Cell Phones: the Problem, Not the Solution

By Brian Khaneyan

Cell phones have become an object that every person is required to have. In late 2014, the amount of cell phones in existence surpassed the number of people in the world. It’s no secret that the general population who buy consumer electronics upgrade them frequently, but cellphones have an incredibly short life cycle comparatively. Americans replace their cellphone every 22 months. However the consequences of such an action are rarely considered. Julia Corbett states in chapter three of Communicating Nature that there are four main factors that influence behavior: attitudinal factors, personal factors, contextual factors, and habit and routine. Some environmental issues such as GMO’s or animal rights or fracking can cause behavioral change because they usually do not change habit and routine and are in line with a person’s attitudinal factors – “we should have clean drinking water and animals should not suffer.” However, the same cannot be said for buying a cell phone. The device is integral to our being, which is why it is incredibly difficult to change. 

The first step in understanding why cell phone waste and consumption is incredibly dangerous is understanding that cell phone manufacturers do not create, they design. Apple is an easy example to take since they are the largest cell phone company in the world, and the demand for their phones creates even more issues which will be discussed. A phone is made from an incredible number of parts. There is the glass for the screen, the digitizer underneath it, the aluminum case, the gold for contact points, the chip boards, the solder to connect the components that are made of even more various resources, and a slew of chemicals needed to ensure the bonding and proper function of all of these parts. Apple does not create any of these parts, they do not resource the tin needed for the solder, they don’t mine the silicon needed for the chips. They get these resources from other companies which can sell to multiple phone manufacturers. However Apple is their main source of income, and Apple will sign contracts with these companies to ensure that they can get enough materials needed for their upcoming phone launch. The same is done for the production of the phone. The assembly, specifically for Apple, takes place in the FoxConn factory. It is in the best interest of these companies to gather as much material possible no matter what it takes, and this many times involves violating worker’s rights and safety practices. 

The first source is a controversial documentary from the BBC that aired on TV, Panorama: Apple’s Broken Promises. The documentary takes a look at the entire spectrum of issues by inserting an undercover employee who broke through apple’s rigorous security checks in order to document what was really going on. Among the highlights were employees commonly passing out due to lack of sleep, constant threats from line managers including slave-like chanting as part of employee’s duties, and the confiscation of identification once they entered the factory. This piece and its contents were incredibly shocking. These workers had to work in incredibly dangerous and unjust circumstances in order to support themselves. Apple responded saying that they were “deeply offended” by the piece, stating that they are working to improve the working conditions. The result of this is that finding the piece online is incredibly difficult. There is currently no legal way to watch this if you are in the US, and all YouTube links have been taken down. The major US online news networks like The Huffington Post have not covered the piece either, while their United Kingdom equivalents like The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Independent have.  It is typical for a company to do this kind of censorship throughThe major news networks including NBC, ABC, and CBS have not reported on these findings. However, Apple invited ABC News into their factory, and their findings were much more tame than the BBC’s. This occurred two years after the FoxConn Suicides, which were greatly highlighted in the media. 

As shown through the previous source, companies can greatly influence media and internet through their influence. However they can also have a great amount of influence through direct advertising. This print ad employs some of the tactics spoken about in chapter six of Communicating Nature. The ad states “There are some ideas we want every company to copy.” This is set on top of a field filled with solar panels. This serves a couple of purposes. It uses propaganda devices to insinuate that they are a cleaner company and a more innovative company than anyone else. They use name calling to label their competitor’s product as not-green. The ad evokes a certain feeling of beauty. There’s a sun setting over a green field and among this are perfectly lined up solar panels. The advertisement does an incredibly good job of making the reader feel like Apple is actually doing something to help the environment while suggesting that other companies do not. More of this can be seen at Apple’s own environmental page. Once again the clean design, statistics, and even sheer amount of information on the page. The page is truly inundated with statistics. “30%: amount of recycled post-consumer recycled plastic in Mac Pro speakers.” This is the part they are talking about. As shown, the part is incredibly small and clearly does not represent a relevant amount of the raw material needed to make this product. Stating numbers like 30% saved advertising hyperbole that Julia Corbett once again speaks of in chapter six.

The effect of this aggressive advertising campaign is that people listen, and it gets their point across. However, the companies do not control what is done after you buy the smartphone. Jessica Dolcourt’s article “Your Smartphone’s Secret Afterlife” on CNet goes in detail about the issues with smartphone waste. The main theme in this article is that is that the dangerous chemicals used in the making of cell phones could come back and affect your drinking water and harm you. Titles like “cell phones could kill you” are used throughout the article. This not only makes it clear that cell phone waste is hazardous, but it gives the reader an incentive to actually do something about it. Appropriately enough, after an entire section on the immense dangers of the chemicals used in cell phone manufacturing, the author presents the facts on recycling, and shows the reader how recycling can prevent the dangerous situations explained in the previous paragraphs. The article is also incredibly informative, using statistics throughout to bolster its main points. The article also doesn’t fully fixate itself on Apple and recognizes that all companies need to be friendly to the environment. 

Social media is incredibly important in influencing someone’s thought process and decisions. One of the newest and most popular platforms is Reddit.com. This is a web-forum and news aggregator that sorts stories based on voting. A user can down-vote a story if it is not interesting to them, and up-vote it if it is. FairPhone is a startup company which was started to create a 100% ethical phone in all fields: mining, design, manufacturing, life cycle, and social entrepreneurship. The company has created their first phone and is now working on others. Similarly, the OnePlus One phone was created by a startup company and is aimed at bringing the lowest priced phone with the best features around. These two phones are easy to compare due to their startup nature and community funded origins. The top post on Reddit for the OnePlus One has 2,811 up-votes, and the top post for the FairPhone has 2,456 upvotes. However the FairPhone has 1000 less comments than the OnePlus. This shows that people are generally less interested in a phone that aims to be good for the environment, they want something that will benefit them the most, another idea brought up in Communicating Nature. Some of the comments for the FairPhone were “A good idea, but it’s a bit too soon to attempt.” “Great Concept, but no 4g is a dealbreaker.”Anothercommenter stated:

What I want to see is all the morons demanding ethically manufactured devices to put up and buy the things over the much better and with better value devices from HTC or Samsung that were allegedly manufactured on the blood, sweat, and tears of children.

