Global warming is one of the main causes of animal deaths, especially in the polar regions of the world. In Antarctica the polar icecaps and icebergs are melting.
These melting icecaps in turn tend to crumble and fall when they get to a certain point. The destroyed icecaps then block the annual migration pathway for the penguins to get to their feeding grounds.
If the animals can’t eat, they end up starving and dying. In the north the same thing is happening to the polar bears.
Their annual pathway to and from their feeding grounds is melting, causing them to have to swim in the harsh Arctic seas for longer periods of time. This in turn weakens them and they end up losing the battle with the sea and drown.
Global warming used to be just a theory, but because of recent evidence of melting polar icecaps, freakishly wild weather and unnatural weather patterns, global warming has been largely accepted as a fact.
Virginia Tech is making an effort to stop this phenomenon through all of the recycling dumpsters and bins it provides its students and residents. By using these recycling opportunities we are cutting down on the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the air when the plastic bottles and aluminum cans are incinerated.
Our college gives us a chance to make a difference. We can all make an effort do something to lessen the effects of global warming by choosing to recycle.
Lauren Ross
Sophomore
Animal and Poultry Sciences
A version of this article appeared in the Dec 1 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 18 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
You do realize we use more energy to recycle then we do to make a new?
And I would like a link to where global warming is widely accepted as fact, seeing as we are headed into the coldest winter in a long time...
Reply to this Top
Maybe for some things, but not glass, aluminum, or paper (based on a quick wikipedia search):
"Every metric ton of waste glass recycled into new items saves 315 additional kilograms of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere during the creation of new glass."
"The EPA states that 'recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source, bauxite.'"
"The Energy Information Administration (EIA) states on its website that 'a paper mill uses 40 percent less energy to make paper from recycled paper than it does to make paper from fresh lumber.'"
Reply to this Top
Be circumspect when associating 'energy' savings to 'CO2' savings. While energy consumption is reduced when paper is produced by recycling, one must consider the source of the energy. Most paper mills use an in-house generator fueled by byproduct sawdust - generally considered a renewable, carbon-neutral fuel. In this region, I would venture to guess than many recycling centers are fueled by coal-powered generators on the electric grid. The breakeven point depends on many factors, including the energy intensity needed to recycle the paper - a direct function of the paper's friability or grindability index. Generally, newspapers will grind easily, while office paper, cardboard, and stock paper require significantly more energy to grind, thus limiting their utility as a recycling feed.
Top
For plastics, the recycling function becomes even more complicated. Since plastics are predominantly petrochemicals, one would generally think that recycling saves in both energy and resources, since we know that the oil reserve is limited. However, recycled materials are transported separately from general municipal waste, which requires additional trucks and infrastructure. Consequently, you are using oil (as gasoline) to conserve oil (as plastic). Given the differences in consolidation densities and depending on the recyclable supply and the distance to the facility, recycling plastic may or may not be beneficial to the overall energy balance (i.e. you use more oil to move the plastic to the facility that you save from the plastic). The breakeven point is typically identified by a complex relationship that also depends on the day-to-day cost of oil, refining cost differences between gasoline and plastic, the price of the recycled material, and the degree of preprocessing (i.e. sorting, cleaning) needed prior to recycling. Even a neglect as simple as not removing the lids from plastic bottles (read the signs on the recycling bins...) can destroy the presumed gain in plastic recycling.
Top
http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/wastewise/wrr/factoid.htm
It doesn't matter where the energy comes from. Recycling aluminum, glass, plastic, steel, and paper requires significantly less energy than creating the raw materials (according to the EPA). Burning sawdust and burning coal to power the plants are both going to put more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Yes, you need recycling trucks, but wouldn't you also need heavy equipment and freight trucks to bring in fresh raw materials? You're trying to complicate things without providing a single source.
Top
While disputing the credibility of sources is a wonderful pastime, I don't believe you should really trust anything until you examine the analysis and determine the original assumptions. Go to sciencedirect.com, search for "life cycle paper recycling," and you will find almost 17,000 "sources" which directly or indirectly confirm the hypothesis that recycling isn't as cut and dry as many perceive (if it were simple, there wouldn't be 17,000 articles). What you will find is that many articles say paper recycling is advantageous to the carbon balance, while others say it isn't. Typically the results depend on the author's assumed system boundaries and specifically what fuels are being used to power the recycling facility and what fuel is being offset by incineration. Also, many of the "supportive" articles were published in pro-recycling journals. Such is the case though with "sources," everyone has an agenda...
Top
Also, most goods that are recycled end up being thrown away due to the immense cost and energy needed to fully re-use these items.
Reply to this Top
HYPOTHESIS =/= THEORY!!!
Gravity is "just" a theory too. You'd think students at a highly-ranked tech school would understand that, but the opinion columns are full of people who don't.
Reply to this Top
Seriously?
Let me begin with a quote from a respected geologic website: (geologist are SCIENTIST who study the Earth in case you are wondering...) "Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases. "
Global warming is a historical cycle that has been PROVEN to occur over and over and over again. It's getting hot now because that's what the Earth does. Don't belive me? Here's your reference http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html. Next time, do a little reaserch before you write an article telilng me that recycling is going to curb global warming. Don't get me wrong, recycling is good, it helps sustain finate resources, but 'Man Made' Global Warming is horse $*!^.
P.S. To whoever quoted the EPA: you do realize that the EPA is a partisian run entity within our government and not a scientific organization, right?
Reply to this Top
"respected geologic website" last updated in 2007?
That sounds way more legit than an agency of the federal government.
Reply to this Top
...because a study done in 2007 concerning temperatures from over 1000 years ago would provide different results if it were conducted in 2010? Of course! Even if the study were done in 1950 it would still be more credible than the EPA.
Top
The EPA changes what they believe based on political basis and also what they have to deal with. They changed the ppm of lead that is bad for the people and environment based on what they measured in the DC water. They only did that to keep people in line, just as they are doing with this. It is an agenda, that is what the government organizations have. The more global warming there is the greater the budget of the EPA will be.
Top
This is cute, they let sixth graders publish articles these days?
Honestly, this is the most childish thing I have read and is a sincere disappointment that the Collegiate Times would publish such work.
Reply to this Top
you dont know anything i bet a sixth grader is smarter than you combined with your friends.
Reply to this Top
"Maybe for some things, but not glass, aluminum, or paper (based on a quick wikipedia search)"
If you are going to attempt at arguing a point I believe step 1 would be to not reference Wikipedia, (a publicly edited source).
Reply to this Top
"If the animals can’t eat, they end up starving and dying"
GENIUS!
Reply to this Top
Global warming is one of the main causes of animal deaths? I think most animals die due to natural causes. Note video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mJta-fGw3o
It takes an Animal and Poultry Scientist to figure out that animals die when they dont eat.....
Reply to this Top
Thought the animal farm hells were a big part of global warming so in retrospect, if the animals are causing their own deaths we should be guilt free!
Reply to this Top