhstan in the north and Uzbekistan in the south. It began shrinking in the 1960s and had largely dried (shrunk by more than 90% of its 1960 size) up by the 2010s. The reason — In the 1960s, the Soviet Union undertook a major water diversion project on the arid plains of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan. The region’s two major rivers, fed by snowmelt and precipitation in faraway mountains, were used to transform the desert into farms mainly to grow cotton. This outcome is considered one of the world’s most significant ecological disasters

The Aral sea has shrunk by more than 90% of its size since 1960.

THE MOST POLLUTED RIVER IN THE WORLD

The Citarum River on the island of Java (Indonesia) is considered the most polluted river in the world. Every day, no less than 20,000 tons of waste and 340,000 tons of wastewater, mostly from 2,000 textile factories, are discharged into the once clear and pristine waterways. I saw this for myself as my company had a laboratory in Indonesia. Its surface is completely covered by an unimaginable amount of waste and trash. And yet, the Citarum River is vital for the 25 million people who daily depend on it for agriculture, water, and electricity. It is a shocking demonstration of the unchecked and poorly managed textile industry producing many familiar brands available all around the world. 

The Citarum River – receives mostly untreated waste from over 2000 textile factories

WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Basically, the fashion industry is a clear example of global environmental injustice. With the rise of globalization and growth of a global economy, supply chains have become international, shifting the growth of fibers, the manufacturing of textiles, and the construction of garments to areas with cheaper labour. Out of sight – out of mind – but the human and environmental health risks associated especially with inexpensive clothing, are hidden throughout the lifecycle of each garment. From the growth of water-intensive cotton to the release of untreated dyes into local water sources, to workers’ low wages and poor working conditions; the environmental and social costs involved in textile manufacturing are widespread. 

From my viewpoint – this is an international trade issue requiring some kind of global undertaking – An ecotax? Trade embargos against offending countries? International standards around sustainability? 

As consumers – we can demand responsible clothing production, but most won’t do that. We can also buy less. I know – easier said than done. People love to shop. But do we really need FAST FASHION? Fast fashion is a term used to describe the readily available, inexpensively made fashion of today. The word “fast” describes how quickly retailers can move designs from the catwalk to stores, keeping pace with constant demand for more and different styles. Fast fashion is especially appallingly irresponsible. 

A few suggestions that should at least make us feel less powerless:

  • Check the labels – and try to buy clothing made from natural fibers grown sustainably. Or even better – from recycled fibers. 
  • If possible, buy high quality clothes that will last longer. This is a challenge though for many in this world who cannot afford this option. 
  • Buy less clothing – and keep the clothing in use longer. I still have a few T-shirts from the 1990s – old favourites.
  • Recycle unwanted clothing – via charities. It is my understanding that charities sell what they can from clothing donations and send the rest to fiber recycling operations.
  • Launder less – OK – I am no expert on laundry, but I would guess that many households launder clothing too frequently. Younger children can present a challenge in this regard. From my own experience and in talking to other parents and grandparents, young people often find it easier to place clothing just worn into a laundry bin rather than folding them up and wearing them a number of times more. Apparently – the recommendation for jeans is at least 6 wears before laundering. That suits me!

Many clothing brands claim to be addressing this issue with sustainability claims. Some are even producing clothes that need less laundering. We need to support those that can demonstrate sustainability. 

OK – now I need to go out and buy a new golf shirt. I better make sure I follow my own advice. Here’s one – organic cotton. I am not sure about the pants though. I would have to launder them too frequently. 

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1459009091541

https://www.commonobjective.co/article/what-are-our-clothes-made-from

http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/environmental%20impacts.htm

http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm

https://theconversation.com/humans-drained-the-aral-sea-once-before-but-there-are-no-free-refills-this-time-round-32513

https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/indonesias-citarum-the-worlds-most-polluted-river/

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/31/less-laundry-less-often-how-to-lighten-the-washday-load-on-the-environment

EARTH DAY – 2021 – DIRE WARNINGS WITH A RAY OF HOPE

EARTH DAY 2021 – DIRE WARNINGS WITH A DEGREE OF HOPE

BY Allan Maynard, MSc, April 2021

How is it possible that that most intelligent creature to ever walk the planet Earth is destroying its only home” – Jane Goodall

Last April 21st was the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. In my blog of that date, I stated – “By many measures our planet’s environment is having one of its best earth days in decades. The tragic pandemic that is causing so much human misery is also giving Planet Earth a rest – a much needed breather”.

This year unfortunately, the pandemic is still with us. But Planet Earth is not getting the same degree of relief. In fact, carbon dioxide emissions are forecast to jump this year by the second biggest annual rise in history, as “global economies pour stimulus cash into fossil fuels in the recovery from the Covid-19 recession. The leap will be second only to the massive rebound 10 years ago after the financial crisis and will put climate hopes out of reach unless governments act quickly”, the International Energy Agency has warned.   

However, there is a sense, especially after the US led April 22, 2021 climate summit, that business as usual is no longer an option in recovering from the economic consequences resulting from the pandemic. 

OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE

There is no longer a legitimate debate about the reality of global warming leading to climate change disasters. What was once a warning 50 years ago is now a part of everyday life around the world. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen from 280 PPM in 1970 to over 420 PPM in 2020. The temperature in the arctic is over 5 degrees warmer thereby shrinking sea ice by over 2.6 million square km and greatly affecting ocean currents.

In 2020 alone we witnessed deadly floods in SE Asia and Bangladesh, bushfires in Australia, wildfires in California and Siberia, both drought and record rainfall in China, and extreme storms from the Philippines to Nicaragua. The extremely active 2020 Atlantic hurricane season concluded with a record-breaking 30 named storms and 12 landfalling storms in the continental United States. Drought conditions now cover 85 per cent of Mexico. Lakes and reservoirs are simply drying up, including the country’s second-largest body of fresh water with millions of Mexicans now experiencing water shortages. 

Floods in Indonesia – from USA Today

There are many more stark examples. The main point – we are seeing dramatic levels of damage and health consequences due to environmental degradation and it’s getting worse each year.

DIRE WARNINGS 

The majority of environmental scientists are warning that many parts of planet earth are now experiencing ecocide – defined by the United Nations as “criminalized human activity that violates the principles of environmental justice, as by substantially damaging or destroying ecosystems or by harming the health and well-being of a species. Others claim that we are entering a 6th mass extinction. Consider 3 examples — 1) 60% of the worlds invertebrate population has vanished since the 1950s, 2) 90% of the ocean’s fish stocks have now been exploited, 3) 40% of the earth’s land area is now used for agriculture. 

A growing climate emergency means ever greater threats to water and food security, along with destabilised ecosystems. As climate change takes its toll on Earth’s physical planet, it will also cause social, economic, and political chaos as refugees flee areas that can no longer sustain them. By many measures, this is already happening.

On Earth Day 2021 (April 22nd), one hundred and one Nobel laureates, including the Dalai Lama, released an open letter directing governments around the world to sign up to a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty to help tackle the climate crisis. In this letter they state “Climate change is threatening hundreds of millions of lives, livelihoods across every continent and is putting thousands of species at risk. The burning of fossil fuels – coal, oil, and gas – is by far the major contributor.”

There is no question – we MUST confront the possibility that the threat from climate change may indeed be existential.

RAYS OF HOPE

Despite the dramatic consequences of and dire warnings about climate change and environmental destruction, there are some rays of hope. Here are 3 examples. 

Decoupling economic growth from CO2 emissions — Christiana Figueres is the former executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2010-2016). In a recent Op-Ed she writes “History will remember this decade as the climate turning point, the moment we finally woke up to the fact that despite (and because of) shocks like Covid-19, decarbonization — the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions — is now inevitable. The only question is how fast we will achieve it.” Thankfully, there is increasing evidence that the world is on a positive track to decouple CO2 emissions and economic growth breaking a long-established concept that economic growth requires more fossil fuel consumption. Since 2005, 32 countries (including the US and the UK but not Canada), each with a population of at least one million people, have decoupled (in absolute terms) emissions from economic growth, both for terrestrial emissions (those within national borders) and consumption emissions (emissions embodied in the goods consumed in a country). These countries prove that positive economic outcomes can be achieved in the transition to clean energy. 

Making Climate Change the Cornerstone of Recovery – Spurred by alarming science based evidence, growing public outcry, massively increased insurance costs and human migrations, — governments, industrial leaders and civil society leaders are finally waking up to the notion that climate is at the center of everything(health, food production, national security, equality, crime prevention and more). Europe has already allocated hundreds of billions of Euros to put climate front and center. As well, trillions in investments around the world are now going towards energy transition. 

May 3rd issue of Time Magazine

And now – importantly, the US is back at the table with a progressive ambitious plan along the lines of Europe’s. The US and Europe together represent 40% of the world’s economy so it is unquestioned that other countries will need to catch up or face possible trade sanctions. 

China’s latest five-year plan unveiled last month, disappointed many by failing to include a tougher target. However, at the recent US led summit this month, president Xi Jinping said China’s coal consumption would peak in 2025, which would take the country – and the world – a long way towards the cuts needed. Time will tell on this one but clearly the US and Europe will be paying very close attention.

Much Cheaper Renewable Energy – The International Energy Agency now confirms that solar is providing the cheapest energy the world has ever seen. In a quirk of history, what had begun as an American drive to wean itself off oil (started by the Carter administration and dropped by the Reagan administration) was eventually taken up by China, making solar power dirt cheap in the process. In the past decade, renewable prices have plummeted: onshore wind down 70%, solar by 89%. Both are now cheaper that coal.  With the rapid growth of renewable electricity, the case for electrifying transportation systems around the world becomes more and more obvious. 

