Category: Environmental Issues

Introduction:

Significantly over the past years, locavorism has become a growing shift across the country; people tend to be complacent and continue to buy products not acknowledging what impacts it could have on the atmosphere or to themselves. Interpreted by someone who is dedicated to consuming food that is produced or developed within their local area to abstain from eating food that is shipped to supermarkets, the locals mainly concentrate on the nutritional content of the goods. People must take into account the discrepancy in nutrition between goods that are imported and foods that are organically grown. The impacts on local and large enterprises, including the economy, sustainability, and environmental factors are.

Body Paragraph #1:

Locavorism may lead to many adversities throughout local environments. Locally grown foods are healthier unlike those that are sealed in packages and delivered to supermarkets. By the time when a customer purchases them, the products would not be as fresh as they were when they were initially picked or the products could have been adulterated. People may assert that contaminated products have diminished in nutrition. The goods bought in the supermarket have been kept in there for months, whereas products in farmers’ markets have been collected within a day of acquirement by the consumer (Priebe). People should always espouse selecting naturally grown foods over shipped products because it engenders a healthier system and state of mind. Nonetheless, purchasing meat, fruits, and vegetables from supermarkets is not wrong, and it does not indicate that it is deleterious to one’s health, but it is quite dubious because of chemicals that are being sprayed on to fruits and vegetables to keep them looking fresh. In fact, it is advantageous to obtain more nutrients from sustainably grown produce, but it is not a fundamental requirement.

Body Paragraph #2:

Converting into a locavore can potentially ameliorate the environment. A prime example would be if an individual buys regionally, it deters fossil fuel used to export far distance productions. Since more supplies are being delivered, gas pollution and large carbon footprints are being generated, which is sent to the surface of the planet, producing greenhouse gas emissions that can later impact people in the future. Conveyance emission levels can exacerbate environmental issues than those in production (Source D). The farmers are not the ones to blame for the production of dangerous pollutants in the air, but instead, the workers who want their products to be sent out to supermarkets are the ones at fault.

Body Paragraph #3

(Counterargument and Refutation Unless You Have a Rogerian Thesis): Topic sentence that introduces the counterargument (unless you wrote a Rogerian thesis, in which case, you decide which side of your thesis you want to support in a second paragraph); paraphrased source information (and quote from expert if appropriate); the second source paraphrased and/or quoted in order to refute counter-argument, and commentary to add on to what refutation source said. Source information should be a minimum of three sentences for counterargument and refutation. Commentary should focus on refuting the counterargument beyond what your second source said.

Conclusion:

Topic sentence that does not repeat the thesis, but, instead, moves it forward to the next step. Conclusion should be around 5 sentences. Do not recapitulate or summarize what you have already said above. Instead, discuss the future implications (e.g., what further benefits or consequences could occur with locavorism), what is currently going on with locavorism that seems to favor your argument or what needs to happen next (AKA call to action) in order for more people to espouse or eschew locavorism. You can also conclude your hook if it helps extend your main argument.

Works Cited

1. Chung, Emily. “Your meals are speeding up climate change, but there’s a way to eat sustainably.” CBC News, 04 December 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/food-climate-change-carbon-footprint-1.4930062.
2. Priebe, Maryruth. “Benefits of Being a Locavore.” EcoLife A Guide to Green Living, http://www.ecolife.com/health-food/eating-local/benefits-of-locavore-diet.html
3. Salmon, Felix. “How Locavores Could Save the World.” Foreign Policy, 26 February 2010, https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/02/26/how-locavores-could-save-the-world/

One of the most controversial issues regarding globalization in the 21st century is the concern that free trade damages the environment both locally and internationally. The effects of worldwide trade and economic development on the environment have been widely discussed in recent years, due the increasing amount of free trade agreements (FTAs) being created around the world. A 2014 report from the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that there has been a huge increase in the amount of regional trade agreement notifications being received by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at the WTO, revealing the trend in more FTAs being formed. Trade agreements between two or more countries have intensive and extensive ramifications for all participating parties. Free trade is important in reducing barriers to trade and establishing a more stable trade environment, thus encouraging more multilateral trade. Advocates of free trade argue that it is efficient and the most effective method of trade because it allows individual countries to specialize in producing the goods in which they have a comparative advantage. However, there are a variety of environmental problems that arise from the practice of free trade. These problems can be broken down into the concept of the scale effect, increased greenhouse gas emissions and how developing countries are becoming havens for waste.

FTAs are deals between two or more participating countries to eliminate the barriers to import and export goods and services between them. Under an FTA, goods and services can be easily bought and sold across international borders with little regulations, tariffs, or quotas. In general, economists agree that free trade deals lead to sweeping economic growth, but with increased economic growth there is the risk that there will be an increase in industries that hurt the environment by releasing greenhouse gases and hurting the environment. When evaluating the impact of free trade on the environment, economists can conceptualize its implications using a concept called the scale effect. The scale effect refers to how increases in economic growth, which arise from free trade, have an impact on the environment. Trade liberalization, a result of free trade, charges an increase in economic activities and expands economic growth, which then triggers the use of more and more inputs to sustain the higher level of economic activity. This shifts out the demand curve for pollution, and the scale effect of economic growth increases the amount of pollution produced. According to Greenpeace, “In practice, free trade deals are about opening up borders so big companies can profit from larger markets… corporations that produce and sell fossil fuels are included in that list”. This suggests that FTAs widen the worldwide market for fossil fuels, which then encourages gas, coal, and oil corporations to increase their activities, extract, and burn more of these natural resources, especially natural gas, which negatively effects the environment.

Producers of natural gas are incentivized to engage in free trade. In general, the U.S. Department of Energy is in charge of giving the green light for any gas exports. However, in 1992 a clause was added to the Natural Gas Act that states that the Department of Energy is required to approve any exports that involve countries the U.S. has free trade agreements with. This means that natural gas companies are given a reason to use FTAs to engage in various forms of extraction, including fracking, which is severely detrimental to the environment. This clause in the Natural Gas Act incentivizes natural gas companies to extract more fuel and engage in free trade. This trend can be seen in the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA is one of the most famous free trade agreements in the world and it involves the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. NAFTA allows for easier facilitation of trade between the three countries as it gets rid of many trade barriers. From the perspective of oil and gas companies, NAFTA has been crucial in their growth. The flow of oil and gas between the countries has increased dramatically. Natural gas exports from the U.S. to Mexico have risen to 4.4 billion cubic feet per day, which is more than double the levels seen in 2014. This rise in demand has led to new pipelines being developed; a pipeline from South Texas to Mexico was recently created and bolsters shipments as it allows gas to be moved further into Mexico. The trade of oil between the U.S. and Canada has also increased in recent years. The U.S. is importing approximately over 3.3 million barrels of oil per day from Canada. The trade of natural gas and oil is extremely destructive to the environment. From the moment it is extracted, to being transported, and then burned it is degrading the environment. The land disturbance and infrastructure required for natural gas and oil drilling can hurt local ecosystems by causing erosion, disturbing wildlife, and contaminating nearby water sources. The construction needed to build these extraction sites often displace wildlife and cause the erosion of dirt and pollutants into waterways. The transport of the fuel also requires the environmental destruction, and when the fuel is finally burned it contributes to air pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Free trade has allowed for the natural gas and oil to increase in extraction and transport, severely damaging the surrounding environment.

One method, economists use to look at how free trade impacts the environment, is the pollution haven hypothesis. The hypothesis states that differences in the stringency of environmental regulations between developed and developing countries will provide developing countries with a comparative advantage in industries with pollution intensive production. And while this hypothesis would be an excellent reason for why free trade is bad for the environment, there currently isn’t a lot of empirical evidence to support it. However, there is direct and concrete evidence that developed countries are taking advantage of the free trade system and exporting their waste to the developing world where they are creating havens for pollution. Countries with lower wages and more lax environmental regulations have a comparative cost advantage over developed countries where waste management is an expensive service and environmental regulations are usually stricter. This means that waste management companies in the West tend to ship their scrap plastic or, at times, household waste to ‘waste havens’. Currently, there is a huge trade imbalance between the developed world and the ‘Global South’, which includes countries like China, India, Cambodia, and other parts of the developing world. This is a consequence of free trade on a global scale. Free trade allows for massive shipping containers from the Global South to arrive in the developed world, like the U.S., full of consumer products, and we have nothing to send back in them, except occasionally agricultural goods. Those same shipping containers would often head back to the Global South completely empty, which is bad business for the shipping companies because they have to eat their costs. So, what those companies do is sell their cargo space to waste exporters at a steep discount because some money for trash is better than no money for nothing. That trash export would absolutely not exist without free trade.