The only reason these devices are made ethically is because there's a market for it, there's a bunch of idiots wanting to buy it to make themselves feel better for using it.

This is not the way most of the community thinks, as shown by its score of -6 points. The score shows us that people don’t think that they are morons for wanting to buy such a phone and they truly want to make a difference if given the chance. 

Print newspapers are also an incredibly important source of news. While the demographics for print media don’t particularly line up with those of smartphones, it is still important to see how this issue is portrayed in print. David Barboza of The New York Times wrote a piece, “Another Death at Electronics Supplier in China.” Like most print articles tend to be, the article is very informative and unbiased. The only bias present in pieces like these is based on what the reporter chooses to include. For this piece, the reporter brings up facts about the suicide rates at Foxconn. He also chooses to include quotes from workers rather than statements made from the company itself. Many articles, like the ABC segment shown earlier, won’t include worker statements. The second to last paragraph details why Sun Danyong committed suicide, reporting that he was beaten and humiliated by personnel for misplacing an iPhone prototype. This is clearly a sorrowful event, but the last paragraph and quote serves to tie the piece all together, “we are extremely tired, with tremendous pressure.” The inclusion of these last two paragraphs evokes empathy and forces the reader to think about the atrocities being committed at factories like Foxconn. 

The last source being reviewed is from a YouTube channel called SourceFed. The channel is aimed at short news content portrayed in an interesting way. The video “iPhone Factory Riot” explains the Foxconn riots. They use jump-cuts to keep the viewer interested throughout the piece while including images over their background commentary. Pictures of the riot event are also used in the video. The company is portrayed in a negative light, with a host stating that: “The whole place is a little weird… The employees are rising up against guards mutiny style- something smells fishy at Foxconn.” At the end of the video, they ask the viewers if they’d stop buying Apple products due to how they treat their workers. Thejerrymobile responded: 

It is however to note that companies of this ponderous scale usually have a finger in every possible (am I really using this metaphor) pie. They make small and medium scale components that are sold to other manufacturers, which eventually end up in every electronic thing you could possibly buy. Thus a better strategy (if you are concerned with doing something) is to use those devices to influence positive change

It turns out that he is completely right. All the articles reviewed are incredibly informative and focus on the injustices that companies like Foxconn commit. However none of them offer a solution. The FairPhone is somewhat of a solution, but in the end there are simply not going to be enough people who buy a more expensive and lesser advertised phone. The only way to truly inspire change in an industry like this is not to vote with your wallet, but to yell with your mouth – or keyboard. The riots and suicides in FoxConn have caused petitions to pop up that have garnered many signatures at Change.org and SumOfUs.org. These petitions can incite change. If enough people speak, then the companies will listen. This SumOfUs.org page on creating an ethical iPhone sums it up quite neatly: “Can Apple do this? Absolutely.They’re sitting on $100 billion in cash.Suppliers would change everything tomorrow if Apple told them they didn’t have another choice.” This is why we need to make our voice heard. If there are enough complaints as to the non-ethical nature of their products, companies will listen and will make change happen. 

No Farmers, No Food

By Jessica Kaplan

The history of food production goes back over 10,000 years ago with the first farmers. Although our methods have changed drastically through this time something has stayed constant: farmers are a vital part of our existence. During this time of change we’ve seen many food movements come and go, like the slow food movement (the counteraction of fast food) we are currently in. 

Michael Pollan, in his book In Defense of Food, poses a question that I think is crucial to the 21^st century’s food concerns: “What if we were to start thinking about food as less of a thing and more as a relationship?” This may seem like a silly comparison to draw, but if you think about it it’s kind of the central problem with food production today. We produce so that people can buy as much as their personal economic situation will allow even if it’s unnecessary and wasted. This is why we have lost the notion that it’s important to know where your food comes from. Industrialization is one major contributor to this lost notion. Monoculture accounts for a large portion of industrialization and is being done across the globe. A single crop being produced on a huge scale depleting the soil of the same nutrients a thousand times over is leading to soil erosion and other ecological issues. Pollan argues that this is why the American diet has lost so much of its core nutrients. “The fact that at least 30 percent of Americans have a diet deficient in vitamin C, vitamin E, vitamin A, and magnesium surely owes more to eating processed foods full of empty calories than it does to lower levels of nutrients in the whole foods we aren’t eating.” He goes on to explain that the foods even before being processed are of lesser nutritional value already. Pollan’s book is one that appeals to people interested not only in food production, but also literature. He’s a well-known author and commentator on food topics. He explains all the scientific-based explanations thoroughly because he wants the information he’s writing to be accessible to anyone. This is important because every person should know about what they’re consuming. 

Monsanto is the basis for many arguments against GMOs and any biological tampering of really anything. If you take a look at the biotechnology company’s website, you may find yourself confused by all the drama around the company. At first glance it’s a rather cheery website. The company seems pro-farmer and environmentally friendly through tabs labeled “Sustainable Agriculture” and “Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability.” If you watch their short video, "Monsanto at a Glance", you get a false idea of the company as a whole. The video highlights Monsanto employees explaining how they “empower farmers.” However, this is far from the truth. The corporation has taken ownership of seeds, literally. Vandana Shiva explains in her book Stolen Harvest how Monsanto patented the Indian mustard plant. This means that if the country wanted to plant mustard they are forced to go through Monsanto, and use genetically modified varieties of a plant that belongs to India and its people. Contrary to the smiley Monsanto employees, owning every aspect of agriculture production in places like India is not helping farmers. They find themselves forever entwined with the corporation once they purchase seeds once. When the seeds are purchased it’s almost impossible for a farmer to do anything else for the rest of their food producing lives. Indian farmers end up putting themselves in debt trying to pay for all the components of Monsanto’s agriculture production. 