PUSH BACK IS EXPECTED

Of course, there will be the usual push back against progressive plans from the fossil fuel industries along with the politicians, think-tanks, and media they support. From past observations, the loudest cries will center around government overreach and attempts to link the plans to socialism. It is important to remember however the important role government has played in all economic transformations. Consider for example the recoveries after World War II. Moreover, government lead initiatives in Canada and the US made possible the rail lines that opened our frontiers, electric grids in rural communities, highway systems everywhere, the invention and coomercialization of nuclear power and the space age (with accompanying satellite technology).  Even the internet (originally called ARPANET) was developed as a complex collaboration of universities, government agencies and industry – and funded by the US Dept. Of Defense. 

————————————-

IN SUMMARY – In my view, the extent of the dual crises (CoVid 19 and environmental collapse) requires extensive government involvement as we invest in a sustainable future. There is hope that the tides are turning. Most scientists and economists re-iterate the need for big, bold, and progressive initiatives and at least some leaders are listening. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/20/predictable-economic-effects-climate-change-have-started-appear/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/21/101-nobel-laureates-call-for-global-fossil-fuel-non-proliferation-treaty

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/20/carbon-emissions-to-soar-in-2021-by-second-highest-rate-in-history

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/19/planet-pursuit-profit-oil-companies-damage#comment-148148297

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/25/atlantic-ocean-circulation-at-weakest-in-a-millennium-say-scientists

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/25/insanely-cheap-energy-how-solar-power-continues-to-shock-the-world

https://fossilfueltreaty.org

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/22/opinions/climate-crisis-biden-summit-figueres/index.html

TEFLON – IS IT SAFE

TEFLON – IS IT SAFE?

By Allan Maynard                          March 4, 2021

Frying an egg is so easy in a Teflon pan

This was part of my breakfast a few mornings ago. And yes – it’s in a Teflon frying pan. It’s so easy – a tiny (well maybe not too tiny) dollop of butter, crack the egg in, flip after partial frying and out slides the perfect over medium fried egg. But – is Teflon safe? Because I am an environmental chemist, I must have determined that Teflon is safe. However, it is not that simple. 

WHAT IS TEFLON? – OK – (eye roll) – a short chemistry lesson. Carbon is an amazing element. Because of the great variety of ways that the carbon atom can bond with itself and other elements, there are more than nine million known organic compounds including hydrocarbon fuels, proteins, fats, sugars, cellulose, pesticides, dyes and more. Some carbon compounds are simple. Carbon with four hydrogens (CH4) is methane (natural gas). Carbon with one other carbon, six hydrogens and one oxygen forms ethyl alcohol (C2H6O). 

Many organic molecules are not overly stable. But when carbon combines with chlorine atoms for example, the resulting molecules can be very stable with some highly detrimental to the environment. One notorious example, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane or C14H9Cl5) was developed as the first of the modern synthetic insecticides in the 1940s. 

When carbon binds with fluorine atoms many of the resulting compounds are even more stable with most now called “forever chemicals”. Hundreds of everyday products are made with fluorinated chemicals called PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These compounds can build up in our bodies and never break down in the environment. Very small doses of PFAS have been linked to cancer, reproductive and immune system harm, and other diseases. Teflon is a PFAS. 

And that is the end of the chemistry lesson with a lot of big names to remember (or not). 

WHY IS TEFLON CONTROVERSIAL YET SO WIDELY USED? – This is where the Teflon story begins. It is a type of PFAS – more specifically by its chemical name – polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). It was discovered by DuPont in 1938, branded under the name Teflon, and initially manufactured by a spin-off company called Chemours.  Because of its stability, it doesn’t react with other chemicals and can provide an almost frictionless surface. Thus – it is widely used as a coating in cooking pots and pans, but is also used in many other products, such as fabric protectors. 

A magazine with a pair of sunglasses on it

Description automatically generated with low confidence

A 1950s ad for Teflon pans.

It’s the process of manufacturing Teflon that has been the main source of controversy. Another man-made chemical is used as a precursor. That chemical is called Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8. It is burned off during the process of making Teflon itself and is thus likely not present in significant amounts in the final products. However, PFOA (or C8) has created severe environmental damage in locations near plants manufacturing Teflon. 

Starting in 1998, multiple lawsuits were filed in US courts against DuPont in relation to C8 used to produce Teflon. Local farmers, residents and company workers claimed to have suffered illnesses and livestock mortalities linked to pollution from DuPont’s Parkersburg plant in West Virginia. In one class action lawsuit settled in 2005, DuPont agreed to provide up to 235 million dollars for medical monitoring of over 70,000 people. These monitoring studies found that residents who drank water from wells near the plant, had a median level of 38 parts per billion of C8 (or PFOA) in their blood — 7.6 times more than the average American. In 2012, a science panel concluded (from these studies) a “probable link” existed between C8 and six diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high cholesterol. Since then, there have been numerous individual lawsuits from victims of PFOA-related diseases. In February 2017, DuPont settled over 3,550 lawsuits for 671 million dollars.

Of interest – the legal case against Dupont is accurately covered in the drama “Dark Waters’ starring Mark Ruffalo playing the role of Robert Billott, the Cincinnati, Ohio attorney that was the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. Here’s a review

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dark-waters-movie-review-2019

Rather than having a major battle in developing regulations for the use of these chemicals, the US – EPA and the 8 US manufacturers who used C8 agreed, in 2006, to a “stewardship program.” The goal was for the companies to eliminate C8 from emissions and product contents by the end of 2015. Now, C8 and some closely related chemicals are no longer used in the US. However, they are still used in a number of other countries and could potentially reach consumers in certain types of products.

SO NOW THE QUESTION – IS IT SAFE TO FRY AN EGG IN A TELFON PAN?  – It would seem that the use of Teflon pans, especially new ones is safe. This is a quote from the American Cancer Institute. “Other than the possible risk of flu-like symptoms from breathing in fumes from an overheated Teflon-coated pan, there are no proven risks to humans from using cookware coated with Teflon (or other non-stick surfaces). While PFOA was used in the past in the US in making Teflon, it is not present (or is present in extremely small amounts) in Teflon-coated products”.

Notice the caveats in this statement — ‘there are no proven risks.’ It is clear to me that it’s almost impossible to prove risks of this sort. It is also difficult to carefully monitor potential exposure over the long term which is likely why there’s the addition in brackets “or is present in extremely small amounts”. Moreover, the American Cancer Institute report does acknowledge the off-gases from heating Teflon. That would be mostly PTFE and other related chemicals and should not be C8 (PFOA) if the pans are newer than 2015. Even so, that is of concern. A recent study (2017) reported in Environmental Science and Pollution regarding the breakdown of Teflon with heat concluded that “Only few studies describe the toxicity of PTFE but without solid conclusions. The toxicity and fate of ingested PTFE coatings are also not understood”. 

From my assessments I take precautions. I only have one Teflon pan. It’s of high quality (not a Costco special) and I know it was manufactured recently in the US (thus C8 was likely was not used). I only use it on low heat to cook eggs and fish. I don’t use any metal utensils when cooking with my Teflon pan. I wash it with warm water and soap. It does not go in the dishwasher. For higher temperature cooking I use a cast iron frying pan. I have tossed all of my older Teflon pans especially when I could see scratches. I would also not recommend using Teflon baking pans which would be heated to higher temperatures and for longer times. 

THE BIGGER QUESTION – FOREVER CHEMICALS – For years, scientists and environmental advocates have been concerned about persistent “forever chemicals,” which break down very slowly and can contaminate groundwater and end up in rivers and oceans. It is likely that there are about 4,700 varieties of PFAS chemicals in use. They make carpets and upholstery stain-resistant and help firefighters douse burning oil and gas. Some PFAS versions keep your burger from sticking to its fast-food wrapper, your salad from turning its fiber-based bowl into a soggy mess, and your popcorn bag from bursting into flames in the microwave. They are also used as fire retardants in furniture. Virtually all of us have detectable levels of PFAS (and even C8) in our blood. 

A picture containing food, table, tray, container

Description automatically generated

As with the case of Teflon – how necessary is it that these chemicals are in such widespread use? How can governments better regulate their use to lower community exposure? And – how can individuals limit their own exposure?

OK – I have now committed myself to an article about this. Coming soon. 

Link to American Cancer Institute Advisory

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html

Link to Environmental Science and Pollution article – 2017

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-017-0095-y

SOME POSITIVE NEWS FOR A CHANGE

SOME POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT NEWS FROM 2020

Allan Maynard, MSc. – February 10, 2021

Kenya’s Elephant Baby Boom – – In 2019, I traveled with my daughter’s family to Kenya – a trip that was magical in all meanings of the word. The safari experiences were many. It filled our hearts with joy and optimism. Optimism because we experienced first hand the dedication of the many people preserving and enhancing Kenya’s land and wildlife. One positive outcome is that Kenya’s elephant population has more than doubled over the past 3 decades. My daughter Jill wrote of elephants – “They are strength, curiosity, tenderness and stories untold’. We can have reason to hope.

There’s no doubt that 2020 was a discouraging year on many fronts. Daily news of a global pandemic and the consequences of environmental degradation are not the sunniest of subjects.  Nonetheless, some positive news emerged: species were brought back from the edge of extinction; interest in renewable energy surged; environmental monitoring technology improved; new protected areas were created; and indigenous women leaders got some long-overdue credit and recognition. Perhaps, most important of all, well-informed young people such as Greta Thunberg, Delany Reynolds, Xiuhtezcati Martinez have been turning the climate crisis into humanity’s most unifying ethical moment. 

POLITICS – Environmental advocates and leaders around the world celebrated the end of a U.S. administration that had taken the country 180 degrees in the wrong direction on all environmental issues – from toxics control, to land use, energy policy, and international cooperation on greenhouse gas emissions. President Biden has now chosen a knowledgeable team that is charged with making clean energy jobs and environmental protection a cornerstone of his economic plans. In recognition of the importance of indigenous leadership, this team includes Deb Haaland of New Mexico, for Interior Secretary, who is a member of the Laguna Pueblo people.