This trade imbalance can best be described by the example of plastic waste exportation to the Global South, specifically, China. Global trade in plastic waste is a big business. From 1988 to 2016, 168 million tons of plastic waste was exported, with most of it going to China and India. The unfortunate reality is that most of the plastic is contaminated and can’t be recycled. It’s usually dumped because the Global South lacks proper waste management facilities. People in the West like to believe that their waste is being recycled, but in reality, it is often being dumped in landfills or incinerated, which has caused a breadth of environmental consequences for these developing countries. This is driven by the brutal economics of free trade because exporting our waste is often cheaper than dealing with it locally and we are able to ship our problems elsewhere for a low cost. The human and environmental toll of plastic waste imports on China was exposed in a viral documentary in 2016 called ‘Plastic China’, which detailed the heart-wrenching story of an 11-year-old girl living in a workshop for imported scrap plastic, which created toxic air and polluted waterways in China’s countryside. Plastic that cannot be reused is often burned and this releases carbon monoxide, dioxins and furans, all of which are toxic. The villages and households in the vicinity of these plastic waste facilities are heavily affected by pollution. In 2017, fed up with being a dumping ground, China notified the World Trade Organization that it intended to ban the imports of plastic waste. The ban came into force in March 2018, setting off a chain reaction in the global plastic waste system. Numerous countries in the West have been unable to cope since, resulting in dramatic price increases for exporting, and more plastic being incinerated or sent to the landfill. If export rates continue as they are, the new Chinese policy will displace an estimated 111 million metric tons of plastic waste by 2030. So now, all of this waste is flooding into South East Asia, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Taiwan and Thailand, resulting in polluted waterways, fires, and illegal dumping. China’s 2018 ban of plastic waste importation demonstrates a clear example of a regulatory loophole that had been exploited for years. When plastic waste is exported to developing countries for treatment, these countries carry an additional burden besides having to deal with their own materials. When this burden becomes too great, untreated waste is simply dumped into the environment, turning recipient countries into havens for pollution as well as being destinations for unwanted waste. Free trade by its nature encourages the exploitations of these loopholes across borders, with the greatest harm done to developing countries.

The goal of free trade as a whole is to encourage greater economic activity, which increases the scale of global production. Economic growth means increased waste, increased greenhouse gas emission and improper waste disposal sites. Overall, free trade hurts the environment by stimulating more economic activity, increasing emissions and allowing developing countries to turn into havens for waste.

First of all, let’s start with some information about the sun: the sun is the closest star to Earth it is 149 600 000 km from our planet. The sun is about 1 300 000 times bigger than the Earth, which means that it produces a lot of thermal energy. However, only a very small part of this energy is converted into electricity – less than 1 percent. The light and heat provided by the sun are converted into electricity by solar panels.

Like many cutting-edge technologies, solar power generation has been used in space stations and space travel. It is hard to believe because this technology is right now with us: converting solar energy into electricity to meet daily household needs, charging vehicles, and even so-called green energy parks, where solar power plants cover huge areas and produce many kilowatts (kWh). We can’t measure how much energy it produces, but around usage, we use 3-5 kWh per day and 3000 per year, but of course, it is not that accurate because we use our electricity differently. It is easily explained in the graph below that between 1995-2012 years how we use more and more solar energy (GW) every single year.

Climate protection must be a priority issue worldwide, especially in emerging countries. This requires a restructuring of the energy industry and the only way to stop climate change is to develop renewable energy sources. One of the examples can be: that we use the sun to produce energy instead of “Nuclear power generation” because it pollutes our nature strongly and solar energy produces it naturally by itself. As well this development of solar energy is closely related to the public emphasis on renewable energy. Solar energy and related technologies are questioning how much energy is spent on the production of electrical cells and the cost of running them. Recent studies in Germany have confirmed that solar cells generate 6 to 14 times more energy during their life cycle, so their efficiency and environmental benefits are evident. As well the 21st century has rapidly evolving technologies that give us the ability to live comfortably, but they are also increasingly causing us headaches to keep up with energy to always have enough of it. The energy given to us by the sun is a real treasure and our main task is to be able to use it. Importantly, the process is extremely environmentally friendly and existing solar power does not require exceptional care. Some parts of it can last for up to two decades despite the environmental impact.

Solar radiation can be used to produce both electrical and thermal energy. The most common type of electricity production is a solar power plant consisting of solar panels and the heat is generated by solar collectors that heat water or special heat carrier. It is also the most important of all renewable energy sources. It is clean, has no exhaust fumes, and is required for almost every process in nature. As a result, people have started to use solar energy more and more due to the escalating fuel crisis and environmental concerns. The sun is an enormous source of energy every minute a ton of mass is transformed into energy which then reaches our earth, but of course, only a small amount of this energy reaches us. For every collector, the most popular are flat panel solar collectors. They are coated with special black nickel, chrome, or crystal coatings that attract heat. The special liquid will then contain the heat generated inside, which will then be used as heating for the apartment or water. There is also a vacuum collector, which is more commonly used in countries with colder climates, because it can store energy when the sun shines through the clouds and it works when the special fluid in the vacuum tubes gets heated by the sun and goes to the boiler. Of course, this collector requires a lower temperature because the air is sucked out of the tubes.

When it comes to solar energy, we have to take into account it is drawbacks as well as the positive values that are good for us, but at the same time, something can be useless or even harmful. So what are the main advantages and disadvantages of solar energy? Let’s start with the positive. First of all, it is abundantly renewable and is renewable very quickly and in large quantities. It is a silent technology and has no moving power-generating devices, which means they can be stored on top of apartment buildings, homes, offices, or anywhere else because if they do not emit any sounds, it will not interfere and allow you to sleep well. This power generation also requires only little maintenance and can be implemented with simple technology and evolve over time, without checking it very often. Last but not least, the most affordable alternative would be to supply electricity in remote rural areas where energy demand is very high and where there is plenty of space to install solar panels. This means that people who live away from or very far away from cities sometimes have energy problems, that they disappear are missing, or have other problems associated with energy transfer. These solar panels would help people who live in villages to have better or even great electricity. It is also interesting for everyone to know if this technology is truly safe. We can safely say that it is safe because it does not carry harmful molecules or anything that is harmful to the nature of human beings, it is a really safe and clean technology and we can be guaranteed that in the future it will be even better at this. That would be the main advantages of having solar energy, but let’s talk on the other hand what are the bad things about solar energy. As this technology is not yet fully developed, the light conversion rate is between 10% and 17%, depending on the technology used. We can also say that the cost of this technology is very high because, as we said it is not yet fully developed. Also one of the main problems would be that this technology is only available during the day, which means that there must be clear or very low clouds so that the sun can reach these collectors and store energy. Because, as we mentioned earlier, the level of efficiency is very low, this means that under current conditions 6-9 acres of land will require the construction of a 1MW solar energy. Last but not least, installing solar parks may require a significant amount of land, which can have a profound impact on the ecosystem life there (land that will no longer receive sun, small animals will be forced to move from their homes plants will die because they won’t receive any sun anymore). Listing their minuses and pluses made you wonder how much they would cost. The range in price from 100 pounds to 500 pounds, depending on the quality and strength they can accrue over time. Further on, the CO2 consumption of this technology has become interesting. It is not very accurate to say, but it is claimed that 1 kWh consumes 20 to 50 grams of CO2, depending on the strength of the panel.

