Seal Rescue Ireland

A photo taken of Churro, a female grey seal

So for my summer I'm interning at Ireland's only seal sanctuary, Seal Rescue Ireland which I am really enjoying. I have already learnt so much about the two types of seal found within Irish waters. The first species of seal is the Grey seal. These guys can reach up to 300 KG and the pups, that are born between September and December, are born at roughly 14 KG. The pups are born with a white fur called lanugo which is not waterproof meaning they have to spend the first three weeks on shore with the mother coming to shore to nurse frequently. So if you see a small white seal on shore please keep a distance and phone a wildlife centre if you're worried because mum is more than likely close by. The second species of seal (that is much cuter in my opinion) is the Common seal which is a lot smaller only reaching 130 KG. They are currently in pupping season and are born during the summer months and are able to go straight into the water after they are born but we still advise that if you find one on the shore to follow the same rules as stated above.

So why do we need a rescue centre? Well there are several reasons that seals end up in our care the first of which being plastic ingestion. We have had numerous seals come into the centre with single use plastic within the system, especially shiny piece such as crisp packets that can look like fish. Most of the time the seal throws up the plastic but we have found it stuck in digestive systems which has resulted in the death of a few seals. One way we reduce our plastic is by making EcoBricks which are plastic bottles stuffed with soft plastic that is densely packed so no air is present. They are used in less developed rural areas as actual bricks but we use our to make benches for school tours. If you want to learn how to make them click here. Another major issue is orphaning of pups as they are similar to baby birds in the sense that if the mother does not recognise the scent of the pup or becomes scared she will abandon her pup and self preserve.  Dogs in particular scare seals and should be kept on leads if you are in areas where seals are found. Dogs and seals are also very closely related and and cause disease to spread quickly between them which will not only harm the seal but also put your dog at risk aswell. To prevent this we ask that you do not touch the seal. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. We ask that you keep a distance and call a wildlife centre (or us) and you will be advised what to do. It is likely that the mamma seal is close by in the water so we will send volunteers to watch for roughly an hour to see if the mum can be spotted. If we cannot see her we will then take the seal pup in.

The purpose of SRI is to take in sick, injured or abandoned pups with the aim of releasing them back into the wild and we are more like a seal hospital than a zoo. The centre is run mainly on donations and only get 5% of the costs covered by the Irish government. This is enough to treat roughly six seals but on average we treat 150 seals annually. Each seal costs roughly 2000 Euros to treat as this covers medicine, employment, energy needed, and fish (lots of fish) so to raise money I am doing a run in July. I would appreciate any donations to help the seals below. Please check out the website below and read all the amazing things we do and if anyone is visiting County Wexford come visit and we would love you give you a tour. You can also adopt a seal here for 30 Euros where you get a pack of information and pictures of your pup with updates on how they are doing. 


Donate to my fundraiser to help the seals.
https://www.facebook.com/donate/640533469797106/

Seal Rescue Ireland website - http://www.sealrescueireland.org/

Does Our Environment Affect Our Welfare and Health?

There's no question that we are having a grave impact on our environment whether that is through climate change or habitat destruction. Many of us believe that in order to improve our happiness and welfare we need to have a high income and economic growth in our country but there have been many reports to suggest that there is a strong link between growing the economy and environmental degradation. So what does this mean for our health? Can we really be at our happiest and healthiest with the current trend of over exploitation?

According to the World Bank, in 2014 globally we emitted 36.2 million Ktonnes of CO2 in contrast to the 9 million Ktonnes emitted in 1960 which has made us more vulnerable to respiratory illness. The WHO has linked 3 million deaths each year to outdoor air pollution with reference to illness ranging from asthma and bronchitis to lung cancer. These reports also state these illnesses are higher in industrial areas and larger cities due to excess transport fumes and burning of fossil fuels. There has also been a link between high concentrations of air pollution and cardiovascular illness which puts us at greater risk of heart attack, stroke and angina. One way this occurs is through particulate matter entering the blood stream, restricting the movement of blood vessels, increasing blood pressure and therefore increasing our risk of suffering a heart attack.