The new administration’s initiatives are of global significance sending a critical message to the global economy. Importantly, the US will re-enter the Paris Climate Agreement, the global pact forged five years ago among nearly 200 nations to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. 

ONE HEALTH  – The idea that the health of the planet and health of people are inextricably linked is not a new one, but this year’s COVID-19 pandemic, brought about by a zoonotic disease, threw that connection into stark relief. This year, more people began to connect the dots between environmental destruction, agriculture, livestock, wildlife trade and human disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6630404/

TRUST IN SCIENCE – Due to the seriousness of the global pandemic the general public began paying closer attention to scientific information such as news about testing and vaccine development.  Moreover the public witnessed, first hand, the deadly consequences of science denial by political leaders. As a result, researchers have found that trust in science has increased to an all-time high. As well, scepticism of science has decreased well below pre-pandemic levels. This change in attitude will hopefully help leaders gain societal support for climate change initiatives.

http://newscenter.sdsu.edu/sdsu_newscenter/news_story.aspx?sid=78221

FINANCE – 2020 is on track to be a record year for fossil fuel divestment announcements, led by major institutional investors such BlackRock. More than 1,300 institutions controlling 14.5 trillion dollars have divested in some way from fossil fuels, according to a tally by environmental group 350.org. One major divestment is especially symbolic  – that is the 5 billion dollar Rockefeller Foundation. This endowment was largely built from the proceeds of Standard Oil a company that, at its peak, controlled more than 90% of petroleum products in the United States. Equally encouraging, the divestment movement has been in tandem with the rise of ESG (environmental, social and governance) investing.

COST OF RENEWABLES PLUMMETING – In the past decade, renewable prices have plummeted: onshore wind down 70%, solar by 89%. The main reason for this is that renewable costs are all about the cost of the technology – costs that come down fast as we use more of them. Further learning-by-doing from renewable use will drive down costs for low- and middle-income countries consuming more energy in the years ahead. As with vaccines, so with renewables: they are invented somewhere but can help everywhere.

https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

GROWTH OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EVs)  – Since their first introduction to the consumer market barely a decade ago, electric vehicles have rapidly grown in popularity. In 2010, there were only about 17,000 electric cars on roads around the world. By 2019, there were 7.2 million — that’s a 42,000% increase in electric vehicles in use. The number of EVs is still a small percentage of the total but the trend is clear. A significant number of car manufacturers have announced definitive dates for discontinuing the production of fossil fuel vehicles – including GM as stated in a press release for the Super Bowl – “GM is on its way to an allelectric future, with a commitment to 30 new global electric vehicles by 2025. We are aggressively going after every aspect of what it takes to put everyone in an EV because we need millions of EVs on the road to make a meaningful impact toward building a zero-emissions future.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2020/05/09/why-electric-vehicles-are-going-to-take-over-theworld/?sh=1e89bd12334e

https://www.barrons.com/articles/traditional-auto-makers-are-getting-into-evs-here-are-their-plans-to-battle-tesla-51606734002

A GLIMPSE OF WHAT CAN BE – The tragic pandemic has through most of 2020 caused so much human misery. But it also, for a time, gave Planet Earth a rest – a much-needed “breather”. Air pollution levels, as confirmed around the world, were reduced drastically. Of special note was the reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) along with fine particulate matter.  In Beijing, residents were, for a time, able to see the stars at night, an impossibility the year before. Planet Earth experienced a reprieve in the early half of 2020. 

As global economies started to recover, some (or even most) of these gains are reversing. But having this reprieve gave us a glimpse of what the world could look like when global emissions are greatly reduced as per the objectives of the Paris Accord. The trends in advocacy, leadership, financial investments and overall awareness can be encouraging. Of course, there’s much to be done. Moreover, there are complexities that need to be addressed. Jobs in traditional sectors will be impacted over time. Green energy also has environmental impacts.  However, there is no choice but to move forward to a sustainable future. 

THE CONSEQUENCES OF INFORMATION DISORDER

THE CONSEQUENCES OF INFORMATION DISORDER

Allan Maynard – January 17 2021

“Post-truth is pre-fascism.” Historian Timothy Snyder in his 2017 book, On Tyranny. 

“If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’—well, it never happened. If he says that ‘two and two are five’—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs …” George Orwell – the essay “Looking Back on the Spanish War” (1943)

There has been a proliferation of publications on false news over the past 4 years – books, articles in journals and of course the media. Both of these were published in 2017.

On January 6, 2021, the world watched in disbelief as the US Capitol Building was stormed by an angry mob of Trump supporters.  Many were armed, some chanted ‘Hang Pence’, some carried confederate flags, and some carried ‘Jesus Saves’ signs. These despicable events marked the culmination of 4 years of an administration steeped in misinformation and disinformation (see definitions below). That the president lied on a daily basis never seemed to bother his supporters or members of his own party. In fact – 126 Republicans joined a frivolous Texas lawsuit that sought to overturn the results of the election in four states. It’s little wonder that most  (or all?) in that angry mob truly believed the great lie that the November presidential election was rigged. 

Being a strong adherent to evidence-based decision-making, I have, for the past 4 years, been dismayed at the appalling degree of acute dishonesty of the Trump administration. The consequences of such dishonesty and denialisim became ever so clear as we witnessed the epic and totally tragic failures of the administration’s response to the CoVid pandemic (see my April blog – in references). Recommended viewing on this matter – “Totally Under Control” now available in Prime. 

And then came January 6 – with an assault on American democracy. 

How did it come to this? Why is lying tolerated? Why does it seem to work politically? Why are some of the wackiest of conspiracy theories so widely believed? We know lying and obfuscation are prevalent in countries without a free press. But it should not be so pervasive in democratic nations. 

I understand that millions feel left behind in the new global economy. This can lead to bitterness about people’s prospects and even lead to ‘tribes’ pitted against each other. Perhaps many are grasping for any kind of messaging that may provide simple solutions to highly complex problems that are so very difficult to fully grasp.  Lies just might fill that need. 

I am not a historian, a political scientist or a psychologist, but I have certainly been curious about how information disorder can be used as a political tool. It’s amazing how much information is available on this topic and how it has proliferated since 2016. I have done my best to summarize what I have learned. 

THE NOMENCLATURE OF DISHONESTY

We all grow up with many harmless untruths – from tooth fairy to common myths such as believing we could drown if we go in swimming less than one hour after eating. To help understand the current information disorder it is helpful to identify certain terms.

Common misconceptions (longstanding myths) – these are common myths that can be promulgated over and over without any kind of danger – examples – humans only use 10% of their brains/shaving makes hair grow back faster and thicker/we need to drink 8 glasses of water each day to stay hydrated/bulls get angry when they see red. Reference below.

Urban myths (or urban legends) – can be told with conviction — such as the disappearing hitchhiker / theHookman, a mass murderer with a hook in place of a hand. 

Categorizing lies – white / blue / black. Some psychologists  (Scientific American – How the Science of Blue Lies May Explain Trump’s Support) categorize lies as ‘white lies’ that are generous (I like your shirt even if you don’t),  ‘blue lies’—a psychologist’s term for falsehoods, told on behalf of a group, that can actually strengthen bonds among the members of that group, and ‘black lies’ which are selfish and only benefit the lying individual.  The researchers suggest that politicians enabling Trump did not call out his lies because they saw those lies as useful weapons in a tribal us-against-them competition. 

Misinformation vs. disinformation – The most common way of categorizing untruths is well presented in a paper by Clare Wardle in Scientific American entitled “Misinformation Has Created A New World Disorder” The following schematic is from this article.

Denialism – is defined as the psychology of human behaviour to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. When someone is told they have cancer, the initial response can be denial. That can be dangerous for that individual if treatment is delayed. It is much more serious for society if denial is on a grander scale as was the deadly and tragic case for many countries in responding to the CoVid pandemic. Also dangerous is when denial is weaponized such as the cases of industry spending vast sums to combat scientific findings that affect their economic futures. Well-documented examples of organized and well-funded denial — the health risks from smoking, acid rain, ozone depletion and climate change.

Cherry picking – is suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of using incomplete data to falsely confirm a particular position, while at the same time ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position. This approach of only using selected data is widely used by those attempting to deny inconvenient science such as climate change. This is well covered in the book “Merchants of Doubt” – see references.  

Conspiracy theories – are dangerous. In fact some of the most horrific events in history  (the Holocaust, The Rwanda massacre to name only two) were grounded on conspiracy theories. The dictionary definition – ‘a conspiracy is a secret plot or agreement between two or more parties for an illegal or dishonest purpose’. Many conspiracy theories are eye rolling and generally ignored or easily disproved.  An example was the claim that the current pandemic is really caused by the rollout of 5G (high speed -5th Generation Cellular) networks around the world.  More dangerous is the rhetoric linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory, which holds that Trump is fighting a secret war against a powerful network of elite pedophiles. Even more dangerous is the anti-vaccination movement based on a fundamentally flawed study that claimed vaccines cause autism.  And – it would take a full text-book to describe the myriad of conspiracy theories about the CoVid pandemic.  See – My Blog – May 2018 – in references.

DOES SCIENCE HELP UNDERSTAND LYING?

There are many studies within academia that can help us understand more about lying – why it’s done and how it can be successful politically. Below is a summary of only a few of these studies. 

1. A 2016 study published in the journal ‘Nature Neuroscience’, showed how dishonesty alters people’s brains, making it easier to tell lies in the future. Not only that, but when people faced no consequences for the dishonesty or, even better, are rewarded somehow, their falsehoods tended to get more sensational. The conclusion – the more people lie and get away with it – the more they will continue to lie.

