The Environment

The Real Dangers, the Myths, and the Facts

In this report: The possible benefits of global warming, zone or no ozone, solid waste and recycling, and the myths and facts about environmental dangers.

Among the most urgent eco-issues are global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, disposal of solid and toxic wastes, and nuclear issues. But the eco-facts are often mixed with a generous dose of eco-myths: The earth could be unfit for human life in the 21st century. Landfills are dangerous and we are running out of them. These and other myths about the environment, not thoroughly investigated, lead us to the conclusion that much of the claims of environmentalists are true and there is little hope for the earth.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Global Warming
A few hot summer in a row and the media went wild when a NASA space scientist named James Hansen told a Senate panel four years ago that 1987 was the warmest year on record and that the greenhouse effect was probably responsible for the warming trend that has been taking place since 1,000AD. What has followed since is a continued warming detrimental to man’s existence on earth. Most shameful, according to some environmentalists is that the warming is man’s fault.

The greenhouse effect, believed to be the cause of global warming, is the result of an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, nitrogen-oxide, and low-level ozone). As greenhouse gases are increased in the atmosphere heat from the sun is trapped and the temperature rises. Culprits said to be aiding greenhouse gases in the atmosphere include exhaust emissions, the burning of wood, coal, and fossil fuels. Of the known greenhouse gases, most are produced naturally. Methane is produced by the digestive processes of cows, termites, and other life forms. Wood burning may be a natural result of the increased number of forest fires in the last five years. Chlorofluorocarbons are the only unnatural greenhouse gas and the U.S. has all but stopped most chlorofluorocarbon use.

There is a debate over whether or not the most recent warming of the 80s is the direct result of man’s use of technology and industry or if the trend is natural. Man is usually the culprit in media reports when radical environmentalists are given center stage. However these is good evidence to suggest that warming is natural.

Geochemist Samuel Epstein of the California Institute of Technology maintains that global warming is natural. “The warming trend may have been in effect for the past 500 years,” he says. That’s certainly a lot longer than the industrial revolution. “It will be very important to differentiate the greenhouse warming due to human activity from natural global warming.” Epstein’s finds are based on his study of tree rings.

A rise in global temperature is not to be laughed at. Even a few degrees can cause droughts that will devastate farmlands and prevent necessary rainfalls. It is true that certain species of plant life have trouble adapting to hotter climates. But a rise in global temperature may not be all that bad.

Current computer-generated models of what the earth would be like if global warming goes unchecked include projections of the polar ice caps melting, sea levels to rise and wide spread floods. But according to Dr. Sherwood Isdo of the Agriculture Department laboratory in Phoenix, global warming may partially be a benefit to plant life and to man. In a controlled experiment, Dr. Isdo raised orange trees to triple their volume and branch size by exposing them to double the amount of carbon dioxide than would be found in normal air. The benefits are obvious. Green plants use carbon dioxide in the growth process. A richer air for plants translates into better growth. “Plants exposed to increased carbon dioxide levels have shown more efficient use of water, and they resist stress and disease much better.”

Dr. Isdo’s findings tell us what may happen if global warming is actually occurring. But that debate still continues – is global warming real? Dr. Isdo points out that a study of temperature readings from 961 stations in the United States reveal that the earth may have actually cooled since 1920 – not gotten warmer. “On average, the change at 961 official weather stations over the past 70 years was about one-third degree decrease,” he said. (See this 1975 Newsweek article on global cooling.

Proponents of the greenhouse gas theory point to the hot year of 1988 to show that global warming is endangering the earth. But as Stephen Schneider points out, “The total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 1987 was only marginally more than in 1986, and only marginally less than in 1988. A factor that has been gradually building for decades could hardly assert that much sudden influence. Very little extra pollution has been added. Obviously the 1988 drought was a natural fluctuation.”

Ozone Depletion
Is there too much ozone, or not enough? The depletion of the ozone layer has received international attention and has included treaties to protect the thin atmospheric layer high above the earth.

Ozone is the gas layer that blocks out certain types of light from the sun that is harmful to life. When ozone is depleted that light makes its way to the surface of the planet and causes skin cancer, burns, and other health problems. Ozone is being depleted by chlorofluorocarbons as they break down in the atmosphere, producing chlorine. Chlorine destroys ozone molecules in a manner that leaves the chlorine molecule intact and able to destroy more ozone.