Sunlight provides us with vitamin D which is needed to regulate calcium and phosphate within the body, helping to maintain healthy bones and muscles. We as humans require 10 micrograms of vitamin D a day, most of which we are supposed to get naturally through sunlight meaning we do have to step out of the house occasionally. A lack of vitamin D in extreme cases can cause rickets in children that leads to weak bones and deformities. This causes a high number of bone fractures and can eventually cause a curvature of the spine, leading to a permanent disability. Low vitamin D can also cause osteomalacia, which is similar to rickets, in adults causing bones to soften. With 1 in 5 people in the UK having low vitamin D levels, it is important we spend more time outdoors (and maybe consider a supplement in winter).

There have also been studies suggesting a link between time outside and an improvement in mental health with studies showing time outdoors reduces stress and reduces the symptoms of depression and anxiety. Scientists have suggested that urban and man made environments has 'constant simulation' that leads to mental fatigue, making those living in cities at greater risk of mental illness. Those living in rural areas also have better sleep with less noises keeping them awake. This will help to improve concentration, lower stress and improve moods which will allow people to be more productive.

There is also the obvious benefit that walking in a natural environment keeps us active, aids weight loss and maintains a healthy heart. Sitting down for too long can cause a decline in bone density and increase blood pressure after deposits in the blood vessels are not removed. All of these factors have been linked to a lower life expectancy by increasing our risk of stroke, heart disease and diabetes just to name a few.

So we all need to get outside in nature to help improve our health and wellbeing. However, I'm not saying that if you live in a city you're going to get ill and live a shorter life because that's not the case. Most large cities have parks and open spaces you can visit and city councils should be turning old sites into open spaces to encourage the urban population the get out and appreciate nature and we should all be doing our bit to protect it to protect the health of the future generations.


References
https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution#death-rates-from-air-pollution
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/practical-support/air-pollution
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/
https://patient.info/health/osteoporosis-leaflet/vitamin-d-deficiency

Are Fireworks Damaging Our Environment?

Happy new year! Our beautiful planet has taken another journey around our sun meaning that we celebrate with over the top and elaborate firework displays and excessive drinking. Whilst watching the London fireworks on TV, I couldn't help but notice the large amount of smoke being emitted which got me thinking could these beautiful sparks of light actually be having a big impact on the environment?

A picture of fireworks. From pixabay.com

Before looking at the impact I was curious what these were actually made of. In the simplest form, fireworks are tubes filled with gunpowder, wrapped in flash paper and attached to a fuse, hence the explosion. However, to create the sparkle and the colour aluminium, iron, steel, zinc, or magnesium are added as these ensure that fireworks will burn for longer and brighter. Compounds of strontium, lithium, sodium, barium or copper are added to change the colour as these react with heat differently to produce different coloured flames, thus creating the beautiful displays we see twice a year. These additions are the biggest concern as in high concentrations, they can be toxic for both humans and wildlife. The fireworks create particulate matter containing the toxic elements that will eventually settle on land and, if landed on soil, can be taken into the plant system via the roots and enter the food chain via bio-magnification. Aluminium alone can affect the functions of gills in fish as it acts as an inhibitor for the enzyme responsible for the uptake of ions and will therefore reduce fish populations and any predators feeding on the poisoned fish.

Another issue is the smoke caused as it increases particulate matter levels and increases carbon dioxide concentrations within our atmosphere. Particulate matter is a collection of particles (under 100 micrometers) that are either produced naturally or, in the case of fireworks, are produced from chemical reactions. Minerals (including aluminium, silicon, iron and calcium) are producers of particulate matter and, as previously stated, some of these are included in the makeup of fireworks but this composition varies depending on colour. The monitoring of particulate matter has shown that pollution episodes (above average concentrations) occur around January and November implying there may be a link between New Year and Bonfire night. During these winter months, high PM concentration have been linked to temperature inversion that are responsible for trapping pollution at ground levels, in turn increasing our exposure time. There are a range of health impacts ranging from respiratory illness to affecting the cardiovascular system with these risks being greatest during inversions which is shown by the increase of breathing problems of over 30% during Diwali. However, there is also a large environmental impact the first one being the impact of photosynthesis as PM deposits on the leaves of green plants reducing the contact to sunlight. This can reduce the rate of plant growth and therefore lessening the amount of food available to primary consumers. This can affect of the rest of the food web as it reduces energy available for higher tropic levels (basically reducing food for top predators) especially if the primary consumer populations are affected.