A  2014 New York Times article entitled “After Farmers Commit Suicide, Debts Fall on Families in India” by Ellen Barry, Monsanto isn’t found explicitly named as a key factor in the high rate of farmer suicides in India. However, Barry does not state, “farmers took on new risks, switching to commercial crops and expensive, genetically modified seeds…” Monsanto was one of the companies selling farmers the genetically modified seeds. This article takes on a more unbiased approach than “Monsanto’s Seeds Contributing to Farmer Suicides Every 30 Minutes,” written by Anthony Gucciardi appearing in Nation of Change in 2012, makes Monsanto the core reason for the tragic loss of farmers. It says that some even used the insecticide from Monsanto to end their own lives. Although this article may seem like it is only blaming Monsanto there seems to be truth behind it. The article includes a story from a wife whose husband committed suicide and she says that they had bought the BT cotton seed from Monsanto and it failed twice. The incorporation of this story was to impact the reader in a way that makes them understand that farmers need support and not company’s imposing methods on them. Articles like the two mentioned above make the public, even if they’re thousands of miles away, realize the importance of farmers and the hardships they go through that we don’t always recognize. 

If you refer back to the Monsanto website, you’ll find Monsanto’s comments on the increase of farmer suicides in India. They include references to different scientific studies that show how other socio-economic factors played the major role in the increase. One of these being “lack of reliable credit,” but the farmers are most likely in need of loaned money because of failed GMO crops. Many farmers turn to the government in order to provide for their families when crops fail, but then when they need to pay it back they are already so in debt from purchasing the Monsanto seeds and supplies that they can’t come up with the money. They also only refer to the increase in production yield for the BT cotton crop when there are other possible GMO crops affecting the farmers. I can’t help but imagine how Monsanto would have constructed not just this comments page to the situation in India, but the entire website. I can tell that each word was carefully selected to make sure that nothing can be implied except the message they are trying to put out. The wording seems as though they are trying to not say too much. The language isn’t flowery or wordy. If someone who had no former knowledge of Monsanto looked at their website they may not believe that it is the company many people see it as. I think this is what made Monsanto into the power that it is.

So after all of this—where do the farmers stand? Who advocates for farmers? Beyond people like Shiva and Pollan, we owe a lot more than we think to the farmers around the world. Through the media today we hear a lot about GMOs and why or why not they should be labeled, but what about the farmers? People have gotten so caught up in the drama and controversy surrounding genetic modification, to the point where I had no idea about the farmer suicides in India until I heard it from a friend. I was shocked that I never heard about it, but thought I knew a considerable amount about GMOs. Farmers rights are something that is sometimes forgotten about because of our disconnect with food. If you look at farmersrights.org, which is a website designed to provide information about farmers’ rights as they’re referred to in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, you will see that protecting farmers means protecting diversity of plant genetics. It seems like a rather simple concept, allow farmers to continue to use and save seeds in order to produce food. However, in today’s world this is being attacked by company’s’ desires to “own” seeds. This means that farmers would not be able to do seed saving, which has been a crucial component of food production since farming begun over 10,000 years ago. By farmers being able to have access to diverse plant genetics they’re able to adjust to environmental conditions as well as the changing needs of the global population. If you take this ability away (something that is connected to Monsanto seeds) you leave the farmers unable to utilize different types of crops that may work better one season because of changing environmental conditions. In the media today there isn’t a lot of coverage on the issue of farmers’ rights. It’s something that even in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which is a treaty that was created at the 31^st Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in 2001, there is no definition as to what exactly constitutes “farmers’ rights” because each farmer’s needs vary depending on each of their situations. The importance of this treaty, as well as the website that highlights its main points, is to make sure that farmers have access to the genetic resources they need. The website makes reading a lengthy treaty simple. Looking at all of the conditions in the treaty I feel as though more needs to be done to make sure that farmers all over the world feel they have support from an organized body to advocate for them.  

We all see those bumper stickers that say, “If you’ve eaten, today hug a farmer” and we may find it cheesy, but it’s so true. We have lost the connection we once had with our food, and in turn, our farmers as well. We no longer find it important to know where our food came from. We get nutrients through foods processed to have nutrients when we could just eat foods that naturally have them. Farmers around the world are feeling the pressure of the increase in global population. In places like India, they feel like they have no other option than to use genetically modified seeds. Countless farmers are now caught up in the expensive monopolies created by corporations like Monsanto. Moving forward, it’s important to look to the ideologies of people like Michael Pollan and Vandana Shiva. 

Mindless Media over Matter: It’s Time for Humans to Stop Ignoring Animal Rights

By Cathy Doodnauth

Animal rights: two words that everyone tries not to think about. Why? Because when animals are being slaughtered, maimed, tortured, or abused, ignorance is bliss. I’ll admit it—sometimes I choose to ignore reading the articles or watching the news that I know will upset me. I guarantee that I am not the only one who does this. But the time for feigning ignorance is over. Animals are being abused more and more, for different reasons; whether it is torturous experimentation for the latest makeup products or the fattening up by the food industries. It’s time for humans to realize that we are not the only species on Earth. 

“News is, to a degree, event-driven.” Julia Corbett, author of Communicating Nature believes that media only reports the truth if it is relevant to that area. It is true that there is more coverage of animal cruelty today than there was in the past years. But as the media gets more and more focused on ridiculous ‘news’, there is less attention on the huge issue of animal cruelty. I intend to look through different media sources to see how the world truly views animal rights and animal cruelty. Through this research, we can get a better idea of how far we are from equality for the species that cannot ask for it themselves. Through this research, we can see how cruel humans have been under the radar, and if mainstream media, the media that reaches the world, covers it at all. 

Animal Liberation, a Philosophy

Some say that technology will surpass written books very soon. I disagree—just a few days ago I was unable to find a seat in Barnes and Noble to read a book. Books have been the main source of information for thousands of years, a tradition that isn’t dying just yet. 