2. Fake news spreads 7 times more widely (and faster) than true news, according to a study examining 126,000 news items circulated among 3 million twitter users. Untrue ‘news’ is as old as gossip, but its proliferation has become particularly troubling in the era of social media. False stories are amplified on Facebook and Twitter. The false post that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump’s candidacy for the US presidency was shared over 1 million times. 

3. The Big Lie – Joseph Goebbels – minister of propaganda for the Nazi German government of the Third Reich, understood the power of repeating falsehoods. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” This phenomenon, pervasive in contemporary politics, advertising, and social media, is known in cognitive psychology as the “illusory truth effect” Studies have confirmed that lies repeated over and over will eventually be believed. The facts don’t actually matter. In my view – this is how Donald Trump managed to convince millions of voters that the election was stolen. 

SOCIAL MEDIA  – FALSEHOODS SPREAD RAPIDLY 

Computer processing power has increased a staggering 1 trillion times between the early 80s and now. The companies at the core of the social media revolution — Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and the like — have used the vast amounts of data they harvest about our preferences and behaviours to create an emotional environment that tends to pull us apart and make us dumber. These companies get more eyeballs on their sites and clicks on their links — and so generate more revenue — by creating an addictive information environment of constant cognitive and emotional stimulus, and among the emotions that work best are outrage and (social) anxiety. With powerful algorithms, the social media platforms can totally control what we see – and also what we will not see based on users’ profiles. Our attention is mined like an extractable resource. Democracy is now for sale.

To obtain a clear understanding of the universe of the proliferation of false information, I highly recommend the Netflix show – “Social Dilemma”. 

Bots, which are automated programs that masquerade as people, tend to be particularly good for spreading massive numbers of highly emotional messages with little informational content. Think here of a message with the image of Hillary Clinton behind bars and the words “Lock Her Up!” That kind of message will spread rapidly within the echo chambers populated by those who already agree with the basic sentiment. Bots have considerable power to inflame people who are already like-minded, though they can be easier to detect and block than trolls. The US Justice Department concluded that bots were widely employed by Russia during the 2016 election campaign. (see link to report in References).

By contrast, trolls are typically real people who spread provocative stories and memes. Trolls can be better at persuading people who are less convinced and want more information. Troll information can nonetheless spread just as widely as bots.

In both cases – social media has become a reliable tool of persuasion. This can be good thing when used, for example, to persuade people to do their part in controlling a pandemic. It can be a bad thing when millions are lead to believe the 2020 election was rigged. 

WE NEED A SHARED VISION OF REALITY

It is clear to me that the current state of information disorder is a significant threat to science, progress and to democracy itself. Some strong, bipartisan measures are needed to start rectifying this. 

Firstly – Social Media companies must step up their game and get better at flagging misinformation and disinformation. It would seem this is starting to occur but more needs to be done. Social media companies have the technology, but granted it’s a tightrope initiative in that free speech also needs to be protected. 

Secondly, politicians need to lead and call out lies and not fear how their so-called base (left or right leaning) would react. Voters need to hear the truth even if it’s not favourable to their ideologies and world-views. 

Thirdly – young people, who are the biggest users of social media, need to receive more education on the dangers of false information, how to assess fact from fiction and how to recognize proper journalism. 

Finally – we need to become more responsible in what we decide to read and especially share via email, Facebook, twitter and other ways of communicating. We need to refuse to let Facebook, Google and other platforms be in charge of our newsfeed. With the Internet there are many options that each reader can explore to get world news and a variety of opinions.  It is not difficult to venture away from news bubbles. Good journalism is more vital than ever. See reference below –“What is good journalism?”

Fact checking sites are useful. Of course it is fair to question the reliability of fact check articles. I find however, that these articles contain sources and references with links to official sites – such as NOAA. Also – fact check sites must be truthful to maintain their integrity. In the references section there are 2 articles on fact checking sites – including MBFC (Media Bias Fact Check) – a site that reports on the bias of fact-checking websites like Snopes and PolitiFact and also publishes a daily source bias check. Factors that they consider include sourcing, biased wording, story choices, and political affiliation.

Society is facing many highly complex issues and even existential threats. Millions feel let down or even totally neglected within the global economy. These problems can only be tackled by cooperation and a fact based starting point but also acknowledging differences in worldview visions. Wilful ignorance is not an option. We need to start from a shared vision of reality. 

REFERENCES – I have provided some links if people are interested. I can’t guarantee they will take readers directly to the article. It may require a Google search using the title. 

On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century – By Timothy Snyder, 2017

https://environmentmatters.ca/2020/04/17/denial-delay-deadly/

The Lost Month: How a Failure to Test Blinded the U.S. to Covid-19 –

New York Times – March 2020

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/10/totally-under-control-essential-pandemic-documentary/616729/ – this is a review of the documentary called “Totally Under Control” comparing the US and South Korea response to the corona virus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_legends

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/can_the_science_of_lying_explain_trumps_support

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-the-science-of-blue-lies-may-explain-trumps-support/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/misinformation-has-created-a-new-world-disorder/

https://environmentmatters.ca/2020/05/18/covid-19-myths-lies-and-profound-bullshit/

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02934-x

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/dont-believe-lies-just-people-repeat/

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/illusion-chasers/i-heard-it-before-so-it-must-be-true/

Here is a link to the US Justice Dept report on Russian interference.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-psychology-of-fact-checking1/

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/true-5-factchecking-websites/

Also worth watching – a CBC documentary about the anti-vaccination movement. It shows how impervious people can be to evidence.

https://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/episodes/vaccine-wars

“ Merchants of Doubt “ – N. Oreskes and E Conway – Bloomsbury Press, 2010.

IMAGINING A PLASTIC-LESS FUTURE

IMAGINING A PLASTIC-LESS FUTURE 

Allan Maynard, MSc. – January 5th, 2021

Home efforts are a good start. However – to solve the complex and overwhelming issue of plastic pollution, there is a dire need for solutions based on technology, for more regulation of the plastic and packaging industries and, in the long term, a comprehensive evaluation of how we evaluate economic success (linear vs. circular economy).

HOME EFFORTS – When my wife Margrit and I finished university in 1971, we spent a year travelling around Europe and Morocco. We would do 2 to 4 week trips followed by a return to Margrit’s birth-place and our declared ‘home base’ of Bassersdorf, Switzerland (near Zurich). After weeks of camping we were grateful to enjoy home cooked dinners and sleep in real beds. We stayed with Margrit’s aunts – Aunt Lydia and Aunt Martha. 

Having lived through the scarcities during the Great Depression and World War II, these two ladies seemingly never threw anything away. They would wash and save even the smallest pieces of aluminum foil and plastic wrap. Plastic bags were rare and seen as a gift for storing food. They would be used and reused until they were worn out. They had a small refrigerator and thus shopped frequently, walking to the village bakery and to other stores dedicated to certain products. Nothing was packed in plastic. No food was ever wasted. These 2 rosy-cheeked ladies provided one of the best examples I have seen of the 3 Rs of minimizing household waste – REDUCE, RECYCLE, REUSE.

Learning from Aunt Martha and Aunt Lydia – Certainly, most of society want to do more to combat plastic waste. There’s a general sense of frustration that recycling as it exists today, is not the solution it was marketed to be. Because of enhanced societal awareness, there is now a plethora of web sites dedicated to providing advice for reducing plastics use in our homes. The 3 Rs – noted above is now expanded to 4 Rs – Reduce, Reject (or refuse), Reuse, and Recycle. 

It is relatively easy for most households to reduce plastic waste with some basic steps – here are but a few tips: 

IS TECHNOLOGY THE ANSWER? – The short answer – unlikely but it’s complicated. Technology initiatives are centered around 3 considerations – 1) Making plastic that is biodegradable, 2) Making plastic that can be more successfully recycled and 3) Making recycling more successful than it is today. A brief summary of these:

  • 1. Biodegradable Plastic – Biodegradable plastics can in theory, be broken down by microbes. Biodegradable plastics or bio-plastics are made from plant materials (starch or cellulose), rather than fossil fuels. There are a number of possibilities on the market and under research. 

The big question though – even with these products – what does biodegradable really mean? It does not mean they can go to backyard compost boxes or to to landfills under the expectation they will degrade. What’s required rather, is an industrial scale composting system. Such systems are becoming more and more prominent in dealing with food waste. From coffee cups to sandwich packaging to takeaway containers, putting food in compostable plastics means that – in an ideal world, the plastic and any food waste still stuck to it can be composted together. It’s a triple win: reducing the amount of regular plastic being sent to landfill, preventing recycling from being contaminated with food, and at the same time making sure food waste is returned to the soil, rather than being left to rot in landfill where it will release methane.

The main issue though is that food waste pickup and subsequent industrial composting, while quite widespread in Europe (and some provinces in Canada), is not as prevalent as it could be in North America and in many developing countries. 

  • New plastics that can be continuously recycled  – A previous article outlined how few of the plastics in use are recycled. Moreover, the recycled plastic material is of lower quality. Even PET – the most recycled form of plastic (used in beverage bottles) is only recycled at a rate of about 30%.

Now research is underway to produce plastics that can be recycled over and over without a resulting loss of quality. For example, the creation of a new material, called polydiketoenamine, or PDK, was reported in the journal ‘Nature Chemistry’. This formulation along with other research is showing considerable promise but it’s too early to assess commercial viability. 

  • Improving recycling – Today, recycling centers rely largely on mechanical processes, which consist of crushing the plastic into flakes, which are then processed and transformed into plastic granules. These granules are then, in theory, mixed with virgin plastics. It should be possible to manufacture new beverage bottles composed of at least 50 to 70 percent recycled plastic.  The difficulty is that there are simply too many types of plastic on the market. Thus, sorting prior to recycling is the main limiting aspect of all recycling programs. 