The chemical process of lighting the gun powder has been linked to the pollution of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, both of which are major polluting gases. Sulphur dioxide is directly linked to the production of acid rain that can corrode metal and limestone structures as well as the exoskeletons of invertebrates. As many small invertebrates are the basis of any food web, this can again affect higher tropic levels and affect the food availability within the ecosystem. This can also affect the pH of water bodies and has the potential to cause ocean acidification which is a cause for coral bleaching. As our coral reefs are currently in decline shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to reduce acid rain, especially for things that are not strictly necessary?  Nitrogen dioxide has been linked to increased eutrophication, decreasing the sunlight available to a water supply by the growth of algal blooms. This causes a decline in oxygen from a lack of photosynthesis affecting the populations of marine organisms thus reducing biodiversity. This, again, can affect human health and can cause nitrogen dioxide poisoning as it can irritate the mucous membrane in the lungs.

So with these major environmental impacts shouldn't we be focusing on reducing our use of fireworks rather than spending millions on elaborate firework displays every year? With so much advancement in scientific knowledge, it does seem strange to me that we have not found a more sustainable alternative, despite the fact that firework displays are unnecessary to our well being but I can see that it is a tradition and culturally we associate these with celebrations. With the development of renewable energy sources, light and laswer shows could be an alternative if done safely. With climate change being on the tip of everyone tongue, I think we should be looking at smaller issues, like fireworks, in order to help the bigger picture.


References

• B Rosseland, T Eldhuset, M Staurnes. Environmental effects of aluminium. 1990. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24202562
• Wonderopolis. How are fireworks made? 2014. https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-are-fireworks-made
• McLendon, R. Are Fireoworks Bad for the Environment? Earth Matters. 2018. https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/are-fireworks-bad-for-the-environment
• Fuller, G. Our prettiest pollutant: just how bad are fireworks for the environment? The Conservation. 2015. http://theconversation.com/our-prettiest-pollutant-just-how-bad-are-fireworks-for-the-environment-52451
• Compound Interest. The Dark Side of Fireworks. January 2017. https://www.compoundchem.com/2017/01/05/fireworks-environment/

The Impacts of Sailing

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Sailing_(sport)

The boating and sailing industry has been growing over recent years with many of us participating as a way to connect with oceans and nature. This growth has aloud us to go scuba diving and snorkelling in areas that otherwise wouldn't be accessible as well as take part in a seemingly fun team sport with boat races even being included in the Olympics. However, with out oceans and the creature that call them home being in great danger, this got me thinking if this recreational activity could have a grave environmental impact.

In recent years there has been evidence to suggest that boats have caused a decline in dissolved oxygen, stunting the growth of sea plants that in turn affect the entire food chain. The propellers  and rudders bring up sediment from the sea bed which reduces the turbidity (i.e. it stops sunlight from reaching the seabed). This reduces the amount of photosynthesis that can occur and reduces the amount of oxygen available meaning that habitat cannot sustain larger fish populations, especially in shallow waters. With nutrients also being brought to the surface, large amounts of boats have also been linked to algal blooms which also reduce the turbidity but, in some cases, produce products that are toxic to both marine and terrestrial organisms. Safe to say that the reduced turbidity caused by high speed boats has a major impact on marine life and is something that can be easily avoided if we anchor these boats further out, away from shallow waters with less chance of the motors touching the sediment.

Another major impact is the potential for fuels to spill and leak into the surrounding environment. We have all seen those photos of sea birds drenched in oil and boats have the potential do do this on a much smaller scale, particularly if the boat is driven and managed poorly. When the boat is stationary, there is significant potential for small amount of partially burnt fuel to leak into the surrounding area. Smaller fuel particles are more likely to be ingested by marine life therefore there is great risk for bio accumulation up the food chain. Needless to say these chemicals are toxic to marine life. These chemical can also affect both the biotic and abiotic conditions of the habitat, making them less habitable for the species that live there. One potential change is pH and if it were to increase in acidity (or decline in pH) could mean damage to crustaceans with the acidic water dissolving shells and other carbonaceous structures including corals.

Although sailing can increase tourism and GDP, there is also the physical damage done to habitats. Sailing and other marine activities produce large amount of litter that end up in the ocean which included nets, ropes and plastic bags. With 43% of all boat activity being recreational sailing in Australia alone, it it fair to say that the majority of the waste from boats come from the sailing industry. Marine debris poses a huge threat to wildlife with organisms becoming trapped in discarded nets as well as smothering coral and other sea plants. Not to mention the fact that some organisms mistake plastic for food with sea turtles in particular mistaking plastic bags for jelly fish. The boats themselves have also done physical damage to marine environments with boat anchors being the biggest offender. Anchors can damage the sea bed but uprooting plants, disturbing bottom feeders and destroying coral.