As we continue to talk about this technology, we wondered what it is future might be or if will it expand significantly. We can safely say that in the future, solar panels will no longer be as visible as they are now. They will look good and have almost the same efficiency as conventional solar panels. These panels can be darkened and used as imitations of homogeneous slate panels, but they can also be integrated into Roman tiles. This means that in the future we will see good-looking buildings and know that their roof is not simply covered, it is made to generate electricity through the sun and with it its own appearance. Here is a picture of what it might look like in the future:

In summary, solar energy, like other energy sources, has it is own advantages and disadvantages, but with the right technology, solar energy can become the most power-generating method. Of course, this method is not as efficient as it produces only a very small amount of energy from what it receives. But at this moment, only a couple of collectors are popularly used to store this energy: a vacuum collector and a flat collector these two are the most commonly used at the moment. + Solar energy is not yet fully developed to be perfectly stored without any drawbacks, but in the future, we can predict that it will have a very high demand and will be one of the main sources of energy worldwide

First of all, let’s start with some information about the sun: the sun is the closest star to Earth it is 149 600 000 km from our planet. The sun is about 1 300 000 times bigger than the Earth, which means that it produces a lot of thermal energy. However, only a very small part of this energy is converted into electricity – less than 1 percent. The light and heat provided by the sun are converted into electricity by solar panels.

Like many cutting-edge technologies, solar power generation has been used in space stations and space travel. It is hard to believe because this technology is right now with us: converting solar energy into electricity to meet daily household needs, charging vehicles, and even so-called green energy parks, where solar power plants cover huge areas and produce many kilowatts (kWh). We can’t measure how much energy it produces, but around usage, we use 3-5 kWh per day and 3000 per year, but of course, it is not that accurate because we use our electricity differently. It is easily explained in the graph below that between 1995-2012 years how we use more and more solar energy (GW) every single year.

Climate protection must be a priority issue worldwide, especially in emerging countries. This requires a restructuring of the energy industry and the only way to stop climate change is to develop renewable energy sources. One of the examples can be: that we use the sun to produce energy instead of “Nuclear power generation” because it pollutes our nature strongly and solar energy produces it naturally by itself. As well this development of solar energy is closely related to the public emphasis on renewable energy. Solar energy and related technologies are questioning how much energy is spent on the production of electrical cells and the cost of running them. Recent studies in Germany have confirmed that solar cells generate 6 to 14 times more energy during their life cycle, so their efficiency and environmental benefits are evident. As well the 21st century has rapidly evolving technologies that give us the ability to live comfortably, but they are also increasingly causing us headaches to keep up with energy to always have enough of it. The energy given to us by the sun is a real treasure and our main task is to be able to use it. Importantly, the process is extremely environmentally friendly and existing solar power does not require exceptional care. Some parts of it can last for up to two decades despite the environmental impact.

Solar radiation can be used to produce both electrical and thermal energy. The most common type of electricity production is a solar power plant consisting of solar panels and the heat is generated by solar collectors that heat water or special heat carrier. It is also the most important of all renewable energy sources. It is clean, has no exhaust fumes, and is required for almost every process in nature. As a result, people have started to use solar energy more and more due to the escalating fuel crisis and environmental concerns. The sun is an enormous source of energy every minute a ton of mass is transformed into energy which then reaches our earth, but of course, only a small amount of this energy reaches us. For every collector, the most popular are flat panel solar collectors. They are coated with special black nickel, chrome, or crystal coatings that attract heat. The special liquid will then contain the heat generated inside, which will then be used as heating for the apartment or water. There is also a vacuum collector, which is more commonly used in countries with colder climates, because it can store energy when the sun shines through the clouds and it works when the special fluid in the vacuum tubes gets heated by the sun and goes to the boiler. Of course, this collector requires a lower temperature because the air is sucked out of the tubes.

When it comes to solar energy, we have to take into account it is drawbacks as well as the positive values that are good for us, but at the same time, something can be useless or even harmful. So what are the main advantages and disadvantages of solar energy? Let’s start with the positive. First of all, it is abundantly renewable and is renewable very quickly and in large quantities. It is a silent technology and has no moving power-generating devices, which means they can be stored on top of apartment buildings, homes, offices, or anywhere else because if they do not emit any sounds, it will not interfere and allow you to sleep well. This power generation also requires only little maintenance and can be implemented with simple technology and evolve over time, without checking it very often. Last but not least, the most affordable alternative would be to supply electricity in remote rural areas where energy demand is very high and where there is plenty of space to install solar panels. This means that people who live away from or very far away from cities sometimes have energy problems, that they disappear are missing, or have other problems associated with energy transfer. These solar panels would help people who live in villages to have better or even great electricity. It is also interesting for everyone to know if this technology is truly safe. We can safely say that it is safe because it does not carry harmful molecules or anything that is harmful to the nature of human beings, it is a really safe and clean technology and we can be guaranteed that in the future it will be even better at this. That would be the main advantages of having solar energy, but let’s talk on the other hand what are the bad things about solar energy. As this technology is not yet fully developed, the light conversion rate is between 10% and 17%, depending on the technology used. We can also say that the cost of this technology is very high because, as we said it is not yet fully developed. Also one of the main problems would be that this technology is only available during the day, which means that there must be clear or very low clouds so that the sun can reach these collectors and store energy. Because, as we mentioned earlier, the level of efficiency is very low, this means that under current conditions 6-9 acres of land will require the construction of a 1MW solar energy. Last but not least, installing solar parks may require a significant amount of land, which can have a profound impact on the ecosystem life there (land that will no longer receive sun, small animals will be forced to move from their homes plants will die because they won’t receive any sun anymore). Listing their minuses and pluses made you wonder how much they would cost. The range in price from 100 pounds to 500 pounds, depending on the quality and strength they can accrue over time. Further on, the CO2 consumption of this technology has become interesting. It is not very accurate to say, but it is claimed that 1 kWh consumes 20 to 50 grams of CO2, depending on the strength of the panel.

As we continue to talk about this technology, we wondered what it is future might be or if will it expand significantly. We can safely say that in the future, solar panels will no longer be as visible as they are now. They will look good and have almost the same efficiency as conventional solar panels. These panels can be darkened and used as imitations of homogeneous slate panels, but they can also be integrated into Roman tiles. This means that in the future we will see good-looking buildings and know that their roof is not simply covered, it is made to generate electricity through the sun and with it its own appearance. Here is a picture of what it might look like in the future:

In summary, solar energy, like other energy sources, has it is own advantages and disadvantages, but with the right technology, solar energy can become the most power-generating method. Of course, this method is not as efficient as it produces only a very small amount of energy from what it receives. But at this moment, only a couple of collectors are popularly used to store this energy: a vacuum collector and a flat collector these two are the most commonly used at the moment. + Solar energy is not yet fully developed to be perfectly stored without any drawbacks, but in the future, we can predict that it will have a very high demand and will be one of the main sources of energy worldwide

Considering the current state of the environment, we have to admit that it is man and his activities that have caused what it is currently suffering. The three main human activities that have had the most negative impact on the environment are the invention of plastic, deforestation, and the destruction of freshwater supplies.

The invention of plastic is the most problematic pollution problem. Plastic is a commonly used material for making things because plastic can change its shape easily. Plastic waste is everywhere on the Earth, even in the oceans, and these plastics remain in the environment for 1000 years. These days, the world is producing almost 300 million tons of plastics in a year, and 20% to 40% of these plastics wind up in landfills, while 10 to 20 million tons are thrown away in the ocean. Besides, there are chemicals present in plastic. The trashed plastics in the ocean release chemicals, affecting the organs of marine animals. They can also cause rapid cell division which results in cancers. A lot of marine animals have died after consuming a large number of plastics. A dead whale found on the coast of Scotland in June 2017 had consumed 9 pounds of plastics, and this was causing a block in its digestive system. To make this problem worse, more than 4000 cases of fish with plastics in their bodies are found worldwide.