While researching animal rights, I came across a book by Peter Singer that blew my mind. I highly recommend reading this book, animal lover or not. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement is a book first published in 1975 that is still relative today. It’s controversial; I’m not saying every idea Singer throws out is great. But I believe his ideas on the rights of animals are ideas that should be adopted by all. Beginning with the first chapter, Singer captures your attention and pushes you into seeing animal rights as it is—a movement. He compares the animal rights movement to that of the women’s rights movement of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Men thought women’s rights were ridiculous and unnecessary; this is exactly how people today view animal rights. Yet we realize now that of course women deserve the same rights as men and should have had equality from the start. If history does in fact repeat itself, shouldn’t this mean that animals too deserve equality? With this captivating opener, readers are already agreeing with Singer. Using this comparison makes this form of media effective for its readers. By relating to a previous movement that now seems obvious in its validity, readers see that animal rights might not be so radical after all.

In this specific sense, it is clear that books are beneficial when discussing animal rights. However, it is not the best form of media to get an idea out these days. Massive amounts of people do not even touch books unless absolutely necessary for work or school. Reading for fun is not as popular as it used to be. Therefore, while some books like Singer’s are a great resource, they are not open to the world. But they can be. If schools pushed for books other than novels to be read, maybe students would think differently and read more. As of right now though, books are not the source we need to advocate for animal rights.

#ANIMALRIGHTS

One of the more recent social media applications that has taken the world by storm would be Instagram. Disclosure: this application is not just hipster posts of Starbucks and ‘selfies’. If you look in the right places, you find photo blogs by environmental activists around the earth that advocate against many environmental issues. Search a hashtag, and you’ll find a world you never knew existed. 

I decided to search the app with the hashtag animal rights (#animalrights). The pictures I found and the stories I read through captions were moving. There are many activists who take to Instagram to enlighten their followers about the inhumane treatment of animals that occur right under nose. Most of the pictures I found pertained to the restricting of animals in our diet; A.K.A., they were vegan and vegetarian accounts that were against the cruelty farm animals face before being on a dinner plate. One account I found was very influential—the words in the captions severely made me rethink my current omnivorous diet, as did the pictures. One post from late March stood out to me. With their permission, I post this reiteration of the quote: 

“Standing up for children is expected, it is morally the right thing to do. Advocating for dogs, cats, and wild life is accepted, it is justifiable to quite a few. So why is speaking out for farm animals extreme, why is it pushing a ‘point-of-view’? Maybe it is time to change this perspective, because their lives matter too!” – One Voice for Animal Rights

The original poster of the photo had a caption that complimented the picture—they say that “suffering is suffering” and it is time to end speciesism.  This account has over four thousand followers, effectively showing a good amount of people the truth about animal rights. Because of this, and many other accounts with more followers and more points, I believe that Instagram is a very good media source. This app is a form of speech for many. This source portrays animal rights as it is—a necessary movement to stop the suffering of innocent animals, whether they are dogs or cows. Instagram is an app utilized by millions of people, so it can be beneficial for fighting for our goal of animal rights. 

France: a Foie Gras Faux Pas

There is an issue that has been raising controversy in France over the past few years: the disgusting practice of force feeding a duck or goose to make foie gras. I was completely horrified when I found an activist website, Stop Gavage, which explained foie gras and the methods taken to attain this French cuisine. This specific activist site was formed from a larger organization, the L214, in 2012.

The practice to make foie gras is one of the cruelest that I have come across while researching animal rights. The methods used are cruel and merciless, to produce a food for human consumption while blatantly disregarding the innocent birds. Foie Gras is translated into fat liver—it is the specially fattened liver of a goose or duck prepared as food. According to the manifesto area of the website, the bird is put through a painful practice:

“…force fed several times a day by means of a metal tube, 20-30 centimeters long, being thrust down his throat till it reaches the stomach. To force his body to produce foie gras, the bird must ingest a huge amount of corn in a few seconds. This results in the liver becoming almost ten times larger than its normal size, and the bird develops an illness, hepatic steatosis.”

Stop Gavage is a very effective activist website; the information is very clear and easy to find once translating the page into English. The practice is explained without any exclusion of information—the nitty gritty gore is present in the page, followed with graphic images. They also add a petition to be signed to attempt to stop gavage for foie gras, and to perhaps even ban foie gras. This kind of website is beneficial to those against animal cruelty and it shows that although France is the main producer, there are French people who want it completely stopped to save these innocent animals. 

Costa Rica: Punishable by Law

The world knows that Costa Rica is one of the leaders of sustainability today. Their eco-friendly lifestyle is an inspiration to countries and activists worldwide. An English newspaper (print and online) from Costa Rica, The Costa Rica News, featured an article discussing an amendment to their animal abuse bill. The bill essentially says that abusing animals is against Costa Rican law. This recent article, dated February 5, says that the amendment would give “one to three years for those who cause the death of an animal with or without a legitimate cause.” It also says that imprisonment is going to be the penalty for “poisoning, injuring, torturing, and assaulting animals,” as well as “organizing or running fights between animals of any kind.”

The Costa Rica News makes it clear that this is still just a proposition, but with over two thousand complaints of animal abuse, animal rights activists are hoping for the passing of the amendment. The article is short and to the point, with just the important information. It features no opinions, only fact from government sources. This adds to its effectiveness when discussing animal rights. Many who support the cause are biased, with special care and feelings towards animals. This article is different, which makes it all the more successful and effective. 

This newspaper article is filled with hope and restoration of faith in humanity. Costa Rica is obviously taking the steps to limiting (and thus, stopping) animal cruelty. They are on the road to animal rights. But without having researching this specific country and issue, I would not have known about this amendment. Newspapers that are specific to a country only inform the people of that country. It’s difficult to inform citizens of other places when the area it is given out to are minimal. This is the only issue that newspapers have. 

Brazil: Revista Cães & Gatos

Finding information from countries around the world can be difficult—especially if the articles and information is in a different language. Luckily, I was able to translate (through Google) a great article from a Brazilian magazine, Revista Cães & Gatos. This magazine has been around since 2008, in both print and online forms. 

