Some metals such as nickel, aluminum and steel are ubiquitous in our daily lives, and can be found in coinage, cookware, bridges, and more. Other metals, known as “precious metals”, are rarer and more expensive—but if you’ve ever owned a smartphone or taken medication, then you’ve likely benefitted from them as well.
An average iPhone contains approximately 0.034 grams of gold and 0.34 grams of silver, as well as smaller amounts of rare Earth elements such as yttrium, terbium, and neodymium. Precious metals are also used in the large-scale syntheses of commercial drugs. A common example is palladium, which catalyzes “cross-coupling” reactions—in which two molecules are coupled together—used to prepare Losartan (to treat high blood pressure) and Diflunisal (to treat fever and pain).
We all are familiar with coffee, whether we drink it or not. The 2018 Coffee Association of Canada Study states that 72% of Canadians aged 18-79 drank coffee yesterday. Often, we think coffee is a source of addiction for its nice taste and a stimulating sensation. Others make efforts to withdraw from drinking too much because of the toll it takes on their health. We rarely think coffee will disappear because it sounds so abundant. Yet we don’t realize that coffee is leading towards extinction faster than we think.
Coffee cultivation is significantly decreasing due to human activities. Deforestation and fossil fuel usage have raised temperatures, affecting the quality and quantity of coffee production. In addition, diseases such as coffee rust eat up the leaves and negatively impacts the coffee plantations. While it is not an immediate concern, a computerized climate model predicted that wild Arabica could go extinct by 2080. Despite the concerns shown by the industry and researchers, there is no commercial genetically modified (GM) coffee. However, there have been efforts in research to develop GM coffee, in hopes of a longer lifetime.
Predicted climate change outcomes for indigenous Arabica localities for one emission scenario. Source
Researchers used genetic engineering to introduce herbicide resistant coffee plants, a method to decrease weed damage while reducing phytotoxicity. In a Coffea canephora P study, researchers produced a genetically transformed coffee, by a particle bombardment of a DNA plasmid pCambia3301. Both transformed and non-transformed leaves were sprayed with herbicide ammonium glufosinate in greenhouse conditions. The non-transformed leaves showed clear signs of darkening and wilting, but the transformed leaves stayed in good condition.
One week after transformed leaves (A) and non-transformed leaves (B), sprayed with herbicide ammonium glufosinate. Source
Geneticist Juan Medrano from UC Davis College released the first public sequenced genome of Coffee Arabica in 2017. He hopes that not only researchers but also coffee consumers and farmers can use this information. Modifications to the sequence can give new insights to combat environmental stresses and infections. In addition, introducing new flavors and fragrances can keep Coffee Arabica’s quality.
Although genetically modified coffee technology is already available, many consumers remain skeptical regarding their consumption. This is due to their nature as chemically treated foods, also known as “Frankenfoods”. Because of human impact on the Earth and Mother Nature’s response, it is inevitable that genetically modified foods will slowly dominate the food industry. Time goes by quicker than we think, so take a moment to cherish the natural coffee while it lasts.
Global temperature averages are increasing at abnormal rates. Sea levels are rising, ice caps are melting, and nature is dying. Almost all governments and scientists worldwide have been looking for solutions to impede the fate that humanity is heading towards. One of the ways is through using a cleaner energy source such as hydroelectricity.
In the past two decades, hydroelectricity has become more popular as a substitution for fossil fuel powered energy production. Its claim to fame was that it was a clean way to generate electricity; it was a viable solution for the future as climate change started to become a mainstay in the news. Initial studies had hydroelectricity being almost emission free!
Vattenfall Study for Carbon Emissions of Fossil Fuels, Renewables, Nuclear. Source: Wikimedia Commons
When thinking about producing electricity using water, one would think of it as being a clean and renewable process. It’s water! People bathe in it and drink it. How can it be dirty?
Unlike coal, a non-renewable resource which takes millions of years to form, the water isn’t being burned or used up. However, like coal , it is not clean (albeit to a much lesser extent).
The basics of hydro-power is that water is pumped through a turbine to induce spinning. This motion activates a generator, producing the electricity which has become so important in daily life. The dirty part comes from the carbon emissions generated during construction and passively during the hydroelectric dam’s lifetime.