Deforestation is the removal, clearing, or destruction of a forest or a stand of trees for many reasons: land for building, farming, plantation, pasture for life stock, or sold as fuel. Deforestation can happen in the rainforest or any area densely populated by trees and other plant life. Mostly 31% of the Earth’s land is covered by forests. Deforestation can lead to the loss of habitat of animals, increased greenhouse gases, desertification, soil erosion, and floods. The loss of habitat of the animals is one of the dangerous and unsettling effects of deforestation. The trees of the rainforest can provide shelter for some species of animals, which can help to regulate the animal’s body temperature. In addition to the loss of habitat, a decreased number of trees will increase the amount of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere. Desertification means the process of land degradation in areas that results in dryland and fragile ecosystems. Then farming becomes almost impossible because the area became desert and the crops can’t grow well, so because of this reason many farmers sell and leave their land. Soil erosion is the washing or blowing away by water or wind of the top layer of the soil known as dirt. If the soil has eroded, the crops that make food will not grow well. Soil erosion also leaves a large hole in the ground that can weaken or collapse the structure of buildings. A flood means overflowing water on the ground due to an overflowing river, a dam break, or heavy rainfall. In an area without plant life, a flood is a lot more eminent because there is nothing to stop water from gathering and going all over places.

A lot of human activities have destroyed fresh water supplies such as streams, rivers, and aquifers. Intensive farming is the most influencing cause because of the large number of agrochemicals, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, and other harmful substances that find their way into waterways. The invention of man-made dams and water diversion for irrigation or during infrastructural construction has also made the natural flow of water in rivers and streams inefficient. Then these particles gradually destroy the freshwater. Increased contamination in lakes makes it difficult for some species to survive.

The question arises, how can we help the environment? Firstly, recycling is one of the possible solutions. Recycling is using up scrap or waste material in a useful way. In other words, recycling is the process of changing waste and non-useful materials into new and useful materials. Recycling the material would produce a fresh supply of the same material without losing the purity of the product. Recycling is an important element of reducing waste and it’s the 3rd component of the ‘Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle’. Using a reusable beverage container also can help to improve the environment. Instead of buying individually-packaged drinks, consider buying a bulk container of the beverage you want and buying a reusable water bottle. Not only will this help the environment, but it will also help you save money. Moreover, we can use energy-efficient light bulbs instead of regular bulbs. They last longer, which will save a bit of money. It is important to turn off the lights, TV, and other appliances when we are not using them. As well as lower the air conditioning or heat when it’s not being used. Water is wasted more frequently than we can see. So, we need to turn off the faucet while brushing our teeth, don’t turn the shower on until we’re ready to get in and wash our hair, and limit our water usage as we wash dishes. And finally, since cars are harmful to the environment, we should use public transport, walk or ride a bike more. Carpool is also a good decision.

Summing up, the invention of plastics, deforestation, and destroying freshwater supplies are human activities that affect the environment. Recycling, using a reusable beverage container, using energy-efficient light bulbs, saving water, and carpool are examples of possible solutions for the environment. The Earth is our home, it’s where we live, so we should take better care of it. For sure we could be a better people if we help with small things for our home, this planet Earth is the only one that we have now. The more we don’t care about our environment, the more it will become polluted with contaminants and toxins that harm our health.

“It’s a definition that if it’s not renewable, it’s going to run out at some point” (Elon Musk). The inexpensive, concentrated, and portable nonrenewable energy stored in these remarkable compounds has long brought significant economic benefits. During the last couple of centuries, It has paved the way for previously inconceivable industrial advancement. So why not just keep burning fossil fuels? That is just not an option in the long run, for two reasons. The first is the ethical concern that pollution generated by the use of fossil fuels is altering the climate to such an extent that economic and ecological disasters may come during the lifespan of today’s children. The next cause for concern is that resource extraction has increased dramatically in recent years, resulting in resource depletion. The future of humanity is dependent on renewable energy, therefore it is undeniably moral to replace fossil fuels with sustainable renewable energy.

There has been a surge of interest in the subject of energy, particularly renewable energy, in recent years. This interest is not due to fast-rising energy prices on nonrenewable energy, especially oil, which remains abundant and relatively affordable. Rather, increased attention has been fueled by environmental concerns, particularly the usage of fossil fuels, which contributes significantly to acid rain and global warming. When fossil fuels are burned, significant volumes of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are released into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases trap heat in our atmosphere, which contributes to global warming. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), emissions from fossil fuels are the primary driver of global warming. In 2018, fossil fuels and industry accounted for 89 percent of worldwide CO2 emissions. Renewable energy sources emit little to no greenhouse gases, aiding in the slowing of global warming and keeping the environment cleaner. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric technologies create electricity while emitting no pollutants into the atmosphere; hence, replacing fossil fuels with sustainable renewable energy is unquestionably ethical.

There are various advantages to using renewable energy sources for company and consumer needs, such as enhanced marketing potential, lower emissions, and lower energy costs. Renewable energy occupations are predicted to rise in the foreseeable future. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that demand for solar module installation will increase by 105 percent between 2016 and 2026, while demand for wind turbine service specialists will increase by 96 percent during the same period. As a result, these are the one and second fastest-growing jobs in the United States. Installing renewable energy technology in a home can dramatically boost its value. Solar panels improve the value of a home by about $20 for every dollar saved on energy expenses. Renewable energy systems are inexpensive to operate once installed. This is due in large part to the fact that they do not necessitate the purchase of fuel. Eliminating fuel expenditures lowers the cost of producing power. It also means that the price of electricity is not affected by changes in the price of fuels, as is the case with natural gas or coal. Renewable energy’s long-term economic worth is morally justifiable as a replacement for fossil fuels.

Renewable energy provides climate-safe solutions while simultaneously supporting a wide range of social benefits such as improved health and increased social inclusion. Reduced exposure to air and water pollution caused by fossil-fuel consumption results in human welfare. According to the US Department of Health, the expected increase in human well-being from renewables deployment is close to 4%, much beyond the 0.8 percent rate improvement as previously predicted. According to a Harvard study released in June, assuming the worst effects of climate change are avoided, 57,000 fewer Americans will die each year from poor air quality by the end of the century. According to research, adopting global action on climate change could benefit public health, which is morally justifiable.

Several researchers and policymakers, on the other hand, have argued that a ‘zero-carbon’ alternative post-industrial revolution, encompassing a transition to wind and solar-generated electricity, as well as pervasive advancements in energy efficiency, is not only feasible but desirable. Some critics of net zero carbon policies have gone so far as to claim that this objective is impractical and distracting from more pragmatic aims and could cause substantial financial damage. Even though environmental advocacy organizations and protest movements constantly promote these allegations, scientific research has invalidated such claims. Renewable energy is the fastest-growing energy source in the United States, with a 42 percent increase from 2010 to 2020. In 2020, renewables accounted for 29 percent of global electricity generation, with hydropower accounting for the majority of that. Businesses with sustainability ambitions are also stimulating renewable energy development by constructing their facilities, obtaining clean electricity through power purchase agreements, and acquiring renewable energy credits. As a result, the economy experiences growth and innovation. The United Nations Energy Agency remarked that the advancement and integration of renewable electricity innovations can be forecasted to keep growing at record levels, supporting infrastructure for the world to fulfill its net zero climate goals. It is socially responsible and morally correct to stimulate economic growth by giving people more job opportunities by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy initiatives.