Better sorting – In Europe an initiative called “Project Holy Grail’ is working on much better systems for sorting waste.  Postage stamp sized watermarks on packaging—which are not visible to the naked eye—make it possible to effectively sort the material into specific waste streams. With this new technology, it becomes possible to separate materials more accurately. The waste plastic can then be more effectively recycled based on the chemistry of that specific material. Again – this is in a development phase and not yet commercialized.

A worker working with conveyer belt electronics in the factory

Waste needs to be sorted before recycling.

Chemical technology – Some in the industry suggest that chemical recycling may also provide an answer. This is very much at the research or pilot stage. The process would involve pyrolysis, which consists of heating the plastic to a high temperature to obtain a hydrocarbon product, followed by material separations into separate chemical components, followed then by re-polymerization. 

GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STEP IN  – it has become clear to me that individual action on the home front along with developing technologies that are still at the research stage, will not provide all the solutions needed to deal with plastic pollution. It is my view that governments around the world need to exert more control. There is broad societal support for doing so.

Plastics impose a massive untaxed externality upon society, estimated by the Carbon Tracker and other sources at about $1,000 per tonne ($350bn a year) from resulting air pollution, health costs, collection costs, and ocean pollution. Policymakers, especially in Europe, are implementing much more stringent regulatory regimes using five key tools — taxation, design rules, bans, targets, and infrastructure. However, there is a huge and undoubtedly expected push back from industry on these initiatives. According to the Carbon Tracker report, there is a stark contrast between the plans of the petrochemical industry and the threat of imposed restrictions leading to lower growth. “The petrochemical industry already faces huge overcapacity, but is planning to spend a further $400bn for new capacity. Unless stopped, this will result in continued low prices and significant stranded assets”.  (Carbon Tracker)

Fortunately – At least 127 countries have now imposed some sort of ban on single use plastic, even though there as been a relaxation of enforcement during the CoVid crisis. Most European countries now ban such products. Canada will ban the use of all single use plastic by the end of 2021. A few US states also have bans but it’s far from nation-wide. Kenya likely has the strictest regulations of all where citizens can face jail time for breaking the single use plastic laws. 

In addition to bans – there are now proposals to force the plastic industry to take more responsibility for the waste their products produce. The most effective plans would require industry to pay for the disposal of plastic waste that cannot be recycled. For example – the European Union plans tax of about $1,000 US per tonne of product The plan also includes rules obliging all plastic packaging to be recyclable, and to set targets for the share of recyclates in packaging.

A CIRCULAR ECONOMY – The issue of plastic pollution in our environment is a clear example of the need to completely re-think global economies and how we measure success that is sustainable. GDP  (Gross Domestic Product) is the standard used around the world but it does not provide information about the overall wellbeing of a country since activities that are detrimental (like waste, deforestation, strip mining, over-fishing, prison populations) actually (and strangely) increase today’s GDP. In my opinion, it is vital that we move towards a circular economy as an alternative to a traditional GDP based linear economy (make, use, dispose). 

This applies very clearly for plastics in that we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life. Yoni Shiran, lead author of ‘Breaking the Plastic Wave’ claims “There are huge benefits in the change from the current linear system to a more circular one. You can have all the functionality of plastics but at half the capital cost, half the amount of feedstock, 700,000 additional jobs and 80% less plastic pollution.”  I believe this claim is possible to achieve. 

REFERENCES

Can we break our addiction to plastic – Financial Times – October 30, 2019

Closed loop recycling of plastics enabled by dynamic covalent diketoenamine bonds. Nature Chemistry. April 22, 2019

The future is not in plastics. Carbon Tracker, Sept 4, 2020

Holy grail 2.0 is launched – Recycling Magazine 08/09/2020

Good information about recycling

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org

Excellent resource on all aspects of the plastics issue and about a circular economy

http://www.greeneducationfoundation.org/nationalgreenweeksub/waste-reduction-tips/tips-to-use-less-plastic.html

For tips on reducing plastics on our homes

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/home-products/g31291481/eco-friendly-products/

One example web site that promotes eco-friendly products. There are many such web sites for those interested and I am not able to verify how good some of these items are. It just shows that a number of enterprises are working on resolutions. 

FINALLY – FOR LITTLE COMIC RELIEF – Some photos of ridiculous packaging that should be easy to avoid. Maybe not so funny!!!

Bananas are seen in a Conad grocery shop in Rome, Italy, April 10, 2016. REUTERS/Max Rossi

MICRO-PLASTICS – THE HIDDEN CONSEQUENCE OF PLASTICS USE

Allan Maynard, MSc.    November 23rd, 2020

Note – I realize these articles can be unsettling to read especially at a time when we may be looking for more uplifting news. However as a friend noted – the first step in solving a problem is addressing it. I feel obliged to do my small part towards increasing awareness of environmental issues and the need for science based decision- making. 

from sciencenewsforstudents.org

Images of common household waste swirling in vast garbage patches in the open ocean or tangled up with dolphins, turtles and seabirds have turned plastic pollution into one of the most widely reported environmental issues of our day. However, what scientists can see and measure accounts for only a fraction of the plastic waste entering the environment. A consideration of tiny plastic fibers may not tug at the heartstrings like a picture of a sea turtle caught in a plastic pop ring, but these tiny particles and fibers are an even greater threat to our planet and consequently, human health.

As an emerging field of study, not a lot is known about micro-plastics and their impacts. The first inkling that plastic pollution is not limited to the plastic bags, soft drink bottles and other visible trash came in the 1960s and 1970s. During a research cruise to the Sargasso Sea in the Fall 1971 a marine biologist noticed peculiar white specks floating amidst the mats of brown seaweed. After some investigating he discovered they were tiny bits of plastic. It was a stunning discovery given the fact that thousands of the broken down particles were showing up in in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Ed Carpenter, now at San Francisco State University, published his observations March 17, 1972, in Science.

An explosion of research to track micro-plastics is revealing a mountain of plastic hidden not only in the oceans but in the world’s rivers, lakes, soils, as well as organisms big and small. Micro-plastics have also been found in the atmosphere and are thus transported around the globe. A seminal study was conducted in 2004 by a marine biologist at the University of Plymouth. Dr. Richard Thompson (who helped coin the term micro-plastic) found beach and coastal sediments off Plymouth, England, teeming with micro-plastics. Scientists around the world really sat up and took notice. Since then, studies have documented microfibers and fragments drifting around every ocean basin, in the bellies of marine species, and even frozen in Arctic sea ice.

WHAT ARE MICROPLASTICS?

Two classifications of micro-plastics currently exist. Primary micro-plastics are plastic fragments or particles that are already 5.0 mm in size or less before entering the environment. These include microfibers from clothing, micro-beads used as exfoliates in personal care products, and plastic pellets.  Secondary micro-plastics are micro-plastics that are created from the degradation of larger plastic products once they enter the environment. Such sources of secondary micro-plastics include single use plastics, water and soda bottles, fishing nets, and more. Both types of micro-plastics are recognized to persist in the environment at high levels although it is likely that secondary micro-plastics are more abundant. 

Size matters in the definition. Generally, micro-plastics are defined as less than 5 millimeters (mm). The range of 5 mm (size of a grain of rice) down to 1 mm (size of a pin head) is considered ‘large’ in comparison to an abundance of even smaller particles (less then 0.3mm).  An even newer definition comes from the discovery of even smaller particles now called nano-plastics (1 to 999 nanometers). The smaller end range would be the size of a virus. In other words these particles are invisible without the aid of powerful microscopy.

Size also matters in terms of the detection of micro-plastics in the environment. Many of the earlier studies counted particles that were either visible to the naked eye or easily detected with standard microscopy. However the early studies were concluding that only a small percentage of the ‘missing plastic’ could be accounted for. To investigate further Melanie Bergmann, a marine ecologist with the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) led a comprehensive study in the Arctic.  This study revealed 100 to 1,000 times as many micro-plastic particles frozen in Arctic sea ice compared to earlier studies. Two thirds of what the team found, using analytic instruments that read the chemical signature of plastics, was around 11 micrometers in diameter (about the size of a human red blood cell). Such sized particles were significantly lower than the detection limit of earlier studies. In fact, now it is speculated that some particles are so small that they more resemble a chemical actually dissolved in water. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH IMPACTS

from whoi.edu

We are only beginning to understand the significance of the environmental and health impacts from micro- and nano-plastic particles. Firstly, it’s widely known that a broad range of species, ingest the particles. To date, micro-plastics have been found in over 100 different aquatic species. This does indeed make sense as the small particles resemble food for smaller aquatic species such as plankton, bivalves and small fish. 

Since the topic of micro-plastics is still an emerging field of study, many of the effects of the micro-plastics on fish health are still unknown. However, several recent lab studies have shown a link between the ingestion of microplastics with stunted growth rates, reduced appetites, and the potential for reduced reproduction rates. These studies have also shown a correlation between the ingestion of microplastics by larval fish and an increased mortality rate among those fish as a result of the plastic getting stuck and blocking the fish’s digestive tract.

For human populations, even less is known.  If the plastic particles remain in the digestive track of fish, it is likely that they would not become part of the human diet. However, smaller fish such as sardines and anchovies are often eaten whole – thus the possibility of human consumption would then occur. Bivalves such as clams and oysters are filter feeders. If exposed to micro-plastics they would accumulate the plastic fibers, which would in turn result in human consumption since bivalves are eaten whole.  

Small plastic particles can also absorb other toxic chemicals that may exist in some ecosystems. Like a miniscule Trojan horse, the particles can then ferry in hazardous chemicals and help them accumulate up the food chain.

Perhaps an even greater threat is the airborne particles as they can be inhaled like any other air pollutant.  The first study to measure plastic fallout from the atmosphere was published only in 2015. The recent attention to the issue means that there are only a handful of measurements of airborne plastic, and little sense of how the numbers might vary from place to place, depending on weather conditions and where the material is ultimately coming from. Alarmingly, there is growing concern about nano-plastics that are so small they can possibly enter cells and move into tissues and organs. Currently the ability to detect these particles in food and blood samples, etc. does not exist.  