”Man’s use of resources destroys the ozone layer,” activists say. But ozone depletion may be the result of natural forces much more than man made forces. Volcano emissions and climate changes may also break down ozone. Ozone has also become a problem on the ground. Ozone levels reached almost dangerous highs last year when temperatures rising above 100 degrees hit Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. The high temperature mixed with hydrocarbons from fuel emissions actually facilitated dangerously high ozone levels. If ozone reaches .121 parts per billion or more, community health is deemed at risk. Ozone can damage food crops, trees, and irritate the lungs. In some animals and the elderly ozone can reduce lung capacity.

Solid Waste
Solid waste disposal has been a topic of considerable controversy in New Mexico. During the 1990 race for governor, Republican candidate Harry Kinney suggested that out-of-state waste be brought into New Mexico to add jobs and create new state revenue. The idea didn’t sit well with voters who were sensitive about protecting the states desert environment. But was Kinney’s proposal such a bad idea?

Solid waste disposal is not the problem it is often made out to be. Disorganized environmentalists have called landfills “hazardous” at the same time complaining that the state is running out of landfills. The reality is that neither claim is true in real terms – only in bureaucratic terms.

Landfills are the safest way known to dispose of solid waste. In third world countries such as India and Mexico, solid wastes are often permitted to be left on the street along with running sewage. The result is a high rate of disease. Landfills remove such a threat by regulating different types of waste to specific areas away from water tables and the general populace. Modern landfill sites are lined with clay to prevent any seepage of potentially toxic wastes. Though the clay provides an adequate barrier against such wastes, toxic materials are usually separated and disposed of elsewhere to minimize dangers.

What cannot be denied is that landfill sites have been hazardous to groundwater – but only when poor precautions are used. Neither is all trash taken to landfills. Much of the waste generated in the United States is recycled, with some waster incinerated for health reasons. In an effort to curb pollution from incinerators, waste often goes through a scrubbing process to reduce air pollutants. The heat generated from the incinerators is also used to generate electricity. Following incineration the leftover ash is either transported to an appropriate dump site or used in road construction as an additive.

There is at present enough land to accommodate many more landfills than presently exist. It is only because of bureaucratic pressures that landfill sites are shrinking. Currently there are slightly over 100 municipal landfills operating in the state. Some of those are near capacity and will soon close. New landfill sites can be located in a wide variety of areas throughout the state. There are large strips of land where water tables run deep enough from the surface to prevent any contamination. While most landfill sites are protected with a layer of clay, some landfills are lined with plastic to prevent seepage. In this case the often protested “plastic in a landfill” actually protects the environment.

Recycling has been a great benefit to landfills in that material that is recycled slows down the filling up of the landfill. Recycling has financial benefits, but can’t be counted upon to reduce the majority of trash discarded. The most common recycled commodity today is paper. In 1988 35 percent of all paper was sent for recycling, but not actually recycled. Of the 4.7 million tons sent out, only 3.3 million underwent the process. There is more paper available for recycling than recycling plants currently have the ability to use. It will be some time before a great portion of America’s solid waste is recycled instead of dumped or burned.

Clean Conclusions
No one will deny that protecting the environment must be a high priority in public policy. Dirty water, untreated sewage, excess air pollution, and more have been known to cause serious health problems. But good intentions are often carried to the extreme. In the name of protecting the environment, activists have caused economic hardship to loggers in Oregon and New Mexico resulting in job loss. Instead of asking for protection in designated forest areas, radical groups like Earth First sought protection for the Spotted Owl, which gave protection to much larger forest areas.

In Arizona activists sought to stop construction of a telescope facility by seeking endangered species status for the Red Squirrel. Activists claimed that the 29 acre facility would destroy the habitat of the small beast, neglecting to mention the squirrel’s actual habitat was thousands of acres, and that the animal is hunted every year to prevent overpopulation of the species.

Ranchers using public lands in Northern New Mexico were confronted last year by picketers carrying, “Save the Wolves, kill the cattle” signs.

One public official has asked, “Do we have to save every little sub-species?” The answer is no, man is not capable of it. Some species of plants and animals exist normally in low numbers, many go extinct naturally, some survive in the worst of ecological conditions. At the foot of Mount Saint Helens where an eruption did enormous damage several years ago, there is new growth of plant-life with animals living in the area. All of this is in a region still covered by millions of tons of ash.

The earth is far more resilient that we sometimes give is credit for – and so are many species. While we should be responsible with our resources, we should not keep them from being used to an exclusionary point. Man is, after all, and equal part of the eco-system.