We all know that animal testing is prevalent today; while it isn’t happening as much as it used to, it is still a huge issue we have when discussing animal rights. Many experiments are connected to cosmetics. This Brazilian magazine covers a win for animal rights activists in an article from January 23, 2014: the governor of São Paulo, Geraldo Alckmin, has banned “the use of animals in the development of cosmetics, perfumes, and toiletries” in his State. Sao Paulo is a state of Brazil that contained more cosmetic companies than other states, meaning this ban is truly great. Any offenders of the ban will have to pay over $50,000 USD. The article is very effective in its layout of information—it begins by catching the attention of the readers, then states the rules of the ban, and ends with hopeful statements. The reader is given information clearly and thoroughly. 

The magazine is published throughout Brazil, reaching the eyes of citizens in other states of the country. This makes it a very good source when discussing the rights of animals. Also, it is a magazine focused solely on animals, which makes it a great insight into the world of their rights. With its clear articles, anyone can pick up a copy and be introduced into the fight against animal cruelty. 

Canada: TEDx Talk

YouTube is one of the most valuable, unlimited resources we have today. With an almost infinity amount of videos, this site can teach about any and every subject known to man.  Of course, this includes animal rights. The specific video I found is from a TEDx Talk. Regular TED Talks are organized talks covering many different topics; TEDx Talk is specifically self-organized talks. Lesli Bisgould is an animal rights lawyer that was featured on one of the talks in May 2014. The talk she had was focused on animal rights, specifically in Canada. 

Bisgould uses a bold comparison in her talk. She discusses a hypothetical situation in which her daughter requires a heart transplant to live, which spurs Bisgould to ‘kidnap’ a healthy audience member to save her daughter. She makes the point that this act would not be “morally or legally justifiable.” She compares this to necessary suffering of animals for human amusement or as a food source. Her comparison is, in my opinion, the most effective part of her speech. What she says is relatable—we’ve all known someone, or a friend of a friend that has needed help in such a way. But is it truly justifiable? No. And it is not justifiable for animals either, even if they are of a different species.  Later on, her usage of harsh adjectives and imagery shows the audience just how horrible animals have it in her country. Imagery is always an effective means as the audience can picture the situations.

Out of all the media I have researched and discussed, I think YouTube is the most effective in portraying animal rights. With videos, the viewer can see the atrocities committed to innocent animals, as well as hear and see an impactful talk by someone fighting for animal rights. This video is one of thousands featuring the topic of animal rights, and this media outlet helps the world (not only a specific country) view them all. Because of this, YouTube is an amazing source that can bring animal rights to more areas around the world. 

My Thoughts

The goal animal rights activists want is really not that difficult to come by, nor is it the worst goal the world has ever had. Is it so bad to want rights for the defenseless animals we oppress? Do we have to be so cruel in our methods of using these animals that have helped us reach where we are now? The answer, even if some are hesitant or downright oblivious, is NO. It is time to stop ignoring the cattle that cry before being slaughtered with a hammer, the ducks with broken bills after gavage for French cuisine, and the fish that are being skinned alive at market. Their suffering is all at the hands of humans, and we need the media to portray this more than it is. We need to cover cruelty stories and penalties, as well as bans and wins for animals. We need a worldwide news source to showcase animal rights and animal cruelties that occur where we can’t see, and to show other countries it is possible.  And it all begins with consideration:

“The basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. Equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment or different rights.” 

Peter Singer, Animal Liberation

With consideration, especially in the media, perhaps the animal rights movement will come to pass. Small changes all over the world (like bans on animal testing and penalties for abuse) are what humans need to do to help the animals win their rights. 

Finding Common Ground on Fracking

By Benjamin Delshad

Hydraulic fracturing is a process that taps into the Earth’s supply of oil and natural gasses by drilling down a mile into the surface, after the drill has reached those depths it slowly turns horizontal. This method allows a single location to be drilled into a numerous amount of times. After the well is drilled small perforations are made along the hole at which point they are filled with fracking fluid, which acts as an additive and causes disruptions in the sand and soil that releases natural gases. The reason that Fracking is such a hot topic right now is because it has been recently discovered that America sits on an abundance of shale rock formations. Shale rock formations are the ideal places to do Fracking. We have discovered that we can truly tap into a natural gas resource on our own soil which will not only be beneficial to our own nation’s economy it will also decrease our dependence on the middle east for oil. The conflict is that it is detrimental to the environment and those living in close vicinity of these Fracking sites, which include people from many states. The east coast sits on the Marcellus shale, which is one of the largest shale sites in the United States.

There are many beliefs and views on Fracking, some believe that it is a dangerous process that disrupts the land, has negative and dangerous effects to the people living near these Fracking locations. Fracking companies argue that it is a safe process and that it is the single reason America is going through an energy revolution right now. To develop an opinion on Fracking it is necessary to learn the background information, and to do so I needed to do research on Fracking. Luckily for me there is not a scarcity when it comes to material on Fracking.

There are many groups that are anti-Fracking so I thought it would be interesting to look at the other side of the spectrum. Fracking is a multibillion-dollar industry and can lead to some positive changes for our nation. In a Forbes article written in 2012 by Robert Lenzner he writes that the most valuable thing we may obtain from Fracking will be an independence in the field of energy creation, which will limit our dependence on the Middle East. “I’d maybe say that we have an historic opportunity to rejuvenate the American economy and restore American manufacturing competitiveness because we now have long-term, secure, stable supplies of natural gas,” said Rex Tillerson, CEO and Chairman of Exxon. The economic rejuvenation that is believed to come from the Fracking industry will create thousands of jobs for Americans and cause an economic revolution. Fracking offers an end to the dependence we have with Saudi Arabia as well as an end to the oil crisis, which has had not only negative economic effects on our nation but political as well.