The research to date marks the first wave in what is likely to be a flood of such studies in the coming years, directed towards an effort to fill in the picture of how micro-plastics and nano-plastics move around the environment, affect wildlife and affect human health. This research will hopefully lead to increased regulations concerning plastic manufacturing and use. One example – On December 28, 2015, President Obama signed an Act (Microbead-Free Waters Act) banning plastic micro-beads in cosmetics and personal care products. This was long overdue and their use as exfoliates should never have been allowed in the first place. 

It is obvious the plastics industry and our dependence on the products requires a comprehensive review that will lead to effective regulations, extensive research, and societal awareness. Such topics will be covered in an upcoming article. 

References

Earth Has a Hidden Plastic Problem—Scientists Are Hunting It Down, A Thompson, Scientific American, August, 2018

Microplastics Are Blowing in the Wind, A Thompson, Scientific American, April 2015

(2018, June). What are microplastics?. Retrieved from

from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/microplastics.html

What Are Microplastics?. Retrieved from https://www.greenmatters.com/t/microplastics

THE MYTH OF PLASTIC RECYCLING

Allan Maynard, MSc. – November 9, 2020

THE CRYING INDIAN – If you watched TV during the 1970s and 80s you would likely have seen one of the most iconic ads ever made. A buckskinned, black braided Native American (but called “Indian” in those days) is seen paddling down a pristine river but eventually enters a polluted harbor. He paddles his boat to a bank strewn with litter. As he exits his boat and wanders near a road someone flings a bag of trash from a moving car. The trash scatters at his feet.  The Native American then looks into the camera; a single tear is seen rolling down his cheek. The narrator booms –“People start pollution. People can stop it.” 

The ad in many aspects is a fraud. The “Crying Indian” is neither Native American nor crying. He was played by an Italian actor known for playing natives in western movies. The ad was sponsored by the organization “Keep America Beautiful”. What eventually became clear, the Keep America Beautiful organization was founded, and is still mainly funded, by the beverage and packaging industries. While anti-littering campaigns should certainly be lauded, the sinister reality behind this campaign was to shift blame for packaging waste in the environment towards the users of the products rather than the manufacturers. Thus began THE MYTH OF PLASTICS RECYCLING. 

THE NUMBERS IN REVIEW – In my October 26, 2020 article – “We Are Drowning in Plastics”, I presented dramatic statistics concerning plastic waste.  A quick review of the main facts:

  • 6 billion (approximately) tons of plastic materials have been produced in the period 1950 to 2015 (Science Advances, 2017)
  • The estimate to update that number into 2020 – approximately 9 billion tons 
  • Of the 6 billion tons of plastic ever made up to year 2015 – 9% has been recycled, 12% has been burned, and the remaining 79% has ended up in landfills or in the environment. 
  • The amount of plastic entering the oceans (earth’s last sink) is over 9 million tons each year. This is only a fraction of the total plastic waste generated. 

WHAT THE PLASTICS INDUSTRY KNEW – For decades, we have been sorting trash believing that most plastic could be recycled. But the truth is, the vast majority of all plastic produced can’t be or won’t be recycled. In a joint investigation, NPR (U.S. National Public Radio) and the PBS series Frontline found that oil and gas companies — the makers of plastic — have known this reality all along, even as they spent millions of dollars telling the public the opposite. 

The main points from this investigation are: 

  • Plastics industry had “serious doubt” recycling would ever be viable

The investigators dug deep into various archives and found internal correspondence. For example, the investigators state —  “A report sent to top industry executives in April 1973 called recycling plastic ‘costly’ and “difficult.’ It called sorting it ‘infeasible’, saying ‘there is no recovery from obsolete products.’ Another document a year later was candid: There is ‘serious doubt’ widespread plastic recycling can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”

  • The industry promoted recycling to keep plastic bans at bay

The investigators interviewed three former top officials from the plastics industry who revealed that the industry promoted recycling as a way to beat back a growing tide of awareness about plastic pollution along with calls for banning certain products (late 80s, early 90s). Recycling, the former officials told NPR and Frontline, became a way to pre-empt the bans and sell even more plastic. In fact the industry projection is to triple production by 2050.

  • More recycling means fewer profits for petrochemical companies

The more plastic is recycled, the less money the industry will make selling new plastic. And those profits have become increasingly important with the declining market for fossil fuels. In essence the petrochemical companies are aware that a successful recycling operation will become their competitor. Or, if they undertake recycling themselves, it will reduce profits. It’s much cheaper (and thus more profitable) to make new products from raw materials than to make an inferior plastic product from waste.

The sad truth is that is that the plastics industry has promoted recycling mainly to sell more products. The public has been lead to believe that the recycling triangle on the bottom of plastic packing means the item can be recycled. The truth of the matter? – It’s complicated. 

Is it really necessary to package lettuce like this? These plastic containers are made of #1 PET thermoform and are usually used for berry containers, salad containers, tomato containers, etc. They are not readily recyclable. 

WHAT PLASTICS ARE THERE?  WHICH ONES CAN BE RECYLCED

Recycling is determined by two factors: the market and city or municipal government programsIf there’s an organized recycling program along with a demand in the market for the plastics collected, then recyclers and companies will pay for post-consumer recyclables. The market demand is quite limited in reality, and it greatly depends on the type of plastic.

In general terms there are two broad categories of plastic  – thermoset plastics and thermo-plastics. Thermo-plastics are plastics that can be re-melted and re-moulded into new products, and therefore, recycled. Thermoset plastics contain polymers that cross-link to form an irreversible chemical bond, meaning that no matter how much heat is applied, they cannot be re-melted into new material and hence are not recyclable.

Examples of plastic containers that can be recycled in curb side programs. These are #2 – HDPE – see table below.

In more specific terms, the following are the various formulations of plastics, what they are used for, the approximate proportions in the waste streams (up to and including the year 2015) and the possibilities for recycling.  Note – the numbers – 1 to 7 referenced appear on the plastic items usually in a small triangle. 

#NameExamplesRe-cycling options
1Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)Beverage bottles, food jars, clothing fiber, cosmetic bottles 11Most PET products can be re-cycled from curb-side programs
2High-density polyethylene (HDPE)Milk jugs, detergent bottles, toys, garden furniture14Similar to #1 – mostly accepted in blue bin programs
3Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)2 forms – a) rigid – for plumbing, windows, bank cards and b) non rigid – inflatable products, electric wire insulation, etc. 5Some items can be recycled – but there are difficulties in separating.
4Low-density polyethylene (LDPE)Plastic bags, food wrappings, squeezable bottles, 20Only a few items can be recycled. The big issue is single use bags as they get caught in the sorting machines.
5Polypropylene (PP)Bottle caps, straws, coolers, diapers, clothing and carpet fibers, and some food packing – yogurt, margarine, etc. 19Most cannot be recycled through curb side programs
6Polystyrene (PS)White Styrofoam – used in packaging and also for rigid food containers6Most municipalities do not accept Styrofoam products in curbside recycling programs
7Other – category 7A grab bag of plastics not found in any other category.  24%Mostly non recyclable

# – Refers to the number found in the triangle on each plastic item — % – Refers to the estimated percentage of each kind of plastic in the waste stream – up to 2015.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT RECYLING – In general – it is the plastics with the numbers 1 and 2 (mostly) that can be recycled in curbside recycling programs. Others usually need to be taken to recycling locations or are simply sent to landfills or incinerators. Careful citizens will take the time to sort their plastics and take, to recycling depots, those items not permitted in curbside bins. However, the main concern is that a large majority will simply put all plastic items in curbside blue boxes. In such cases – likely the majority – the items that cannot be recycled will be considered trash. 

Mixed material such as zip lock bags can be a problem. For instance – take away coffee cups. While the outside of the cup is made of paper, inside is a thin layer of plastic. The PP (Polypropylene) film protects the liquid from seeping into the paper (and thereby burning you) and keeps your warm drink from cooling too quickly. Because there are two different materials, the cups cannot be recycled unless the materials are separated, which is impossible to do by hand and requires a special machine.

Any plastic material with food residues on (or in) it CANNOT be recycled. In order for plastics to be transformed into recycled goods, they must be of decent quality. So, it is important to wash the plastic before it goes in the blue box. 

To sum up – most plastic we use cannot be recycled. The plastic industry knows this and yet continues to extensively market plastic for multiple uses. We users can do more by becoming aware and refusing to use single use plastic or buying items that are inappropriately packaged. However, regulation is the only way to revers the troubling trend towards increasing plastic use. Canada for instance will ban single use plastic in 2021. But this is only a start. 

UPCOMING – 2 more articles. 

The serious concern about micro-plastics

Long-term solutions – yes – we can get out of this mess.

WE ARE DROWNING IN PLASTIC WASTE: THE PLASTICS CONUNDRUM

By Allan Maynard, MSc. – October 26, 2020

______________________________________________

From National Geographic 06/2018 – a market stall in Zhejiang, China

Everyday, we touch hundreds od items that are made of plastic. Plastics have greatly benefited humankind. They help keep planes in the air, make automobiles more fuel efficient, and allow the shipment of clean drinking water where needed. From computers and cell phones to televisions and microwaves, durable, lightweight and affordable plastics have helped revolutionize the electronics we rely on every day. Plastics also help to preserve the longevity of food and allow goods to be conveniently packaged for shipment to markets. Modern healthcare would not be possible without the use of plastic materials. From keeping damaged hearts beating to the smallest tubing, plastics have made health care simpler, more sterile and less painful. 

Yes – plastics have greatly benefited humankind but the benefits and convenience have come at a great price. This is the great plastics conundrum. We have been relying upon but also overusing plastics for the past 5 decades and now we are drowning in the resulting waste. It is a serious problem that science failed to properly predict. 