Throughout the building process, many carbon sinks will be destroyed as trees and plants will be chopped down. This reduces the overall carbon dioxide that can be stored while releasing the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Not to mention the habitats and the environments near the power plants that are destroyed at the same time.
However, it’s not just during the initial construction that hydroelectric power is unclean. Plants and other living things are able to grow in these bodies of water. All living things that die and decompose in the waters produce methane, carbon dioxide, and nutrients. The nutrients in turn help other living organisms grow, thus continuing the cycle. When thought about in this manner, the hydroelectric dams become carbon emission generators.
In its current state, hydroelectricity is not a clean source of power. Nevertheless, it is a viable alternative to fossil fuels as we transition to better solutions. There is hope in the future that hydro-power becomes one of these solutions. Companies are still innovating and working towards a setup that is gentler on the environment while still providing adequate amounts of electricity.
You wake up in the morning and then press snooze on your alarm clock one more time before groggily dragging yourself out of bed to the bathroom. Quickly you brush your teeth with your electric toothbrush, then hop in the shower and lather yourself with the bottle of that fancy body wash with the microbeads in it. In the kitchen, you grab the lunch you made from the prepackaged salad mix before heading out the door. Now in your car, you turn some knobs on the dashboard to play some music on your way to work or school. In case you have lost count, you have already encountered half a dozen plastic products and it isn’t even 9 AM yet.
Plastics are the result of taking petrochemical monomers (such as ethylene) and converting them to long chain polymers. This is done through a process called polymerization which is relatively easy and cheap to do. Another process, called photo-oxidation occurs as a result of exposure of these long-chain polymers to UV radiation (from the sun) and oxygen (in the air). Essentially, this process causes plastics to become brittle and in combination with the elements (wind and water abrasion), causes the degraded plastics to break into minuscule pieces. When these pieces are between 0.1 and 1000 μm in size, they are referred to as microplastics.
Due to plastics being such a cheap and omnipresent resource, there has been little incentive to recycle such products, leading to an accumulation of plastic waste in landfills and the world’s oceans. It is tragic to see seawater bodies filled with plastic, but only recently has it come into light that these microplastics are starting to make their way into our own bodies too. While seemingly obvious, microplastics have been reported in seafood, but they are also found in fertilizers and in common food items such as beer, sugar and salt. One study from last year found microplastic particles in 17 salt brands from 8 different countries. Additionally, atmospheric fallout of microplastics has also been reported, so it’s very possible we have already been inhaling and consuming microplastics.
A (a) polyisoprene/polystyrene, (b) polyethylene, and (c) pigment (phthalocyanine) fragment. Image (d) is a nylon-6 filament. Source
So what can be done to mitigate the amount of plastic that is becoming ocean waste and effectively microplastics? Our daily lives and plastic products have become too intertwined to even entertain the thought of completely banning plastics worldwide. Fortunately, there have already been movements to ban especially harmful products such as microbeads found in many skin products. But, some effective steps that everyone can implement into their routines are to reduce the use of single-use plastics such as plastic straws or plastic grocery bags. The issue with single-use or “disposable” plastics is that they are difficult to recycle and thus only contribute to plastic waste. Additionally, choosing products that have less plastic packaging is also a viable way to lessen your plastic consumption. Lastly, whenever possible, recycle your plastic products so your plastic water bottle can become a new plastic water bottle and not the microplastics in our food.
The following video is a collaboration between BBC Earth Lab and Exeter University and shows how microplastics can make it through the food chain and potentially onto our plates.
Freak snowstorms in Africa, unusually hot winters, and more natural disasters. Events like these are becoming more frequent occurrences than ever before, and so are the words to explain them, Climate Change.
Although natural disasters on land may get more attention, one of the largest concerns should be is what happens in the ocean. Ocean acidification, due to the increased levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, has one of the most significant impacts. Our ocean is a carbon dioxide sink, as it absorbs over 25% of the carbon dioxide that we emit into the atmosphere.