The main solution to this would be to designate protection areas with no or limited access to areas with high biodiversity. However evidence suggests that this requires greater regulation with 43% of sailing boats in Australia ignoring the Marine Protection Areas. I'm not saying we should stop ailing as it is a way for us to grown closer to our marine environment and fall in love with the beautiful marine wildlife. I am however suggesting we act responsibly by staying within designated zones, ensure the boat is maintained to a high standard and stop treating the ocean as our personal landfill.

Resources -

• Environmental Protection, The Environmental Impacts of Boating, May 2017, https://eponline.com/articles/2017/03/27/the-environmental-impacts-of-boating.aspx 
• Brynes. T, Science Direct, 2016, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652615002413#kwrds001

How Does Plastic Travel in the Ocean

Map of ocean currents - (Pidwirny, 2006)

In 2017, scientists estimated that there was roughly 100 million tons of plastic in our oceans, with this figure constantly on the rise. The plastics are constantly circulating the globe via ocean currents which is the movement of sea water between locations, in a similar way to a conveyor belt, that are generated by a range of forces that change regionally including wind speed and force as well temperature difference. This has led to large accumulations, particularly of microplastic, specific areas of the ocean with the most well-known being the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. All the mentioned factors (plus many more) mean that rubbish from my university in Plymouth could end up polluting the Great Barrier Reef.

Ocean currents are defined as “a horizontal flow of water through the ocean” (according to the freedictionary.com) that redistributes heat from the sun through the globe. The movements that generate the currents are often seasonal and affected by a range of factors including:
• Differences in temperature
• Wind direction and speed
• Gravitational pull from moon and sun
• Rise and fall of the tides
• Salinity
• Atmospheric pressure

The global system of ocean currents has an important role within a range of ecosystems as well as the global climate. Ocean currents carry heat from tropical regions and transports and redistributes this heat away from the equator to warm coastal areas, making land more habitable and increasing soil fertility. They also have an impact on the weather as warmer water has a higher rate of evaporation, resulting in heavier rainfall in tropical regions which allows the tropical rainforests to have the heavy rainfall and humidity it is known for. This is what gives these rainforests the fertile soil that allows the beautiful tropical plants to grow. Currents also increase the biodiversity in the photic zone (or the top layer of the ocean) as upwelling occurs that bring nutrients to the surface. This allows phytoplankton to grow and increase in population that increase oxygen levels and provide more food for the primary consumers in the food chain. Needless to say this has a knock on effect and affects higher trophic levels within the ecosystem.

The global transport of plastics via ocean currents has created ‘rubbish hotspots’ such as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Despite public belief, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not a large mound of debris in the middle of the pacific like the name suggests and it is not even visible by satellite. The other name the Pacific Trash Vortex describes the area much better as it is a gyre containing high concentrations of marine litter and chemicals that circulate the North Pacific Ocean. With 1.9 million pieces of microplastic per square mile, the risk to the ecosystem in this area is huge and as 70% of all litter in the ocean sink to the floor the unseen impacts may be even greater than expected. The North Pacific Gyre keeps the debris circulating the North Pacific Ocean and creates convergence zones that are the natural gathering points within the ocean current system. In the case of the North Pacific, the two largest convergence zones are the western Garbage Patch and the eastern Garbage Patch (shown below). The constant movement of the gyre means that the microplastic and other marine debris remains trapped within the North Pacific ecosystem, amplifying the damage even more.

A map showing the North Pacific Garbage patch, (NOAA - Response and Restoration, 2013)

As the amount of plastic within our oceans continues to rise, we could be seeing more gatherings of plastics like the pacific garbage patch as it is transported globally and deposited by ocean currents. This has a huge impact on biodiversity in these areas and have been ingested by species, particularly seas turtles, as well as entangling others. With 17% or all threatened marine species being affected by plastic in our oceans, we need to be more aware that plastic does travel within our oceans and dropping a plastic bottle on your local beach could impact the Great Barrier Reef or be ingested by the endangered Leatherback turtle. 