Most of us know about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch that is one of the five offshore plastic accumulation zones in the world’s oceans located halfway between Hawaii and California. It covers an area approximately 1.6 million square kilometers – an area twice the size of Texas. Shocking as this is, there is an even more dramatic example to demonstrate the extent of ocean’s plastics problem. Dr. Jenna Jambeck, a professor at the University of Georgia did the math and her conclusions were recently presented in a National Geographic article (06/2018). Imagine 5 plastic grocery bags stuffed with plastic waste sitting on every foot of coastline around the entire world. That would correspond to 8.8 million tons – of plastic waste entering the ocean – EACH YEAR. And this number is likely a lower estimate of how much plastic waste enters the ocean annually. Moreover it’s really only the tip of the iceberg when we also add in all the waste found on land and accumulating in landfills.

This article – and some upcoming articles will summarize what plastics really are, an overview of the environmental and health consequences, which plastics can and cannot be recycled (hint – most cannot be), the serious issue of micro (and even nano) plastics, along with solutions for a safer future.

WHAT ARE PLASTICS

Now for a very short chemistry lesson. Because of the great variety of ways that the carbon atom can bond with itself and other elements, there are more than nine million known organic compounds includinghydrocarbon fuels, proteins, fats, sugars, cellulose, pesticides, dyes and more. Plastics are among an incomprehensively large sub-list of organic compounds known as polymers. A polymer is a substance or material consisting of very large molecules, or macromolecules, composed of many repeating subunits.

Rubber (latex) is a naturally occurring plastic that has been used for millennia. Most science historians credit Alexander Parkes for introducing the first ever man-made plastic material in 1862. “Parkensine” as it was called was made by dissolving wood or cotton fibers (nitrocellulose) in solvents and then mixing in camphor or vegetable oils. It was marketed as an alternative to ivory and animal horns. The big breakthrough though, came later – in 1907, when Leo Baekeland invented “Bakelite” – made not from natural materials but from fossil fuels. His work opened the floodgates to a torrent of now familiar synthetic plastics – polystyrene in 1929, polyester in 1930, polyvinylchloride (PVC) and polythene in 1933, nylon in 1935. Starting around the 1950s, plastics were mass-produced. Now it’s everywhere. 

PLASTICS POLLUTION

We made it and now we depend on it. We are literally overwhelmed with the problem. The problem is in plain site. That’s why there are no plastics pollution deniers in contrast with the issue of climate change where denial is an industry on to itself. 

Photo from Greenpeace.org

The facts are so staggering it becomes mind-bending.

  • Half the plastic ever made was produced in the last 15 years
  • A trillion plastic bags are used each year – worldwide
  • The average ‘working life’ of single-use plastic materials such as bags, cutlery, straws, food containers – is 15 minutes
  • More than 9 million tons of plastics enters the oceans each year (see comments above)
  • The life span of plastic waste in the environment can be anywhere from 400 years to forever. Beyond what we have incinerated or recycled a staggering 6 billion tons remain. 
  • Millions of marine animals are killed each year – getting tangled or ingesting plastic waste including micro-plastics (see upcoming article).

Photo by Justin Hofman – taken in the waters of Indonesia

A research article published in Science Advances 2017 titled “Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made” estimates that by the year 2015, all plastic that has ever been produced from raw materials amasses over 6 billion metric tons. From that, only 9% has been recycled, 12% has been burned, and the remaining 79% has ended up in landfills or the environment. Of course much more has been produced and added to the waste category since 2015. The researchers further project that if current habits continue, 12 billion metric tons of plastic will be in landfills or the environment by 2050. The article also goes on to mention that 42% (146 million tons) of all the plastic created in the year 2015 was for packaging. That’s an important metric because packaging is one of the most wasteful and often unnecessary uses of plastic, as we will explore in an upcoming article. 

Not insignificant is the pollution associated with plastics manufacturing with most of the toxics released into the atmosphere. A recent study by the Oakland (CA) Recycling Association indicated that the plastics industry accounted for 14% of the national (USA) toxic chemicals released into the atmosphere. 

And there is now a heightened concern about micro-plastics. Scientific papers describing small plastic fragments in birds appeared in the 1960s and in plankton net samples in the early 1970s. However, the attention of the scientific community was greatly aroused about a decade ago. Since then there has been an enormous increase in publications about many different aspects
of micro-plastic distribution and behaviour. Micro-plastics are tiny pieces that break off larger plastic items (such as bottles and bags) as they degrade in the environment, as well as the fibers that slough off synthetic fabrics. They come in a wide range of sizes—from a grain of rice down to a virus. An upcoming article will deal with this topic. 

In summary – plastics are a necessary part of our lives but we are paying a severe price with respect to our health and our planet. 

Upcoming articles:

  • PLASTICS RECYCLING – IS THIS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS?

The vast majority of the plastics we use cannot be or are not recycled.

  • MICRO-PLASTICS – A MAJOR ISSUE

Micro plastics are found throughout the ocean, in the air we breathe and even collect at the poles. This is a danger to the environment and also to human health. 

  • PLASTICS – WHAT IS THE FUTURE? 

Science and technology is highly focussed to create alternatives to the plastics we use. Moreover awareness throughout society is on the rise and progressive governments are enacting legislation to deal with the issue – especially banning single use plastics and wasteful packaging, which is long overdue. 

WILDFIRES – IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE — Sept 23rd 2020

WILDFIRES: THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Allan Maynard, September 23, 2020

In just a matter of a few weeks, California has experienced 6 of the largest wildfires in its modern history creating untold misery for tens of thousands. Moreover, the state has toppled all-time temperature records from the desert to the coast. Millions are suffering from some of the worst air quality in years due to heat-triggered smog and fire smoke. An apocalyptic plume has blanketed most of the West Coast, blotting out the sun and threatening people’s lungs during a deadly pandemic. Cities across the state have opened “cleaner-air centers”, where people who can’t afford purifiers or don’t have homes can escape the smoke for a few hours. But they have been less frequented than in previous years because of concerns about Covid-19. Public spaces such as libraries have been closed, eliminating another respite.

Fires have also been raging at unprecedented levels in Oregon and Washington. Unlike 2017 and 2018, British Columbia, has had a modest fire season. However, the southern half of the province became blanketed in smoke from the fires south. Vancouver BC, during the period September 11 to 19, 2020, had the worst air quality readings in the world. 

In addition to concerns in North America, the year 2020 has seen unprecedented fires cause havoc across the world. Australia recently battled its largest bushfire on record, while parts of the Arctic, the Amazon and Central Asia are still experiencing severe blazes. 

The resulting health concerns are considerable. Wildfire smoke is a very complex type of air pollution consisting of a variety of gases and small particles (Sarah Henderson – UBC). Of particular concern, is particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter (about 30 times smaller than the diameter of human hair)—also referred to as PM 2.5. These small particles, and ones even smaller, are capable of penetrating deep into a person’s lungs. The body responds by releasing the same immune cells it would deploy to attack a virus. Unlike a virus, however, particulate matter isn’t broken down by that immune response. This can then result in long-lasting inflammation in many people. It is estimated that wildfire smoke is responsible for 5 to 8% of the 3.3 million annual worldwide deaths due to poor air quality. 

Forest management is a significant factor in the continuing issue of wildfire crises. Fires are a critical component of forest ecosystems. Fires thin out the vegetation, and create the required conditions for forest renewal. However, a century of trying to suppress all forest fires, and a population boom at the “wild-and-urban” interface has resulted in an abundance of ignitable fuel. It has also brought more of the electricty grid into forested areas. Downed wires (usually from wind) are beoming more significant in igniting forest fires.

Unfortunately, forest management has become the primary talking point of some media along with the current US federal administration. Like President Trump, conservative media stars dismiss climate change and point to the poor management of forestland by local officials. In fact – a fringe right-wing website, “The Gateway Pundit”, has outlandishly blamed ‘left wing arsonists” for the fires. 

Visiting California on September 14, 2020 to witness the destruction firsthand, Mr. Trump took western states to task for failing to manage the forests properly (forgetting that most forest lands are under federal jurisdiction). During a meeting with California officials who pushed him to acknowledge the role of climate change in the wildfires, the president said: “It’ll start getting cooler – You just watch.” He went on to claim “I don’t think science knows actually”. He is dangerously wrong. The science is clear. 

Climate change – It needs to be clearly stated, no amount of forest management can stop the disasters in an ever-more flammable world. The link between fires and climate is basic physics: Human greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet. Higher temperatures evaporate more water, drying out vegetation and making it more likely to ignite. In the American West — where temperatures are already as much as 4 degrees Fahrenheit (approx. 2 C) hotter than in the preindustrial era — landscapes are burning in fundamentally different and more destructive ways.

The trends alone can tell the tale:

  • There are 10 times more fires than in the 1970s
  • In the western US, the climate crisis has doubled the area burned by wildfire from 1984 to 2015, according to research cited in the federal government’s climate assessment.
  • Fifteen of California’s 20 worst fires have occurred in the past 20 years
  • As of mid-September of this year – 3.2 million acres (5000 square miles) of California forests have been incinerated – almost double the area burned last year.
  • The Camp Fire of 2019, considered one of the most intense fires in modern history, destroyed the town of Paradise, CA (26,000 population). It burned at a rate of 1 acre per second, incinerating100, 000 acres of forest, and 19,000 structures. Lives lost – 86.   
  • Australia – As of mid- March 2020, the 2019/ 2020 fires burnt an estimated 18.6 million hectares (46 million acres), destroyed over 5,900 buildings (including 2,779 homes) and killed at least 34 people. Nearly three billion terrestrial vertebrates alone – were affected and some endangered species are now believed to have been driven to extinction. At its peak, air quality was at hazardous levels in all southern and eastern states.
  • On May 1, 2016, a wildfire began southwest of Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. … With an estimated damage cost of C$9.9 billion, it was the costliest disaster in Canadian history. The fire spread across approximately 590,000 hectares (1,500,000 acres) destroying 2400 homes and forcing the evacuation of over 80,000 people before it was declared to be under control on July 5, 2016.
  • The Arctic is burning like never before.  These fires are releasing record levels of carbon dioxide, partly because they are burning ancient peatlands that have been a carbon sink for millennia.