There is a dark side to Fracking that can be seen in Josh Fox’s documentary Gasland, which takes the viewer on a portrayal of the Fracking industry that seems to be covered up. Josh Fox takes the viewer on a firsthand look at the believed negative effects of fracking and pollution it causes to ground water. He goes basically door-to door, visiting families living near the Fracking wells and interviews them to see how they have been effected by the Fracking. In the cases we see extreme water pollution, families that have been forced to stop using their ground water and forced to find other means of water. In some of the extreme cases the water is so polluted that when a lighter is put near the faucet a flame is set off as if the water was gasoline. Fox takes his investigation a little further by interviewing the EPA whistle blower on the dangers of Fracking, Weston Wilson. In the interview Wilson says that the EPA buckled under industry pressure and stopped tests on fracking. We are turning our back to a serious problem or in his words “asleep at the wheel.” The people making these claims about their water contamination should not be the ones having to prove themselves. 

In the process of fracking there is usage of “Fracking Fluids” which consists of almost 600 chemicals. Two examples are Ethyl benzene and Glycol Ethers. Ethyl Benzene, is a known carcinogen that is also a flammable gas that is known to have links to respiratory illness, neurological effects, cancer, and a long list of other effects on the human body. Glycol Ethers are known to have links to testicular toxicity, malfunction of the embryo, bone marrow depression, and hemolysis. 

Our nation seems to be at a standstill if we should continue to Frack or if it is something we stop to keep our water and people safe. For the amount of people there are for banning fracking there are just as many that are all for it, whether there motive be jobs or lower gas prices none the less they are out there. In a recent study done on Fracking reported by Josh Folks in 2014, journalist for the American Thinker. The National Academy of Sciences ruled that Fracking is safe. They made this strong statement in the opening paragraph, “According to a new study published by the National Academy of Sciences, fracking is safe.  End of discussion.” According to the Dangers of Fracking Movement “there have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination next to areas of gas drilling as well as cases of sensory, respiratory, and neurological damage due to ingested contaminated water.” The members of the Dangers of Fracking Movement also admit that Fracking does produces up to 300,000 barrels of natural gas a day, but at the price of Environmental and health hazards. 

The main question I find myself asking after hearing and reading all of this information is, can we Hydraulically Frack safety? According to many it can be done safely but the problems we have seen are happening because it has not been safely practiced. I find this to be a good explanation, and if it is true then why we not take would advantage of the economic growth it can offer our nation. According to David Biello, associate editor at Scientific American, Fracking can be done safely and some of the science against fracking is not all true.  

Recently the Obama Administration has put more strict regulations on the Fracking industry. The main focus of these goals is to make Fracking a safer process and to limit the effects it has on water pollution. This in theory sounds great. If you eliminate the environmental hazards and pollution to the water Fracking causes all that is left is the positive Economic growth it will bring to our nation. I think that Obama is making steps in the right direction and with these new regulations we will be on track to get Fracking to better environmental standards. Eliminating the negative environmental effects of Fracking is something that will not be as easy, since Fracking is essentially drilling into the Earth’s shale rock formations it does disrupt the Earth but it may be a necessary sacrifice that will be needed to be made to get the natural gas resources. Obama’s regulations did not put the Anti-Fracking Activists at ease, they are up in arms and the only solution they think will solve Fracking is to ban it all together.

Coming to a middle ground on Fracking is something that is going to need to happen in the coming years so we can make a decision to break away from the dependence we have on the Middle East or ban Fracking and stop the environmental issues it is causing. At the end of the day Fracking does create 300,000 barrels of natural gases a day which is having a positive impact on our nation’s economy but on the other hand it is evident that it is having detrimental effects to the environment and the people. There are three viable options I see as a solution to the Fracking issue. One, we allow it because of economic growth that is associated with the industry. Two, we ban the act of Fracking entirely to keep our environment and population safe from its contamination. Finally, like the Obama administration is currently trying to do, implement more strict regulations on the Fracking industry to make it a completely safe process. 

Solar Energy Solutions

By Anthony D'Angelo III

Our sun is the king of our solar system.   

It contains 99.8% of the entire mass of our solar system, is 4.6 billion years old, and burns at a surface temperature of 5,500 C. The sun is so massive that roughly 960,000 Earths could fit inside it. It’s responsible for all the orbits of every planet in our solar system, and its solar winds can be felt as far as interstellar space. 

The sun is the giver of life here on this planet. Our perfect location within the “goldilocks zone” of the sun enables our planet to sustain liquid water, something that our science believes is essential for life as we know it. We’re just far enough that we won’t melt, but were close enough that we won’t freeze in the voids of space. The next time you lay on the beach sun bathing, think about how lucky you are. Millions of years ago, nuclear fusion occurred within the sun’s core, at about roughly 15 million degrees C. That energy, after millions of years, found its way from the surface of the sun to your skin within roughly 8 minutes and 20 seconds, traveling anywhere from 147-152 million kilometers at a given time. That energy, the same energy responsible for nuclear bombs and a surface temperature of 462 C on our sister planet Venus, is just so perfectly far away from us, that it warms your skin. The energy of our Sun has provided a foundation for weather, climate and human vision, amongst everything else. 

There is a lot we do not know about the sun. However, we know enough to realize the planet’s potential for efficient solar energy consumption. We know the solar constant is “the amount of energy from the Sun at the distance of the Earth (outside the atmosphere). It is 1367 Watts per meter squared.” In non-science terms, “If all the sunlight energy striking the Earth's surface in Texas alone could be converted to electricity, it would be up to 300 times the total power output of all the power plants in the world!” That information is staggering. All of the energy we will ever need in the existence of our species could be attained in a matter of days, if our technology catches up to the potential. 

Knowing this, it’s imperative that we as a species give serious consideration to solar energy solutions. The media will play a huge role in how the average person thinks and feels about solar energy potential. Let’s explore a few different media perspectives on solar energy. 

An online article I read dealt with one of the key issues concerning feasible solar energy: energy storage. As mentioned earlier, the sun gives us more than enough energy to use. We just need to figure out how to convert and store it efficiently. This online article, posted on July 22, 2014 from the online magazine RenewableEnergyWorld.com titled “Keeping Up with Energy Storage,” points out the obvious links with the energy storage sector and the solar energy sector. Together, these two industries are going to change how we convert and store solar power, by making the technologies more affordable and more efficient. The writing isn’t very reader friendly if you’re not into scientific articles, however it still details important messages in a readable way. The power grids in many countries, including our own, are outdated and inefficient in terms of toady’s technologies. By implementing smart grids, capable of storing more energy at cheaper rates, we have a chance to start making environmentally friendly decisions from the foundation of our energy uses, and that is immensely important. 