References -

• Krieger, A. (2016, Febuary 7). What will it take to get plastics out of the ocean? Vox: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/7/10928788/ocean-plastic-pollution-solutions
• National Geographic. (2014, September 19). Great Pacific Garbage Patch.  https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/
• NOAA - Response and Restoration. (2013, Febuary 7th). How Big Is the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch"? Science vs. Myth. Office of Response and Restoration: https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/about/media/how-big-great-pacific-garbage-patch-science-vs-myth.html
• Pidwirny, M. (2006). Surface and Subsurface Ocean Currents: Ocean Current Map. Retrieved from Fundamentals of Physical Geography: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q_1.html
• Sea Turtle Conservancy. (2017). Information About Sea Turtles: Threats from Marine Debris. Sea Turtle Conservancy: https://conserveturtles.org/information-sea-turtles-threats-marine-debris/

Is organic food better for the environment?

Organic Food photograph, http://csglobe.com/booming-organics-u-s-farmers-forced-to-import-organic-crops-to-meet-non-gmo-demand/

The UK organic food industry grew 7.1% from last year and is continuing to grew in popularity with consumers as many believe this will not only benefit our health but the environment. With growing concerns about GMO's and pesticides driving this belief, it is no wonder that the £2 billion industry continuing to grow with every supermarket seemingly expanding their organic range. This got me thinking if there was any truth to these claims or is this just a marketing tactic to get us to buy more expensive food?

So what does organic food really mean. Well according to DEFRA, organic food is defined as "the product of a farming system which avoids the use of man-made fertilisers, pesticides; growth regulators and livestock feed additives. Irradiation and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or products produced from or by GMOs are generally prohibited by organic legislation." This means that organic farms are working to achieve a more sustainable food system that, in theory, is more socially, economically and (most importantly) more environmentally sustainable. Basically organic farmers aim to produce a more 'natural' farm environment by using nothing that has been man made which sounds like this is better for the environment but is this really the case?

Firstly lets look at pesticides which are chemicals that are often sprayed on crops to kill pests in an attempt to increase crop yields and subsequently profits. Obviously chemical pesticides, including herbicides and insecticides, are man made and every food business has to comply with UK legislation and regulations that limits the Maximum Residue Levels. Despite the strict regulations and monitoring there are some major issues that threaten the environment. One main issue is that pesticides often threaten and kill non target organisms, including key pollinators such as bees, which are vital to any ecosystem. One example of this is DDT which was widely used after WWII and was found to be toxic to many marine animals such as seas shrimp. However, the main issue was caused by biomagnification in birds higher up the food chain as it caused egg shells to become thin, causing a decline in juvenile populations. There is also the issue of leaching and runoff that often occurs after periods of heavy rainfall which is a fairly common occurrence in the UK. This often leads to the polluting of nearby water sources which, again, threaten aquatic life but also affects the surrounding terrestrial wildlife. Nearby soil can become polluted and/or reduce soil fertility, potentially causing a decline in wild plant population. This may lead to a smaller habitat for small mammals and insects so in theory, organic food could help to improve biodiversity as it stops the use of toxic chemicals which can build up in the surrounding area.

Obviously the main disadvantage of organic food is that it is more expensive so many of us opt for the cheaper option but I'm more interested in the environmental impact and the possible sustainability. One main threat is that organic food requires a greater land area with studies showing that organic farms require 84% more land to produce the same yield as a conventional farm. There are several reasons for this such as plants grow a lot quicker on conventional farms so a greater number of crops can be harvested. Obviously this is due to the use of fertilisers, pesticides and GM crops but it can be argued that conventional farms allow use to create more space for wildlife and biodiversity. If the land would actually be used for biodiversity is questionable but the argument and potential is there. However, this does make conventional farming more socially sustainable for future populations which could be needed as our population continues to rise.

Organic farming also has a much lower carbon footprint without the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides that are often made from petroleum based products. This means there is less greenhouse gases being produced as well as there being a more efficient use of our finite resources. Organic farms also have a much higher rate of carbon sequestration or in other words organic farms remove more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, consequently helping to reduce the enhanced greenhouse effect. it has been recorded that roughly 575 - 700 kg per ha are removed annually in temperate areas which is almost double that of conventional farms. It is believed this is due to the treatment of soils which allows smaller plants, such as grass, to grow and this is also aided by crop rotation making organic farms more environmentally sustainable when talking about climate change.