Environmental concerns, notably the use of fossil fuels, which contribute considerably to acid rain and global warming, have spurred the rising emphasis. The fact that resource extraction has expanded considerably in recent years is the reason for concern, as it has resulted in resource depletion and environmental degradation. Renewable energy is critical to humanity’s future, it is unquestionably necessary to replace fossil fuels with sustainable renewable energy. Replacing fossil fuels with sustainable renewable energy is indisputably ethical. Renewable energy has environmental, social, and economic advantages. As a result, renewable energy can assist in alleviating rural poverty and the welfare of individuals. Renewable energy systems emit virtually no emissions related to urban air pollution and acid deposition, without the need for costly extra controls. “A transition to clean energy is about investing in our future” (Gloria Reuben)

Language is the expression of our thoughts and perceptions of the world in which we live. Through language, we speak to other human beings about our surroundings and the events that occur within them. This powerful communication tool shares our ideas, values, and beliefs. It connects individuals to other individuals and larger communities where their feelings and opinions can potentially influence and change the feelings and opinions of others. Within the current scientific community, there is much contentious discussion about the language we use when discussing invasive species. An invasive species is defined as “a widespread non-native species that hurts a native ecosystem” (Mungi & Qureshi 2). Notice the two subjective terms in the definition: non-native and negative. The implication is that invasive species are bad. Frequently, terms that characterize invasive species are metaphorical. Metaphors are literary techniques that connect hard-to-understand, complex, and abstract ideas to simple, familiar, and easily understood ideas. For example, invasive species are characterized as “aggressive, uncontrollable, prolific, invasive, and expanding” (Subramaniam 30). These metaphors are associated with oncology and cancer and inspire thoughts that are unpleasant, dangerous, or deadly; thoughts which are then associated with invasive species. Additionally, terms that describe ways of dealing with invasive species are metaphorical. For example, “beachhead, battle, kill, eradicate, overrun, [and] explode” (Larson 495). These metaphors are associated with war and the military and inspire thoughts of destruction rather than management: thoughts which are then associated with invasive species. As challenging as these characterizations of invasive species are, broader ramifications regarding the discussion and perception of invasive species exist.

Currently, scientists have charged that not only language but the perception of an invasive species is xenophobic. This criticism arises from a feminist philosophy that proposes that nature and culture are interconnected. They theorize that a conception of nature is being affected by the political, economic, and cultural situations within which nature exists, and the “recent hyperbole” and “national rhetoric surrounding alien and exotic plants” are “in response to changing racial, economic, and gender norms in the country” (Subramaniam 28). An example of social anxiety regarding mass immigration can be found in this metaphorical definition of an invasive species. “A species that enters the country for the first time is called an ‘alien’ or an ‘exotic’ species: after an unspecified passage of time they are considered residents; after a greater unspecified passage of time they are considered naturalized species” (Subramaniam 27). Six xenophobic rhetorical parallels regarding immigrants and plants are proposed: aliens as the “other,” aliens are everywhere and taking over everything, aliens are growing in size and number, aliens are difficult to destroy and can withstand extreme conditions, aliens are aggressive and reproduce rapidly, and aliens are never going to leave (Subramaniam 29-30). The essential problem with xenophobic rhetoric is that it promotes poor science. Rather than researching all possibilities for degrading habitats and considering all possible solutions, invasive plants are blamed. “As long as exotic/alien plants know their rightful place as workers, laborers, providers, and controlled commodities, their positions are manipulated and controlled by natives, and their presence is tolerated. Once they are accused of unruly practices that prevent them from staying in their subservient place, they threaten the natural order of things” (Subramian 35). In contrast to humans, no specific plant is blamed, rather all invasive species are at fault. The reason this is a problem is because it affects how we manage invasive species and conduct conservation efforts. According to Larson, invasion biologists and conservation managers depend on rhetoric or militaristic language to provoke a response against invasive species. This is problematic for several reasons. First, invasive species are inaccurately perceived. When using military metaphors in discussions of invasive species we presuppose that they are our enemy and we are on opposing sides. It is more likely that human consumerism and global patterns of travel are responsible for invasive species arrival and our biological solutions will most likely be ineffective against a largely social issue. Second, militaristic language contributes to social misunderstanding, charges of xenophobia, and loss of scientific credibility. When using military metaphors, we imagine a successful outcome in which entire invasive species are eradicated. Should the expected outcome not occur, critics may question whether military tactics against environmental problems are a feasible solution or even if the environmental problems are problems at all. Additionally, militaristic language can be misperceived by many people. Although emotional and persuasive, it has a xenophobic quality. Indigenous people are offended because militaristic language diverts attention away from their historical environmental impacts. Restoration programs that have removed invasive species are perceived to have advantaged the upper and middle class, making invasion removal activities appear class-based. Lastly, militaristic language is emotional and may contribute to the public’s distrust of scientific objectivity. People depend on science for factual information to help them understand the problem and form an opinion or make a decision. Militaristic language implies a commitment to a specific action and may prompt questions regarding a scientist’s intentions. Third, militaristic metaphors are counterproductive to conservation. Militaristic language incites conflict between opposing sides. Scientists with alternative views may be reluctant or even refuse to collaborate in activities that promote restoration and conservation (Larson 496-97). To more fully understand the debate regarding invasive species and the use of xenophobic rhetoric, the thoughts of two prominent scientists will now be presented.

There appear to be two schools of thought regarding invasion science and the perception of non-native species and their effects: one which takes a conservation approach to non-native species and views them as a threat to ecosystems and one which takes a theoretical approach to non-native species and does not view them as particularly threatening or problematic. Mark Sagoff, a prominent critic of invasion science, is in the latter school of thought. Sagoff supports the viewpoints of Subramaniam regarding the use of xenophobic language to characterize non-native species and their effects. For example, “Those who seek funds to exclude or eradicate non-native species often attribute to them the same disreputable qualities that xenophobes have attributed to immigrant groups’ including fecundity, aggressiveness, and tolerance for degraded conditions” (Riccardi & Ryan 2732). Sagoff also supports the viewpoints of Larson regarding the use of xenophobic language to characterize non-native species and their effects. For instance, “Biologists have also written that exotic that exotic species pollute, harm, meltdown, disrupt, and destroy and degrade natural ecosystems” (Sagoff 228). Sagoff finds the current terminology in invasion science xenophobic. He does not believe the use of such rhetoric is justified primarily because there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding the effects of non-native species and because the vocabulary that refers to “aesthetic, moral, or spiritual judgments” (Sagoff 228) is not defined operationally and has no scientific meaning.

The presence of invasive species in the Everglades is a problem because invasive species have no natural predators, they therefore multiply uncontrollably and devastate populations of native birds and mammals. Our main concerning species are pythons. Pythons are very small, 13-14 inches long, when they are first sold at exotic pet conventions. After 3-4 years pythons can grow to 8 feet, and when they do owners are unable to care for them and release them into the Everglades. Along with pet owners releasing pythons, Hurricane Andrew destroyed a hatchery near Miami that released hundreds of newborn snakes into the Everglades. The problem did not occur overnight, the importation of giant exotic snakes, like the python, had been popular and legal since the 1970’s. In some cases, Pythons have killed the top predator of the Everglades, the Alligator. Along with killing alligators, Pythons can easily take down a full-grown deer. Pythons can multiply rapidly, a female python can carry up to 100 eggs at once, making their spread very rapid. There is little controversy over the issue because it is a known fact that the pythons do not belong in the wetlands of the Everglades and are highly disruptive. A step in the right direction was made in 2012 when the import of Pythons was made illegal. The ban in 2012 was unfortunately years behind the curb, by the time of the ban over 200 thousand pythons were in the Everglades.”

“This research started in the second week of January and will end in the second week of April. The sources utilized have credibility, are relevant, and unbiased, and they support the purpose of the research. The studies chosen show the dramatic effects that an invasive species can have on a habitat that lacks a natural predator similar to the invasive species. The studies were all conducted in the Everglades National Park and they all show the present danger that pythons have on the Everglades fragile ecosystem. The source “Pythons Devourer Mammals in the Everglades” was immensely helpful because it provided the percentages of the decline of medium-sized mammal populations in areas where pythons had been present, which showed a direct correlation that more effort is needed to eradicate pythons in the Everglades.”

Annotated Bibliography

• Falk Bryan G., Snow, Ray W., and Reed Robert N. (2007) Prospects and Limitations of Citizen Science in Invasive Species Management: A Case Study with Burmese Pythons in Everglades National Park.

“The study focuses on the change in the average time it takes to find a python in the Everglades year-round. In 2014 the time it took to find a python ranged from 8hrs to 40hrs. The time range is due to the extreme difficulty of finding pythons by searching visually. The research shows why new methods of catching pythons should be introduced to decrease the time it takes to find a python and increase the number of pythons caught daily.”