Due to the ocean dissolving more carbon dioxide, carbonic acid concentrations have also increased, resulting in lowering of the pH. Dr. Trional McGrath is a Chemical oceanographer from the National University of Ireland and she predicts that ocean acidification will increase by 170% by 2100!
Figure 1: The chemical process of Ocean Acidification by increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Source: CeNCOOS
Now, why do we care? We don’t live in the ocean so why would it effect us?
Carbonate ions are essential building blocks for marine life when forming shells. Figure 1 shows that as the H+ concentration increases, more of the carbonate ions are going to be tied up as carbonic acid. This results in less material for marine life to make their shells and other structures from.
Figure 2: A Sea Butterfly (i.e. Limacina helicina). An important food source in the ocean. Source: Mashable
A study was done where they placed Sea Butterflies in an ocean environment with the pH that is predicted for 2100. Their shells were essentially dissolved in as little as 45 days! Figure 3 below shows this process over that timeline. Even if only a few species are really effected by the pH change, this could have detrimental impacts all the way up the food chain, eventually effecting human’s supply of food!
Figure 3: The Sea Butterflies shell dissolving over 45 days in the predicted pH of the ocean in 2100. Source: TED
This is only one example of the dramatic effect that ocean acidification can cause, but everything from coral to predators of the sea are at risk. If we don’t do something to help reduce the current rate of carbon dioxide being dissolved into our ocean, then in the not too distant future, we won’t be able to recognize the oceans we once knew.
~ Amanda Fogh
“The excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is turning the oceans increasingly acid – is a slow but accelerating impact with consequences that will greatly overshadow all the oil spills put together. The warming trend that is CO2-related will overshadow all the oil spills that have ever occurred put together.” ~ Sylvia Earle (Marine Biologist and Explorer)
“Antimicrobial Resistance – Mutation.” National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Feb. 2009, www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/antimicrobialResistance/Understanding/Pages/mutation.aspx.
The development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a growing concern that is quickly sweeping up the attention of medicinal chemists and doctors. The growing use of antibiotics as the standard for treatment has led to the increase of drug-resistant bacteria; commonly known as “superbugs.” As the drug is repeatedly introduced to the bacteria, eventually mutations will arise in future generations of bacterium¹ that will allow it to be antibiotic-resistant and allow it to multiply and thrive. This increased number of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has led to an increase in sick patients² with bacterial infections that are antibiotic-resistant. As before due to the trivial nature of the infection simple antibiotics would cure the infection, but as per the nature of these “superbugs”, common treatments won’t work anymore, and new drugs or different treatments must be used to cure the infection.
“Causes of Antibiotic Resistance .” World Health Organization, Nov. 2015, www.who.int/drugresistance.
There are many causes to the antibiotic crisis, but one of the more prevalent causes are the over-prescribing of antibiotics and the over-use of antibiotics in livestock and fish farming. Currently, more than 50% of the antibiotics produced are going directly to the feeds of livestock³to keep them from getting sick due to their poor living conditions. By introducing bacteria to a consistent and high volume of antibiotics, eventually, the bacteria will go through mutations in future generations that will allow it to survive these antibiotics and ultimately result in the discontinued effectiveness of that drug. The same concept applies to the over-prescribing of antibiotics, by always introducing the bacteria to the drug eventually it will not be practical to use anymore4.At that point, different drugs would need to be used until they eventually stop working and so on until we reach a point where there would be no more antibiotics left to use to fight these infections.
What causes antibiotic resistance? – Kevin Wu. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znnp-Ivj2ek (accessed Feb 16, 2019).
Potential solutions to combat the problem involve something as trivial as proper hygiene. As making sure to wash your hands often, the chance for infection will go down and as a direct result will cut down on antibiotic use. A more futureproof method would be the development of new antibiotics5 or potential re-use of old antibiotics6that could be re-purposed to combat the problem. No matter the method used to combat this problem or a combination of every method available, this a problem that needs to be addressed as soon as possible, or we are looking at a world where trivial infections can run rampant with no good method of treatment.
~ Danial Yazdan
References:
¹Blair, Jessica M. A., et al. “Molecular Mechanisms of Antibiotic Resistance.” Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 13, no. 1, 2014, pp. 42–51., doi:10.1038/nrmicro3380.