Another potential environmental issue is that organic crops may attract a greater population of pest species that could have an impact on surrounding biodiversity. Although there are methods of biological pest control, such as companion planting and importation, the use of pesticides and herbicides has been proved to be more effective at completely irradiating pests. Without these methods there is a possibility that the number of invasive species surrounding the organic agricultural land will increase. However, this is a very weak argument as it could be argued that and biodiversity saved could be threatened by the pesticides anyway as they have been known to kill non target organisms.

Looking at all the evidence, I would come to the conclusion that yes organic crops are much better from the environment as they have a much smaller ecological footprint. However, this does not mean they are more sustainable as there is a significantly higher economic cost as they are more expensive to consumers and more expensive to grow. With organic crops yields averaging 20% lower than that of organic farms, organic food lowers food security also lowering the sustainability. So yes, they are better for the environment and the wildlife but organic farming methods do need to improve to increase the overall sustainability.

References - 

• UK Government, Pesticides in food, Food standards agency, January 2018,  https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/pesticides-in-food
• Julie Day, The Debate over Organic vs. Chemical Fertilizers, Today's Homeowener, 2008,  https://www.todayshomeowner.com/debate-over-organic-chemical-fertilizers/
• Mark Lynas, How land-inefficient is organic agriculture?, marklynas.org, July 2012, http://www.marklynas.org/2012/07/how-land-inefficient-is-organic-agriculture/
• BBC News, Plant pests: The biggest threats to food security?, Science and Environment, November 2011, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15623490
• Tomekde Pont, The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture, Science Direct, Agricultural Systems Volume 108, April 2012, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X1100182X

Are Electric Cars the Answer?

Photograph from Financial Tribute, October 2017 -
https://financialtribune.com/articles/auto/74460/china-electric-car-output-to-hit-1m-next-year

With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise combined the immanent threat of peak oil many of us are turning to hybrid or electric cars to get us from A to B. With 1.9 million electric cars being used globally in 2017, there has been an increase in both interest and investment in the electric car industry with global car manufacturers creating for 'eco-friendly' electric cars, the most popular of which being the Nissan Leaf. However, is purchasing one of these cars actually reducing your ecological footprint and fossil fuel consumption at all? And are there better alternatives we should be investing in?

Firstly lets look at the total greenhouse gas emissions. Per km, the average petrol run car produces the equivalent of 125g of CO2 whereas the average hybrid produces 82g per km. If your car were to be a pure electric car, the emissions would be even lower averaging at 57g per km. This is mainly due to the fact that no combustion occurs in the engine of an electric car but this doesn't mean they're completely green. Firstly, the average electric car produces 3.3 tonnes more CO2 during the production in comparison to the average for petrol cars. There are also the greenhouse gases produced during electricity generation as during 2015 roughly 66% of electricity was generated using fossil fuels, the so called 'green' cars are still contributing towards the enhanced greenhouse effect. However, there is evidence to suggest that electric cars have the potential to produce 80% less greenhouse gas emissions compared to a petrol car. Personally, I believe this to be possible as it has been proven that electric cars are more energy efficient, but the amount of emissions will vary depending on the nations energy mix as well as the future development of the car batteries. Overall, there are fewer emissions produced by electric cars and they do not produce any exhaust emission resulting in fewer NOx and PM emissions which will help improve air quality, particually in urban areas. Taking all these into account, statistically electric cars are better for the environment in terms of emissions and can be shown to improve air quality.

Despite this fact, fossil fuels still account for the majority of electricity generation with 51% of the UK's energy in 2016 being generated by natural gas and coal. This means that greenhouse gases will still be being produced and with the current geopolitical issues surrounding natural gas, the growth in electric cars could put a strain on our current reserves which can be described as touchy at best, particularly in Ukraine. Although less oil is used for electricity generation, electric cars could lead to a growth in the coal industry and open cast mining in particular has a huge environmental impact. There is large habitat damage which reduces biodiversity and puts a strain on vulnerable species due to the removal of vegetation that is considered 'overburden'. There is also the issue of sulphur dioxide emission, increasing acid rain and the release of toxic trace element polluting the water supply. The increase in demand for electricity has the potential to increase the amount of nuclear power stations as nuclear fission has an extremely high energy density, much higher than that of any current technology. There are many growing concerns as even though there are no greenhouse gas emission and it is recyclable, there is the issue of nuclear waste production and radiation which threaten the health of workers as well as the surrounding area if radioactive dust particles are released into the atmosphere. The unstable nature of radioisotopes means that there is a risk of a nuclear reactor explosion which could mean that occurrences similar to Fukishima and Chernobyl could become more common if the demand for nuclear energy would to increase.