Solar energy for technological use, such as electricity and heat conversion, is in and of itself rooted in technology. The sun can warm your rooms with low-impact technologies such as skylights and angled windows, however if you want the sun to power your T.V. or make your shower water hot, you need to install a good amount of technology in and on your home. Many states, 45 to be exact, have solar energy companies that will install these technologies in your home for no money down, which is a wonderful incentive to get people to convert. However, five states, including North Carolina, have state legislation that bans free installation of solar technology. A pro solar activist website, NCWARN.org, is fighting against the lobbyist of Duke Energy and the monopoly they have over the North Carolina solar industry. A common theme in environmentalism is the greed of fossil fuel energy companies. There is definitely some irony with this issue as it pertains to solar companies. We think of solar energy companies as having this positive connation because they are helping the alternative energy cause. However, the same greed and politics that have handcuffed our ability to change the fossil fuel dominance over our government is now showing its face in the alternative energy industry, all to make a buck. If you believe that the people of North Carolina and every state deserve the incentive of free solar technology installation, you can sign a petition here.    

According to seia.org, “72% of online adults in the U.S. use social networking sites, representing a huge potential market for your solar business. Social media can help advertise your product and grow leads, but it can also help brand you as an expert on solar in your community.” As an “online adult” who at any given time uses 5-6 different types of social media, I completely understand and agree with this assessment. But even going further, I believe we need to make the youth believe in alternative energy, to foster a sizable movement from the oil burning days of our grandfathers to green movement of the 21^st century. And social media is a great tool to get the message out there, to all markets. The American Solar Energy Society Facebook page has over 100,000 likes. The Solar Energy Industries Association Instagram site (seia.org) has a meager 452 followers.  That’s not enough, considering Kim Kardashian has 25 million Instagram followers. What we need is celebrity help and endorsement, along with a stronger push by all solar companies to develop a connection with their customer base through social media and any other outlet. 

The reason I absolutely love this YouTube video, Energy 101: Solar Power, uploaded on Aug 23, 2011 by Energy and Environmental News, is because it does a great job combining the various issues I have discussed so far, such as solar energy storage and reaching the youth about alternative energy, while also doing a great job of describing how solar energy is used. The video is very viewer friendly and fits into the stimulus needs of younger audiences who might otherwise be bored with an alternative energy informative video. The animations, and the very simplistic way of describing how solar works, combine for an effective teaching tool. Another reason I loved this video was because it made the connection to a point in my thesis, that the sun is the giver of all life here on this planet, and all (99.9%) life forms use the sun in various ways. I think this is an important point to make when spreading the word about alternative energy. The sun has been, and still can be, our biggest source of energy.    

To bring in a different perspective, I decided to investigate a 2009 Technical risk assessment performed by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Energy Technologies Program. The article is pretty straightforward. The research was conducted to assess the technical risk of implementing large scale solar investments, as well as how the technology itself will impact the research and development budgets of the U.S. Department of Energy. It is important to look at this point of view because often when we think about alternative energy, we romanticize the environmental impacts, but don’t calculate the feasibility. This assessment did just that: using experts from all over the country, including leading researchers and professors in the field, to create projection charts for estimated costs at various time intervals (2010, 215, 2020, etc.) The results are encouraging: as technology and computing power improves each year, the cost of implementing new solar technology will decrease over time. The power will become more efficient, and conversion rates will increase, thus making the investment over time cheaper and less risky. This was not a terribly interesting read, in fact, it was really boring. However, the scientists were very accredited and the research seems legitimate.  

Finally, I investigated a blog on a prominent environmentalist website, reset.org, titled “Potential Environmental Impacts and Obstacles of Solar Energy,” written by Ajay Pal Singh Chabba on July 1, 2013. Again, I feel that it is important to investigate the negative impacts of implementing solar technology, the same way we assess the negative impacts of fossil fuel use. Almost all energy use and consumption will come with either short term or long term consequences, and this article highlights these consequences, not to deter people from solar energy use, but rather to educate everyone about the potential impacts. For example, the creation and manufacturing of solar panels requires high levels of energy output that can also have environmental effects on the areas in which they are being built. Also, there are the concerns over sound and vision pollution of the areas in which these plants are being built, as well as potential for toxic waste spills. 

I think that what these various media sources show about solar energy is that there is great potential. It’s not going to be easy, and there are going to be negative impacts in the short term. However, all the energy we will ever need is being released every second on the surface of the sun. If we really care about the future of our planet, we need to rethink energy usage. The sun is the most powerful entity in our lives. We need to use the positive technological advances of our generation and apply them towards our future energy needs. The sun has always been here for us. It was here before humans, it will be here after. Maybe if we learn to better utilize the greatest gift in our solar system, we can make a positive difference here on Earth and potentially beyond.   

“Stop the Drilling, Stop the Oil”

By Nicole Cruz

Since I was 6 years old I dreamed of working with marine mammals and preserving the ocean waters. Now I’m in college and working toward a degree in marine sciences and during my summers I’m an animal care volunteer at the NY Aquarium.  My drive and ambition to helping the ocean wonders hasn’t dwindled since my early childhood years and I don’t think it ever will. If anything growing up in Brooklyn NY and living by the water, has made motivation stronger.

When I think of ocean pollution, my first thought is always oil spills. There is constant dredging of oil and oil spills happening all over country. Ever hear of a show named Saved by the Bell? I’m going to take a wild guess and say that you have. Well in one episode of season 3, aptly named Pipe Dreams, oil is discovered on the school grounds of Bayside High. While the episode itself advocates a pro- environmental message, I bring it up because the animals in the pond were affected by the oil spill that happened. I remember watching this and feeling so saddened by the death of Becky the duck. It was disgusting to see the duck covered in oil and knowing later on that oil spills are a very common accident. Now think of this oil spill happening in a larger body of water, like rivers, lakes, oceans, etc.

