Well, to start, it's important to note that Pyeongchang is a little bit better than Sochi. Sochi was an Olympic horror story for the environment, what with illegal dumping of hazardous substances inside a national park, building stadiums that blocked the migration routes of animals, and logging endangered species of trees just to build Shaun White his sweet half pipe. So there was that. But the thing is, the Pyeongchang Olympics may not be that bad, but that doesn't lessen the fact that they're not great. According to the Pyeongchang officials themselves, this year's games will generate 1.6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, which is more than Barbados produces in a year. (Barbados, for reference, is it's own freaking country. Rihanna is from Barbados.) Most of those emissions will be spent on transporting people to the games. Not only that, but tens of thousands of trees were cut down to build the ski run. How many trees did the organizers pledge to replant after the games, you ask? 1,000.
The Olympics are great. No one is saying that anyone should get rid of the Olympics anytime soon. But maybe we should stop having conversations about Russian doping (seriously who cares? they already have to be called the Olympic Athletes from Russia and that's hilarious on multiple levels) and start having conversations about how the Olympics are literally trashing the environments they take place in. The Olympic people are there for less than a month. The trees and the animals and the environments in the Pyeongchang area are there forever. Why must irreversible damage take place, surely people can come up with a greener solution than what already exists? The next Olympic games are being held in Tokyo. With enough national attention, I think Tokyo can and should pull through and announce an environmentally sustainable plan for the construction and execution of the 2020 Olympics.
0 Comments
Scientists apparently think that polar bears are going extinct sooner than they thought, and it's all because of the ice melting. The ice is melting at increased rates, and it means that the polar bears have to go further and expend more energy to find food. The number one cause of polar bear deaths besides natural causes is starvation. For one polar bear to sustain its energy requires 12,325 calories a day, usually one adult ringed seal every 10 days. However, one study found that four out of nine bears in the study didn't reach that calorie level.
This is important because these are polar bears! If polar bears go extinct, what are we even doing as a species? I don't want to live in a world where I have to tell my kids about these magical white bears that are in the same category as the dinosaurs. The only real solution I can see according to the article is "decisive action to address Arctic warming," whatever that means. I don't know what decisive action looks like but people should do something. Maybe a national Save the Polar Bears Day where everyone stays inside and doesn't use anything with carbon emissions, just watches polar bear documentaries all day. Perfluoalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, are a group of flourinated compounds that can often be found in houseware such as non-stick cooking supplies and upholstery, even cosmetics. However, PFAS are being slowly phased out because it was discovered that they can have a negative effect on the immune systems of humans. However, the problem is that PFAS are not biodegradable, so any PFAS already in the environment will stay there. In a study published in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, it was discovered that PFAS in the ocean have a negative effect on the immune systems of mussels.
The good news is that the amounts of PFAS thought to be currently in the environment are not as concentrated as the amounts the study proved were needed to harm the mussels. But that means we need to be very careful about making sure no more PFAS are put in any products ever. Because mussels are freaking delicious. You haven't lived until you've had some Whidbey Island mussels. |