²Duin, David Van, and David L. Paterson. “Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria in the Community.” Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, vol. 30, no. 2, June 2016, pp. 377–390., doi:10.1016/j.idc.2016.02.004.
³Bush, Karen, et al. “Tackling Antibiotic Resistance.” Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 9, 2 Nov. 2011, pp. 894–896., doi:10.1038/nrmicro2693.
4Chellat, Mathieu F., et al. “ChemInform Abstract: Targeting Antibiotic Resistance.” ChemInform, vol. 47, no. 29, 22 Mar. 2016, pp. 6600–6626., doi:10.1002/chin.201629282.
5Nathan, Carl, and Otto Cars. “Antibiotic Resistance — Problems, Progress, and Prospects.” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 371, no. 19, 2014, pp. 1761–1763., doi:10.1056/nejmp1408040.
6Frieri, Marianne, et al. “Antibiotic Resistance.” Journal of Infection and Public Health, vol. 10, no. 4, 2017, pp. 369–378., doi:10.1016/j.jiph.2016.08.007.
The four major renewable energy sources in Canada from 2006 to 2016 in megawatts (MW). Source: Natural Resources Canada
However, though an electric car’s engine does not produce any carbon dioxide gas compared to conventional gasoline engines, many consumers often forget the hidden GHG emissions cost from when a car is manufactured.
Sale of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in China by year between January 2011 and December 2018 | Source: Mario Roberto Durán Ortiz
In fact, from the moment a car comes out of a manufacturing plant, it would have produced as much as 35 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Compared to an average gasoline-powered car that produces 4.6 metric tons of CO2 annually, that is more than seven years of emissions from the plant to the dealer.
In addition, not all electric vehicles are made equal. A plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) still has an internal combustion engine; however, it will use battery power for a certain distance before it switches to gasoline as the fuel source. This combines the strength of both gasoline and battery power since there are no emissions for short trips such as commuting to work but also has the flexibility of being able to quickly refill at a gas station. Battery electric vehicles (BEV) or all-electric vehicle is, as the name suggests, run purely on battery power. These vehicles usually have lower maintenance costs due to lacking the moving parts in the internal combustion engine but initial investment and possible replacement battery in future repairs can be quite costly.
Therefore, even if one were to buy an electric vehicle whose fuel solely comes from renewable energy, it would still leave an initial carbon footprint equivalent to sevens years of GHG emissions.
This discrepancy between what we perceive as beneficial for the environment versus what would practically reduce one’s emissions leaves something to be desired. After all, if buying electric vehicles barely changes one’s total GHG emissions, what would be a better way to save the planet?
Cover of the game “reduce reuse recycle” by Nadine3103
Turns out, it all comes back to the principle of reduce, reuse and recycle. In the modern age, every product that uses plastic and rare metals in some way have to refined or synthesized; this means usually in a plant or mine that most likely emits tonnes of GHG. By using old phones longer, supporting local businesses and buying in season products, emissions associated with long-distance transportation can be significantly reduced. Combined with walking and biking more often, these small actions can have more meaningful impacts than buying a brand new vehicle.
So the next time an electric vehicle advertises zero carbon emissions, think twice about what would actually help the planet rather than buying the newest technology that may not be as green as it seems.
References
Deutsch: Tesla Model S 90 D; 2017.
Ortiz, M. R. D. Electric Car Use by Country; 2019.
Electric Vehicle Battery: Materials, Cost, Lifespan https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/electric-cars-battery-life-materials-cost (accessed Feb 14, 2019).
English: Cover of the Game “Reduce Reuse Recycle.”
US EPA, O. Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data (accessed Feb 14, 2019).
US EPA, O. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle (accessed Jan 24, 2019).
Clarke, S. How green are electric cars? http://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2017/dec/25/how-green-are-electric-cars (accessed Feb 14, 2019).
Infographic: The Evolution of Battery Technology https://www.visualcapitalist.com/evolution-of-battery-technology/ (accessed Feb 14, 2019).
Berners-Lee, M.; Clark, D. Manufacturing a Car Creates as Much Carbon as Driving It. The Guardian. September 23, 2010
_trimmed.jpg)