Being an animal care volunteer, I’ve worked with many marine mammals. I’ve fed walruses, been hugged by sea lions, and had a sea otter press his nose against my hand. There’s been other interactions but I won’t bore you with the details. The reason I’m bringing this up is because when oil spills occur, marine life, especially animals are affected. By now we’ve all seen the Dawn commercial where they use the dawn soap to clean up the oil that’s spilled into their habitat. It’s a happy commercial, seeing the sea lion pups, ducklings, and penguins being free after cleaning the grease and oil off these beautiful creatures, still the harmful effects go unnoticed. In the textbook Marine Mammal Biology: An Evolutionary Approach, they discuss the effects of oil spills on sea otters.  For those of you who don’t know, sea otters have a dense coat of fur that’s highly sensitive and acts as insulation. You can imagine how an oil spill could affect a sea otters life. In fact this was noted in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez (This is a New York Times video, to reacquaint yourself or inform you of this disastrous event) oil spill in Alaska. The crude oil affected the fur insulation and resulted in high mortality of sea otters, as well as harbor seals. Fur seals, polar bears, and sea otters are highly vulnerable to these effects and unfortunately dawn soap won’t easily do the trick to help unseal their fate. In this video uploaded on YouTube to bring awareness to the effect of oil spills/pollution on marine life, the editor shows pictures of marine animals covered in oil, much like Becky in the episode of Saved By The Bell, regrettably this isn’t fiction. Set to the haunting tune of Adam Lambert’s “Mad World” the editor documents cases of oil spills and the dumping of oil all around the globe. I couldn’t stand to watch the whole thing, the images were to upsetting to me, but I encourage all to watch it.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska wasn’t the only oil spill to occur in the United States. On April 20^th of 2010, the Gulf of Mexico faced the largest oil spill in United States history. The spill occurred when a well 5,000 ft. below the ocean’s surface leaked 3.19 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. It killed 11 people and took 87 days to cap and stop the leak. Years later, according to the Ocean Portal from The Smithsonian (Museum of Natural History), there is still oil in the Gulf. I suggest reading the information on the site, as it really describes the long term effects oil spills have. And as this site and the awareness video I mentioned above state this is happening all over the globe. Right now, oil is being spilled in Nigeria, in the Niger Delta in Africa. In an article published on March 15, 2015 by the Amnesty International, a global movement campaign site that advocates for change, Royal Dutch Shell and Italian oil giant ENI admitted to more than 550 oil spills in the last year in the Niger Delta. It’s disgusting that these people have to live around this polluted ecosystem and that this isn’t a much bigger deal. “The companies say that these spills resulted in only 30,000 barrels - or 5 million litres – of oil spilt. However, given the very poor reporting systems used by oil companies this figure is highly likely to be a significant underestimate.” It’s horrifying to even have those numbers, let alone having it possibly be an underestimate. The fact remains is that oil spills have been happening for over twenty years, and it’s not just in the United States. Oil spills have been happening in Africa, Central America, as well as other parts of the world where oil rigs are put up near coastal areas. It not only harms the people but the marine fauna. Think of the episode Pipe Dreams, and the decimation that follows oil spills. These accidents are nearly impossible to prevent. Sure maybe one of these accidents will be small like in Saved By The Bell, but what if it’s not? What if it’s like what happened in the Gulf or like what’s happening in Nigeria? And so what if it’s a small accident and it only affects a small pond; think about the life in that pond, think about Becky. Oil companies cannot guarantee that oil spills won’t happen. As a society we should ask ourselves are we really willing to risk it.

Another reason I chose this topic was because during my downtime I like to go on Tumblr (a popular social media blog site) and just bask in the humor and discussions of the latest episode of a popular TV show. It’s also on this site that I can be updated on global concerns/issues. It was when this Great Barrier Reef post showed up on my dashboard that I stopped in my tracks. I’ve been to the Great Barrier Reef and I was lucky enough to snorkel in the waters filled with an abundance of beautiful coral. It was extraordinary and almost like a whole other world. And to learn someone wants to take up that space and destroy that beautification is horrendous! The post only gives you a brief summarization with what’s happening in Australia with visual images. According to the article “Great Barrier Reef Port Dredging Plan Approved” by MarEx in the Maritime Executive published on March 3, 2015, The Queensland government has allowed two Indian companies to open a coal project around the Great Barrier Reef. They plan on dredging in the waters and dumping the spoil around ports around the reef. This is detrimental to the reef because of what the run-off and pollutants can do this beautiful marine park. As of recently, the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott has wanted to avoid the effects the dredging would cause on the Reef. On March 21, 2015 in the Sydney Herald, Jacqueline Maley and Fergus Hunter wrote the article “Prime Minister announces extra $100 million for Great Barrier Reef protection.” Here the Abbott government proposed a sustainability plan to ensure the Reef stays off the “in danger” list. This new plan will still allow the dumping of dredged material but it won’t allow the material to be dumped into the marine park. I for one am confused about why they would dump it in the Reef in the first place. I don’t think it’s a secret that if the world’s largest coral reef population depletes, it will cause serious damage to surrounding ecosystems. In the book Management of Aquatic Disposal of Dredged Material , It’s said that dredged material that run-offs into the water is likely to cause eutrophication. Eutrophication is the enrichment of an ecosystem with chemical nutrients and cultural eutrophication is a form of water pollution. Eutrophication can cause HABS (harmful algae blooms) which can kill fish, mammals, and corals due to lack of oxygen. Now imagine The Great Barrier Reef completely depleted because of the eutrophication effects. It’s a scary thought and horrible to imagine. Just go back to that Tumblr post and see the images of desolate coral reefs.

I’ve been to the Great Barrier Reef, it’s vibrant and the thriving population there is amazing. On my way there I got to see a humpback whale migrating and experience the wonders the Reef has to give. But not only would I like to be able to experience it once again, I’d like everyone to be able to experience it, but with oil spills occurring and the constant dredging ruining these ecosystems, it’s hard to imagine that happening.