The other main benefits is the economic savings. Most electric cars are tax free which means a saving of between £140 and £2070 annually, depending on how polluting your car is. There is also the reduced maintenance cost as no greenhouse gases and polluting exhaust gases mean there is no need for oil changes and the engine is kept cleaner for longer. There is also the Plug-in Car Grant meaning there is an additional saving with a reduced buying price but it is more than likely this grant will not last long if electric car sales begin to rise.

The biggest con however, is the lack of infrastructure available. With charging points still being relatively uncommon, many people would not feel comfortable using a pure electric car for a long journey. The batteries also have a long charging time meaning that already long journey could take twice as long and drivers will be forced to use the limited charging stations available which could could cost a pretty penny. Without the infrastructure available, it is unlikely many users will see the benefits that are being advertised as many see this as there being an increase risk in breakdown and just as inconvenience especially for those who commute regularly. With a lack of infrastructure personally I cannot see the demand for pure electric cars rising but I feel that hybrid cars are a solution to this problem as this removes the risk of running out of fuel and eliminates that risk of there being no charging stations on route.

Overall, I feel that there are better and more reliable alternatives to pure electric cars that are greener. Personally I feel that with a development in the hydrogen engine (even though it is expensive and not available yet) the future of cars will be more sustainable. This would also combat the major environmental issue of the nickel needed for car batteries and have an even lower ecological footprint.



Resources -

• Energy Sage, Pros and cons of electric cars, September 2018, https://www.energysage.com/electric-vehicles/101/pros-and-cons-electric-cars/
• Sean Clarke, The Gaurdian, How green are electric cars?, December 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2017/dec/25/how-green-are-electric-cars
• Carbon Footprint Ltd, Electric Vehicles, 2017, https://www.carbonfootprint.com/electric_vehicles.html 
• Energy UK, Electricity Generation, 2018, https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/energy-industry/electricity-generation.html
• Murray Sculluion, Electric cars: pros and cons, Buyacar.co.uk, May 2018, https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/economical-cars/electric-cars/651/electric-cars-pros-and-cons

Can Cotton Be Sustainable?

Image from www.heraldsun.com.au

I was in Primark the other day (not the most eco-friendly I'll admit) and I noticed that they had a sustainable cotton section. Cotton farming requires a huge amount of land that is often derived from unsustainable deforestation methods (i.e. slash and burn) and the growing and harvesting process has a huge environmental impact so I was happy to see a big retailer trying to reduce the environmental impact. However this did get me thinking what made this cotton sustainable? Can cotton farming ever be sustainable?

Firstly why is cotton farming so unsustainable? 

Cotton farming has huge ethical and environmental implications the first of which being the huge water consumption with the average water footprint being 10,000 litres per kilogram. With 730 million without access to clean water globally, cotton farming increases water scarcity in the areas with the greatest need for water. Cotton is also considered the 'dirtiest crop' by many organisations, such as the EJF, with cotton farming using 16% of all insecticides. Over 98% of all insecticides kill no target species causing a decline in the main pollinator species. There is also a risk of contamination of aquatic environments from runoff causing a decline in aquatic organisms. There are also health implications for workers and with 99% of all cotton farmers living in third world countries, there is a lack of safety and hazard testing. For example, a common pesticide used for cotton farming is easily absorbed via the skin and has the potential to kill. Other health implications of insecticides include respiratory illnesses, memory loss and seizures. There is also a huge amount of pollution produced as a result of deforestation and the chemicals used in the dyeing and bleaching process causes a large amount of environmental degradation. These chemicals include heavy metals and benzidine/chlorine bleaches which have been linked to an increased risk of cancer. 

There is also a huge socioeconomic impact with the workers in third world nations receiving low wages and the rich TNC's receiving the majority of profits, driving the poverty cycle. The majority of workers receive wages lower than the amount needed to meet their basic human needs. Many of these workers work long working days (with hours above the limit set by the International Labour Organisation) and overtime often goes unpaid. There is also a huge number of children working in the fields and Uzbekistan has been outed for shutting schools and forcing children to work in cotton fields. 