• Hart, Kristen M.1, Michael S.1Smith, Brian J.2Mazzotti, Frank J.3Ikuko, Ray W.4Dorcas, Michael E.5, Pythons Devour Everglades Mammals. Florida, USA. (2015)

“The research led by Michael Dorcas and Jhon “J.D” Wilson, links severe declines of mammal populations in the Everglades to the population soar of Pythons. Their research solidifies the claim that predators native or exotic exert a considerable influence on the structure of their animal communities. In the remote southernmost regions of the park, complete disappearance of rabbits, raccoons, and Opossums occurred along with severe declines in other mammal populations.”

• Dorcas, Michael, Willson, John, Reed, Robert, Snow, Ray, Rochford, Michael, Miller, Melissa, Meshaka,^Jr., Walter, Andreadis, Paul, Mazzotti, Frank, Romagosa, Christina, Hart, Kristen. Severe mammal declines coincide with the proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. (September 26, 2011)

“This source focuses on the decline in mammal populations of the Florida Everglades, due to the introduction of Burmese Pythons. The study stated that raccoon sightings fell by 99.3% due to Pythons. Along with that Opossum, sightings fell by 87.5%. The road surveys conducted showed that in areas where pythons had only recently been discovered mammal populations were much higher than those where pythons had been present for extended periods The study shows that a high python population directly correlates with the ow mammal population.”

Introduction:

Significantly over the past years, locavorism has become a growing shift across the country; people tend to be complacent and continue to buy products not acknowledging what impacts it could have on the atmosphere or to themselves. Interpreted by someone who is dedicated to consuming food that is produced or developed within their local area to abstain from eating food that is shipped to supermarkets, the locals mainly concentrate on the nutritional content of the goods. People must take into account the discrepancy in nutrition between goods that are imported and foods that are organically grown. The impacts on local and large enterprises, including the economy, sustainability, and environmental factors are.

Body Paragraph #1:

Locavorism may lead to many adversities throughout local environments. Locally grown foods are healthier unlike those that are sealed in packages and delivered to supermarkets. By the time when a customer purchases them, the products would not be as fresh as they were when they were initially picked or the products could have been adulterated. People may assert that contaminated products have diminished in nutrition. The goods bought in the supermarket have been kept in there for months, whereas products in farmers’ markets have been collected within a day of acquirement by the consumer (Priebe). People should always espouse selecting naturally grown foods over shipped products because it engenders a healthier system and state of mind. Nonetheless, purchasing meat, fruits, and vegetables from supermarkets is not wrong, and it does not indicate that it is deleterious to one’s health, but it is quite dubious because of chemicals that are being sprayed on to fruits and vegetables to keep them looking fresh. In fact, it is advantageous to obtain more nutrients from sustainably grown produce, but it is not a fundamental requirement.

Body Paragraph #2:

Converting into a locavore can potentially ameliorate the environment. A prime example would be if an individual buys regionally, it deters fossil fuel used to export far distance productions. Since more supplies are being delivered, gas pollution and large carbon footprints are being generated, which is sent to the surface of the planet, producing greenhouse gas emissions that can later impact people in the future. Conveyance emission levels can exacerbate environmental issues than those in production (Source D). The farmers are not the ones to blame for the production of dangerous pollutants in the air, but instead, the workers who want their products to be sent out to supermarkets are the ones at fault.

Body Paragraph #3

(Counterargument and Refutation Unless You Have a Rogerian Thesis): Topic sentence that introduces the counterargument (unless you wrote a Rogerian thesis, in which case, you decide which side of your thesis you want to support in a second paragraph); paraphrased source information (and quote from expert if appropriate); the second source paraphrased and/or quoted in order to refute counter-argument, and commentary to add on to what refutation source said. Source information should be a minimum of three sentences for counterargument and refutation. Commentary should focus on refuting the counterargument beyond what your second source said.

Conclusion:

Topic sentence that does not repeat the thesis, but, instead, moves it forward to the next step. Conclusion should be around 5 sentences. Do not recapitulate or summarize what you have already said above. Instead, discuss the future implications (e.g., what further benefits or consequences could occur with locavorism), what is currently going on with locavorism that seems to favor your argument or what needs to happen next (AKA call to action) in order for more people to espouse or eschew locavorism. You can also conclude your hook if it helps extend your main argument.

Works Cited

1. Chung, Emily. “Your meals are speeding up climate change, but there’s a way to eat sustainably.” CBC News, 04 December 2018, https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/food-climate-change-carbon-footprint-1.4930062.
2. Priebe, Maryruth. “Benefits of Being a Locavore.” EcoLife A Guide to Green Living, http://www.ecolife.com/health-food/eating-local/benefits-of-locavore-diet.html
3. Salmon, Felix. “How Locavores Could Save the World.” Foreign Policy, 26 February 2010, https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/02/26/how-locavores-could-save-the-world/

One of the most controversial issues regarding globalization in the 21st century is the concern that free trade damages the environment both locally and internationally. The effects of worldwide trade and economic development on the environment have been widely discussed in recent years, due the increasing amount of free trade agreements (FTAs) being created around the world. A 2014 report from the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that there has been a huge increase in the amount of regional trade agreement notifications being received by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at the WTO, revealing the trend in more FTAs being formed. Trade agreements between two or more countries have intensive and extensive ramifications for all participating parties. Free trade is important in reducing barriers to trade and establishing a more stable trade environment, thus encouraging more multilateral trade. Advocates of free trade argue that it is efficient and the most effective method of trade because it allows individual countries to specialize in producing the goods in which they have a comparative advantage. However, there are a variety of environmental problems that arise from the practice of free trade. These problems can be broken down into the concept of the scale effect, increased greenhouse gas emissions and how developing countries are becoming havens for waste.

FTAs are deals between two or more participating countries to eliminate the barriers to import and export goods and services between them. Under an FTA, goods and services can be easily bought and sold across international borders with little regulations, tariffs, or quotas. In general, economists agree that free trade deals lead to sweeping economic growth, but with increased economic growth there is the risk that there will be an increase in industries that hurt the environment by releasing greenhouse gases and hurting the environment. When evaluating the impact of free trade on the environment, economists can conceptualize its implications using a concept called the scale effect. The scale effect refers to how increases in economic growth, which arise from free trade, have an impact on the environment. Trade liberalization, a result of free trade, charges an increase in economic activities and expands economic growth, which then triggers the use of more and more inputs to sustain the higher level of economic activity. This shifts out the demand curve for pollution, and the scale effect of economic growth increases the amount of pollution produced. According to Greenpeace, “In practice, free trade deals are about opening up borders so big companies can profit from larger markets… corporations that produce and sell fossil fuels are included in that list”. This suggests that FTAs widen the worldwide market for fossil fuels, which then encourages gas, coal, and oil corporations to increase their activities, extract, and burn more of these natural resources, especially natural gas, which negatively effects the environment.

Producers of natural gas are incentivized to engage in free trade. In general, the U.S. Department of Energy is in charge of giving the green light for any gas exports. However, in 1992 a clause was added to the Natural Gas Act that states that the Department of Energy is required to approve any exports that involve countries the U.S. has free trade agreements with. This means that natural gas companies are given a reason to use FTAs to engage in various forms of extraction, including fracking, which is severely detrimental to the environment. This clause in the Natural Gas Act incentivizes natural gas companies to extract more fuel and engage in free trade. This trend can be seen in the effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA is one of the most famous free trade agreements in the world and it involves the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. NAFTA allows for easier facilitation of trade between the three countries as it gets rid of many trade barriers. From the perspective of oil and gas companies, NAFTA has been crucial in their growth. The flow of oil and gas between the countries has increased dramatically. Natural gas exports from the U.S. to Mexico have risen to 4.4 billion cubic feet per day, which is more than double the levels seen in 2014. This rise in demand has led to new pipelines being developed; a pipeline from South Texas to Mexico was recently created and bolsters shipments as it allows gas to be moved further into Mexico. The trade of oil between the U.S. and Canada has also increased in recent years. The U.S. is importing approximately over 3.3 million barrels of oil per day from Canada. The trade of natural gas and oil is extremely destructive to the environment. From the moment it is extracted, to being transported, and then burned it is degrading the environment. The land disturbance and infrastructure required for natural gas and oil drilling can hurt local ecosystems by causing erosion, disturbing wildlife, and contaminating nearby water sources. The construction needed to build these extraction sites often displace wildlife and cause the erosion of dirt and pollutants into waterways. The transport of the fuel also requires the environmental destruction, and when the fuel is finally burned it contributes to air pollution and increased greenhouse gas emissions. Free trade has allowed for the natural gas and oil to increase in extraction and transport, severely damaging the surrounding environment.