The graphic below adds an additional perspective on areas burned in California since 1975. It is noteworthy that the October to December period is increasingly significant due to longer lasting dry seasons – from Increase in California areas burned by wildfires, 1975 to 2015. WILLIAMS, ABATZOGLOU ET AL., EARTH’S FUTURE

These are stunning statistical trends adding to a growing body of evidence that climate change is the main driver. Such statistics need to be addressed within more rigorous research that is then published in peer review literature. This is how science works. Scientists build on the work of others to create greater and more conclusive scientific knowledge.  The studies review trends, work with complex models, along with considering metrics such as fuel and soil aridity, fire temperatures, speed of fire spread, wind factors and more. The research on wildfires is abundant and increasingly clear. A few examples are provided below:

Dr. F Otto – acting director of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, has rigorously assessed the Australian fires. She concluded that temperatures during the 2019/2020 bushfires were 1 to 2 degrees hotter than they would have been in the early part of the 20th century. A quote for this author —  “We found that climate change made the bushfires at least 30% more likely – and that is a conservative estimate”.  

In Canada – a study by Dr. M. Kirchner-Young concluded that Canada’s 2017 fire season, which saw a record 1.2 million hectares of land burned, was driven by “extreme warm and dry conditions” heightened by climate change. The study estimated that the total area burned across the season was made seven to 11 times larger by climate change.

 A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that human-caused climate change doubled the amount of forest burned between 1984 and 2015. California’s own climate assessment in 2018 predicted that higher temperatures would cause 2.5 million acres to burn annually — the models just did not expect it to happen until 2050.

This article would be many more pages if I cited all the relevant literature I have reviewed. Suffice to say – climate change is the most significant factor associated with the wildfire crises around the world. Climate change leads to increased aridity, prolonged droughts, longer seasonal dry seasons, decreased snow packs and a shift in wind direction and intensity. Wildfires will get increasingly disastrous unless governments around the world tackle climate change in a significant manner. Citizens around the world that have the privilege to vote need to elect leaders that acknowledge the climate crisis and have significant plans to address the many challenges we face. 

Some References

Forest Fires – A Clinical Primer. BC Medical Journal, August 2016

Attribution of the Australia Bushfire Risk to Anthropologic Climate Change. World weather attribution – June 10, 2020

Explainer: How climate change is affecting wildfires around the world – July 14, 2020

A GREEN RECOVERY – THERE IS NO CHOICE

BY – Allan Maynard – July 24, 2020

The international CoVid-19 crisis demonstrates – in real, fast forward time, stark lessons about the consequences of unsustainable development, the limitations of our economic systems and the critical need for informed, evidence based leadership. We have learned the harsh lesson that our dependence on animal protein has placed humans and animals (farmed and in some cases wild) in close proximity allowing viruses to jump from animals to humans who have limited immunity to the new (novel) infections. We have also learned that air pollution is an important contributor to deaths from respiratory viruses such as Covid-19. 

On the positive side, we did observe, for short time – that the tragic pandemic that is causing so much human misery did indeed give Planet Earth a much-needed “breather”. Air pollution levels, especially oxides of nitrogen and fine particulates, were drastically reduced around the world. In Beijing, residents were able see the stars at night, an impossibility for the past number of years. 

We also have seen how rapidly some governments were able to mobilize human resources, infrastructure and financial measures in response to a crisis whilst simultaneously gaining the confidence of their citizens to ensure full cooperation. But, unfortunately we have also seen the dire consequences of bad leadership that has resulted in deadly delays and muddled communications. 

RECOVERY – BUSINESS AS USUAL IS NOT AN OPTION –It is clear that we cannot, in recovering from this pandemic, go back to ‘business as usual”. It was business as usual that got us into this mess

The ever changing nature of the CoVid crisis and the politics involved has, for the past number of months, pushed news about a host of environmental crises (climate change, accelerated extinctions, toxic exposure, micro-plastic pollution and more) off the front pages. This is understandable but also unfortunate. Environmental issues are, and will continue to be, orders of magnitude greater in terms of overall human cost. For example, the combined effects of ambient (outdoor) and household air pollution cause about 7 million premature deaths every year, largely as a result of increased mortality from stroke, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer and acute respiratory infections (WHO – 2019 report). The numbers associated with climate change due to drought, hurricanes, wild fires, land use degradation and massive human migrations and more are even more worrying but harder to quantify.  

Some facts re climate change:

Carbon Dioxide280 PPM in 1970 // 420 ppm in 2020
Temperature1 degree C higher globally since 1900 / over 7 degrees warmer in parts of the Arctic
Sea IceShrunk by over 1,000,000 sq. miles (2.6 million sq. km)
Sea levelsHave risen over 20 cm since 1900 – flooding in many cities
Fires2019 – tens of millions hectors lost – unprecedented – each year is worse
Heat wavesEach year – more days of extreme heat and more deaths due to the heat
Ocean acidityIncreasing due to carbon dioxide dissolving – threats to sea life / coral bleaching

There are many more stark examples. The main point – we are seeing dramatic levels of damage and health consequences due to environmental degradation and it’s getting worse each year. 

Despite the mountains of evidence, there is still significant denial and/or ignorance of climate change and environmental degradation. In fact we are seeing some governments moving 180 degrees in the wrong direction. In Brazil, President Bolsonaro has decided that it’s a good idea to burn precious Amazon forests to make way for beef farming. In the US, the Trump administration is weakening a host of air, water, land-use and climate change regulations. Around the world, many industries are advocating for even more reductions in health, safety and environmental regulations citing economic “emergency factors” due to the lockdowns.  Moreover, the fossil fuel industry is lobbying for significant portions of economic stimulus funds despite having been heavily subsidized and raking in enormous profits for decades. Unfortunately, some poorly led governments will comply without a consideration for more sustainable options. It does not have to be this way.

A SUSTAINABLE RECOVERY IS POSSIBLE – I am not an economist, but as an environmental scientist, it is clear to me that our conventional economic orthodoxy is failing us in so many ways in terms of addressing the environment (climate change, mass extinctions, water quality and quantity, habitat loss, air quality, etc.), human wellness (health, equality, access to healthy food, happiness), and a sustainable use of resources. 

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the monetary value of all finished goods and services made within a country during a specific period. GDP provides an economic snapshot of a country and thus used to estimate the size of an economy and growth rate. However, GDP does not provide information about the overall wellbeing of a country since activities that are detrimental (like deforestation, strip mining, over-fishing, prison populations, terrorism) actually and strangely increase today’s GDP.

Jonathan Aldred, an economist from Cambridge states that “conventional economic theories have had little to offer. On the contrary, they have acted like a cage around our thinking, vetoing a range of progressive policy ideas as unaffordable, counter-productive, incompatible with free markets, and so on. Worse than that, economics has led us, in a subtle, insidious way, to internalise a set of values and ways of seeing the world that prevents us even imagining various forms of radical change.

Since economic orthodoxy is so completely embedded in our thinking, escape from it demands more than a short-term spending splurge to prevent immediate economic collapse, vital though that is. We must dig deeper to uncover the economic roots of the mess we’re in. Putting it more positively, what do we want from post-coronavirus economics?”

Fortunately – there are many economic thinkers proposing sustainable ways of moving forward. A circular economy is an alternative to a traditional linear economy (make, use, dispose) in which we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them whilst in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end of each service life.

A related but even more progressive concept is the doughnut economy described by Kate Raworth, an English economist working for the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge. Doughnut economics, is a visual framework for sustainable development – shaped like a doughnut or lifebelt – combining the concept of planetary boundaries with the complementary concept of social boundaries. The name derives from the shape of the diagram, i.e. a disc with a hole in the middle. The centre hole of the model depicts the proportion of people that lack access to life’s essentials (healthcare, education, equality, etc.) while the outer crust represents the ecological ceilings or planetary boundaries that life depends on and must not be overshot.  See visual below.

The framework was proposed to regard the performance of an economy by the extent to which the needs of people are met without overshooting Earth’s ecological ceiling. In this model, an economy is considered prosperous when all social foundations are met without overshooting any of the ecological ceilings. This situation is represented by the area between the two rings, as the safe and just space for humanity.

These types of progressive concepts are not “pie in the sky’. A growing body of technological achievements along with associated financial undertakings underpins them. However there is predictable pushback from those entrenched in the traditional linear economy. The upcoming US election is providing a clear case study about the opposing forces. A ‘New Green Deal’ however it might be finally laid out, is already being branded as ‘socialist’. It is a false narrative as is commonly the case when progressive programs are initially proposed. 

Make no mistake – despite ill-informed pushback, progress on many fronts is already occurring. The price of solar modules has plummeted 99% since the 1970s thanks to forward thinking research, public policy and increasing demand. According to the US Bureau of Labour Statistics, the fastest growing occupation over the next 10 years will be solar panel installer. The second: wind turbine technician. Major financial institutions have taken note with investments in renewables growing each year accompanied by decreasing investments in fossil fuels. 

Despite these good news stories, sustainability is nonetheless a political issue. Unfortunately, this is stalling progress. We have observed this exact outcome with the CoVid crisis. Politics lead to a denial followed by a delay in needed action with a deadly outcome.

Policy shifts at all levels of government are needed to speed our transition to clean energy, sustainable and safe food production, proper use of resources and greater equality. Political will and informed planning are needed more than ever now. These goals though can be met. We have the knowledge and the financial resources. Moreover, people can adapt quickly to change once convinced that the change is necessary and even useful.