This begs the question what is the difference between 'normal' cotton and sustainable cotton, like the one used in Primark?

Sustainable cotton is defines as the sources being 'either organic, better or recycled' which has the potential to vastly reduce the environmental footprint of cotton farming. With the greatest amount of energy being used, resulting in a large amount of pollution, is during the extraction and processing of cotton so recycled cotton will greatly reduce the ecological footprint. Cotton that is certified GRS (Global Recycle Standard) ensures that cotton has been produced with minimal environmental and chemical impacts throughout the entire production process. This ensures the cotton farm has a chemical management system in place to meet all the legal requirements and to reduce the amount of pollution and run off. It also ensures that all companies meet the set target for energy use (as set by Textile Exchange) and there are frequent reviews to help improve energy efficiency. there are also set targets for water use and air pollution levels helping to reduce the environmental impact further.

Organic is defined as "produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, or other artificial chemicals" in the Oxford dictionary. Although natural pesticides and fertilisers can still be harmful, there is less contribution to acidification and eutrophaction, reducing the impact on aquatic life and the soil in the surrounding area helping both the local people and the biodiversity. The chemicals used to treat regular cotton can bio-accumulate within the food chain meaning the impacts can be seen in the top predators even though they are not in direct contact with the chemical as it is stored in the fatty tissue of smaller, prey organisms. Pesticides have been linked to 67 million annual deaths in birds in the U.S. alone due to the bio-accumulating properties. With less pesticide use, there is a greater chance of bio-diversity recovering in cotton farming areas.

Photo of certified organic cotton labels from babycribbed.com

There are also major differences to the workers, with organisations working to improve working conditions. The Better Cotton Initiative ensure that farmers receive more of the profits, better working conditions and healthcare and has been based on UN labour standards. This mean there is a better quality of life for the workers as there is less fear of discrimination and better workers rights so they are not afraid of becoming unemployed if they do not receive a pay cut. The increase in disposable income means there is a greater chance of improving sanitation, education and access to clean water and food. The knock on effects mean that workers under these initiatives have a chance at a better quality of life.

There are a large number of cotton standards and projects to help improve the sustainability but with less than 1% of the worlds cotton being certified organic, there is still a huge amount of demand and need for unsustainable farming methods to meet the huge demand. With 120.8 million bales (at 480 pounds each) being produced in 2017, more retailers need to enforce these farming methods to ensure the minimal environmental impact and ensure we have cotton as a resource for the future. However, in my opinion cotton is one of the most unsustainable materials and there are better options for retailers to invest in with a much smaller impact. For example, not only is hemp a more durable material, which will help reduce the production demand, but also requires half the amount of land that cotton does and requires less water at 2,000 L per kg. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry. A life cycle assessment carried out but the Textile Exchange staes that organic farmed cotton was "significantly more environmental friendly" but organic cotton also requires more land than convential cotton as it has a much lower yield so some believe that it may lead to an increase in deforestation, questioning the sustainability of organic cotton. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry.

Overall, my personal view is that recycled cotton is a better option than organic and conventional cotton due to the reduced chemical and land use. Despite this I do feel that there are better options available and companies should be investing in these materials. I do feel that some responsibility should lie with the consumer as there are alternatives such as buying second hand clothing and choosing your clothing brands more carefully.



References - 

• Risks of cotton processing, Organic Cotton, (2016), https://www.organiccotton.org/oc/Cotton-general/Impact-of-cotton/Risk-of-cotton-processing.php 
• Ethical Issues in Cotton Production,  Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd, (August 2017), http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/fashionindustry/cotton.aspx
• Global Cotton Production, Statista, (2018), https://www.statista.com/statistics/259392/cotton-production-worldwide-since-1990/
• What Is the Most Animal and Eco-Friendly Material for Clothing?, Lindsay Patton, (January 26 2015),  http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/what-is-the-most-animal-and-eco-friendly-material-for-clothing/
• Global Recycled Standard, Textile Exchange, (2017), http://textileexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Global-Recycled-Standard-v4.0.pdf
• 13 brands sign sustainable cotton pledge - but is organic cotton really better?, Vlvlan Herdrlksz, Fashion United, (7 June 2017), https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/13-brands-sign-sustainable-cotton-pledge-but-is-organic-cotton-really-better/2017060724755