One method, economists use to look at how free trade impacts the environment, is the pollution haven hypothesis. The hypothesis states that differences in the stringency of environmental regulations between developed and developing countries will provide developing countries with a comparative advantage in industries with pollution intensive production. And while this hypothesis would be an excellent reason for why free trade is bad for the environment, there currently isn’t a lot of empirical evidence to support it. However, there is direct and concrete evidence that developed countries are taking advantage of the free trade system and exporting their waste to the developing world where they are creating havens for pollution. Countries with lower wages and more lax environmental regulations have a comparative cost advantage over developed countries where waste management is an expensive service and environmental regulations are usually stricter. This means that waste management companies in the West tend to ship their scrap plastic or, at times, household waste to ‘waste havens’. Currently, there is a huge trade imbalance between the developed world and the ‘Global South’, which includes countries like China, India, Cambodia, and other parts of the developing world. This is a consequence of free trade on a global scale. Free trade allows for massive shipping containers from the Global South to arrive in the developed world, like the U.S., full of consumer products, and we have nothing to send back in them, except occasionally agricultural goods. Those same shipping containers would often head back to the Global South completely empty, which is bad business for the shipping companies because they have to eat their costs. So, what those companies do is sell their cargo space to waste exporters at a steep discount because some money for trash is better than no money for nothing. That trash export would absolutely not exist without free trade.

This trade imbalance can best be described by the example of plastic waste exportation to the Global South, specifically, China. Global trade in plastic waste is a big business. From 1988 to 2016, 168 million tons of plastic waste was exported, with most of it going to China and India. The unfortunate reality is that most of the plastic is contaminated and can’t be recycled. It’s usually dumped because the Global South lacks proper waste management facilities. People in the West like to believe that their waste is being recycled, but in reality, it is often being dumped in landfills or incinerated, which has caused a breadth of environmental consequences for these developing countries. This is driven by the brutal economics of free trade because exporting our waste is often cheaper than dealing with it locally and we are able to ship our problems elsewhere for a low cost. The human and environmental toll of plastic waste imports on China was exposed in a viral documentary in 2016 called ‘Plastic China’, which detailed the heart-wrenching story of an 11-year-old girl living in a workshop for imported scrap plastic, which created toxic air and polluted waterways in China’s countryside. Plastic that cannot be reused is often burned and this releases carbon monoxide, dioxins and furans, all of which are toxic. The villages and households in the vicinity of these plastic waste facilities are heavily affected by pollution. In 2017, fed up with being a dumping ground, China notified the World Trade Organization that it intended to ban the imports of plastic waste. The ban came into force in March 2018, setting off a chain reaction in the global plastic waste system. Numerous countries in the West have been unable to cope since, resulting in dramatic price increases for exporting, and more plastic being incinerated or sent to the landfill. If export rates continue as they are, the new Chinese policy will displace an estimated 111 million metric tons of plastic waste by 2030. So now, all of this waste is flooding into South East Asia, countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, India, Taiwan and Thailand, resulting in polluted waterways, fires, and illegal dumping. China’s 2018 ban of plastic waste importation demonstrates a clear example of a regulatory loophole that had been exploited for years. When plastic waste is exported to developing countries for treatment, these countries carry an additional burden besides having to deal with their own materials. When this burden becomes too great, untreated waste is simply dumped into the environment, turning recipient countries into havens for pollution as well as being destinations for unwanted waste. Free trade by its nature encourages the exploitations of these loopholes across borders, with the greatest harm done to developing countries.

The goal of free trade as a whole is to encourage greater economic activity, which increases the scale of global production. Economic growth means increased waste, increased greenhouse gas emission and improper waste disposal sites. Overall, free trade hurts the environment by stimulating more economic activity, increasing emissions and allowing developing countries to turn into havens for waste.

First of all, let’s start with some information about the sun: the sun is the closest star to Earth it is 149 600 000 km from our planet. The sun is about 1 300 000 times bigger than the Earth, which means that it produces a lot of thermal energy. However, only a very small part of this energy is converted into electricity – less than 1 percent. The light and heat provided by the sun are converted into electricity by solar panels.

Like many cutting-edge technologies, solar power generation has been used in space stations and space travel. It is hard to believe because this technology is right now with us: converting solar energy into electricity to meet daily household needs, charging vehicles, and even so-called green energy parks, where solar power plants cover huge areas and produce many kilowatts (kWh). We can’t measure how much energy it produces, but around usage, we use 3-5 kWh per day and 3000 per year, but of course, it is not that accurate because we use our electricity differently. It is easily explained in the graph below that between 1995-2012 years how we use more and more solar energy (GW) every single year.

Climate protection must be a priority issue worldwide, especially in emerging countries. This requires a restructuring of the energy industry and the only way to stop climate change is to develop renewable energy sources. One of the examples can be: that we use the sun to produce energy instead of “Nuclear power generation” because it pollutes our nature strongly and solar energy produces it naturally by itself. As well this development of solar energy is closely related to the public emphasis on renewable energy. Solar energy and related technologies are questioning how much energy is spent on the production of electrical cells and the cost of running them. Recent studies in Germany have confirmed that solar cells generate 6 to 14 times more energy during their life cycle, so their efficiency and environmental benefits are evident. As well the 21st century has rapidly evolving technologies that give us the ability to live comfortably, but they are also increasingly causing us headaches to keep up with energy to always have enough of it. The energy given to us by the sun is a real treasure and our main task is to be able to use it. Importantly, the process is extremely environmentally friendly and existing solar power does not require exceptional care. Some parts of it can last for up to two decades despite the environmental impact.

Solar radiation can be used to produce both electrical and thermal energy. The most common type of electricity production is a solar power plant consisting of solar panels and the heat is generated by solar collectors that heat water or special heat carrier. It is also the most important of all renewable energy sources. It is clean, has no exhaust fumes, and is required for almost every process in nature. As a result, people have started to use solar energy more and more due to the escalating fuel crisis and environmental concerns. The sun is an enormous source of energy every minute a ton of mass is transformed into energy which then reaches our earth, but of course, only a small amount of this energy reaches us. For every collector, the most popular are flat panel solar collectors. They are coated with special black nickel, chrome, or crystal coatings that attract heat. The special liquid will then contain the heat generated inside, which will then be used as heating for the apartment or water. There is also a vacuum collector, which is more commonly used in countries with colder climates, because it can store energy when the sun shines through the clouds and it works when the special fluid in the vacuum tubes gets heated by the sun and goes to the boiler. Of course, this collector requires a lower temperature because the air is sucked out of the tubes.

When it comes to solar energy, we have to take into account it is drawbacks as well as the positive values that are good for us, but at the same time, something can be useless or even harmful. So what are the main advantages and disadvantages of solar energy? Let’s start with the positive. First of all, it is abundantly renewable and is renewable very quickly and in large quantities. It is a silent technology and has no moving power-generating devices, which means they can be stored on top of apartment buildings, homes, offices, or anywhere else because if they do not emit any sounds, it will not interfere and allow you to sleep well. This power generation also requires only little maintenance and can be implemented with simple technology and evolve over time, without checking it very often. Last but not least, the most affordable alternative would be to supply electricity in remote rural areas where energy demand is very high and where there is plenty of space to install solar panels. This means that people who live away from or very far away from cities sometimes have energy problems, that they disappear are missing, or have other problems associated with energy transfer. These solar panels would help people who live in villages to have better or even great electricity. It is also interesting for everyone to know if this technology is truly safe. We can safely say that it is safe because it does not carry harmful molecules or anything that is harmful to the nature of human beings, it is a really safe and clean technology and we can be guaranteed that in the future it will be even better at this. That would be the main advantages of having solar energy, but let’s talk on the other hand what are the bad things about solar energy. As this technology is not yet fully developed, the light conversion rate is between 10% and 17%, depending on the technology used. We can also say that the cost of this technology is very high because, as we said it is not yet fully developed. Also one of the main problems would be that this technology is only available during the day, which means that there must be clear or very low clouds so that the sun can reach these collectors and store energy. Because, as we mentioned earlier, the level of efficiency is very low, this means that under current conditions 6-9 acres of land will require the construction of a 1MW solar energy. Last but not least, installing solar parks may require a significant amount of land, which can have a profound impact on the ecosystem life there (land that will no longer receive sun, small animals will be forced to move from their homes plants will die because they won’t receive any sun anymore). Listing their minuses and pluses made you wonder how much they would cost. The range in price from 100 pounds to 500 pounds, depending on the quality and strength they can accrue over time. Further on, the CO2 consumption of this technology has become interesting. It is not very accurate to say, but it is claimed that 1 kWh consumes 20 to 50 grams of CO2, depending on the strength of the panel.

As we continue to talk about this technology, we wondered what it is future might be or if will it expand significantly. We can safely say that in the future, solar panels will no longer be as visible as they are now. They will look good and have almost the same efficiency as conventional solar panels. These panels can be darkened and used as imitations of homogeneous slate panels, but they can also be integrated into Roman tiles. This means that in the future we will see good-looking buildings and know that their roof is not simply covered, it is made to generate electricity through the sun and with it its own appearance. Here is a picture of what it might look like in the future:

In summary, solar energy, like other energy sources, has it is own advantages and disadvantages, but with the right technology, solar energy can become the most power-generating method. Of course, this method is not as efficient as it produces only a very small amount of energy from what it receives. But at this moment, only a couple of collectors are popularly used to store this energy: a vacuum collector and a flat collector these two are the most commonly used at the moment. + Solar energy is not yet fully developed to be perfectly stored without any drawbacks, but in the future, we can predict that it will have a very high demand and will be one of the main sources of energy worldwide

First of all, let’s start with some information about the sun: the sun is the closest star to Earth it is 149 600 000 km from our planet. The sun is about 1 300 000 times bigger than the Earth, which means that it produces a lot of thermal energy. However, only a very small part of this energy is converted into electricity – less than 1 percent. The light and heat provided by the sun are converted into electricity by solar panels.

Like many cutting-edge technologies, solar power generation has been used in space stations and space travel. It is hard to believe because this technology is right now with us: converting solar energy into electricity to meet daily household needs, charging vehicles, and even so-called green energy parks, where solar power plants cover huge areas and produce many kilowatts (kWh). We can’t measure how much energy it produces, but around usage, we use 3-5 kWh per day and 3000 per year, but of course, it is not that accurate because we use our electricity differently. It is easily explained in the graph below that between 1995-2012 years how we use more and more solar energy (GW) every single year.

Climate protection must be a priority issue worldwide, especially in emerging countries. This requires a restructuring of the energy industry and the only way to stop climate change is to develop renewable energy sources. One of the examples can be: that we use the sun to produce energy instead of “Nuclear power generation” because it pollutes our nature strongly and solar energy produces it naturally by itself. As well this development of solar energy is closely related to the public emphasis on renewable energy. Solar energy and related technologies are questioning how much energy is spent on the production of electrical cells and the cost of running them. Recent studies in Germany have confirmed that solar cells generate 6 to 14 times more energy during their life cycle, so their efficiency and environmental benefits are evident. As well the 21st century has rapidly evolving technologies that give us the ability to live comfortably, but they are also increasingly causing us headaches to keep up with energy to always have enough of it. The energy given to us by the sun is a real treasure and our main task is to be able to use it. Importantly, the process is extremely environmentally friendly and existing solar power does not require exceptional care. Some parts of it can last for up to two decades despite the environmental impact.

Solar radiation can be used to produce both electrical and thermal energy. The most common type of electricity production is a solar power plant consisting of solar panels and the heat is generated by solar collectors that heat water or special heat carrier. It is also the most important of all renewable energy sources. It is clean, has no exhaust fumes, and is required for almost every process in nature. As a result, people have started to use solar energy more and more due to the escalating fuel crisis and environmental concerns. The sun is an enormous source of energy every minute a ton of mass is transformed into energy which then reaches our earth, but of course, only a small amount of this energy reaches us. For every collector, the most popular are flat panel solar collectors. They are coated with special black nickel, chrome, or crystal coatings that attract heat. The special liquid will then contain the heat generated inside, which will then be used as heating for the apartment or water. There is also a vacuum collector, which is more commonly used in countries with colder climates, because it can store energy when the sun shines through the clouds and it works when the special fluid in the vacuum tubes gets heated by the sun and goes to the boiler. Of course, this collector requires a lower temperature because the air is sucked out of the tubes.

When it comes to solar energy, we have to take into account it is drawbacks as well as the positive values that are good for us, but at the same time, something can be useless or even harmful. So what are the main advantages and disadvantages of solar energy? Let’s start with the positive. First of all, it is abundantly renewable and is renewable very quickly and in large quantities. It is a silent technology and has no moving power-generating devices, which means they can be stored on top of apartment buildings, homes, offices, or anywhere else because if they do not emit any sounds, it will not interfere and allow you to sleep well. This power generation also requires only little maintenance and can be implemented with simple technology and evolve over time, without checking it very often. Last but not least, the most affordable alternative would be to supply electricity in remote rural areas where energy demand is very high and where there is plenty of space to install solar panels. This means that people who live away from or very far away from cities sometimes have energy problems, that they disappear are missing, or have other problems associated with energy transfer. These solar panels would help people who live in villages to have better or even great electricity. It is also interesting for everyone to know if this technology is truly safe. We can safely say that it is safe because it does not carry harmful molecules or anything that is harmful to the nature of human beings, it is a really safe and clean technology and we can be guaranteed that in the future it will be even better at this. That would be the main advantages of having solar energy, but let’s talk on the other hand what are the bad things about solar energy. As this technology is not yet fully developed, the light conversion rate is between 10% and 17%, depending on the technology used. We can also say that the cost of this technology is very high because, as we said it is not yet fully developed. Also one of the main problems would be that this technology is only available during the day, which means that there must be clear or very low clouds so that the sun can reach these collectors and store energy. Because, as we mentioned earlier, the level of efficiency is very low, this means that under current conditions 6-9 acres of land will require the construction of a 1MW solar energy. Last but not least, installing solar parks may require a significant amount of land, which can have a profound impact on the ecosystem life there (land that will no longer receive sun, small animals will be forced to move from their homes plants will die because they won’t receive any sun anymore). Listing their minuses and pluses made you wonder how much they would cost. The range in price from 100 pounds to 500 pounds, depending on the quality and strength they can accrue over time. Further on, the CO2 consumption of this technology has become interesting. It is not very accurate to say, but it is claimed that 1 kWh consumes 20 to 50 grams of CO2, depending on the strength of the panel.

As we continue to talk about this technology, we wondered what it is future might be or if will it expand significantly. We can safely say that in the future, solar panels will no longer be as visible as they are now. They will look good and have almost the same efficiency as conventional solar panels. These panels can be darkened and used as imitations of homogeneous slate panels, but they can also be integrated into Roman tiles. This means that in the future we will see good-looking buildings and know that their roof is not simply covered, it is made to generate electricity through the sun and with it its own appearance. Here is a picture of what it might look like in the future:

In summary, solar energy, like other energy sources, has it is own advantages and disadvantages, but with the right technology, solar energy can become the most power-generating method. Of course, this method is not as efficient as it produces only a very small amount of energy from what it receives. But at this moment, only a couple of collectors are popularly used to store this energy: a vacuum collector and a flat collector these two are the most commonly used at the moment. + Solar energy is not yet fully developed to be perfectly stored without any drawbacks, but in the future, we can predict that it will have a very high demand and will be one of the main sources of energy worldwide