Table of Contents
Electric Excursions Where is it From? What Our Smartphones Have to do with It
The Footprint of Flying
E-Waste
Consume Less, Save More
It’s Not Just About Humans
A Home for Marine Technology A New Wave of Energy
2 ENVISION
Fighting Flames in the Digital Age
Letter from the Editors Technology is ingrained in our modern lives. As college students, we rely on technology every day from cell phones to laptops to electric skateboards. We’ve become so accustomed to using technology in our daily lives that we often forget to question the environmental impact these gadgets have on the planet. Many people know how to reuse and recycle plastic or paper products but aren’t sure how to reduce their impact when it comes to things like e-waste. The technology edition aims to illuminate how interconnected technology and the environment are and offer ways for students to live more sustainably. It is important to recognize that while the development and implementation of technology has been saluted as one of the greatest achievements in human history, technology’s impact on the natural world can be extremely detrimental. With this edition, we hope to enlighten our readers to the ways in which current technological practices are interacting with our environment, as well as share innovative strategies members of our community are developing in hopes of creating a more mutually beneficial relationship between technology and the environment.
Christa Huddleston Editor in Chief
Alysa Wulf Managing Editor
ENVISION
3
lectric xcursions by Lucas Warner
The Transportation Whirs can now be heard everywhere on the University of Oregon’s campus, and it’s coming from the electric longboards and scooters. These new modes of transportation are much faster than their human-powered equivalent, but does owning one cause any harm to the environment? The most common board found on campus is made by a company called Boosted Boards. The board is controlled by a remote with a trigger that is held down and a dial used with the thumb. Up is forward, down is stop, releasing the trigger slows the board down and there is an emergency brake in case. The board has a top speed of 22 miles an hour and a range of 14 miles. It also takes about 90 minutes to charge. William Klineburger, a junior at the University of Oregon, has had his board since freshman year. Klineburger has put 1100 miles on the board, according to a phone app that tracks mileage. He appreciates most of the safety that comes with having one of these boards. “It’s safer because on a normal longboard it can be hard to stop. Especially on campus when people are normally on their phones. They don’t see where they’re going and they can’t immediately,” Klineburger said. “With this people get freaked out because the sound of going fast but with this, I can stop better than anyone else.”
William Kleinberger first remembers seeing a Boosted Board on a Youtube video, now he has put over 1100 miles on one of his own.
4
ENVISION
While the board is convenient, it is costly. Out of the four models of Boosted Boards, the most expensive is $1600. The cheapest is $749. Brayden Figueroa, a senior at the U of O, has skated all his life. Figueroa prefers riding them because of the speed it offers compared to a regular longboard. He has even been able to pull people around town with the power he can get from an electric longboard. “I’ve skated all my life,” Figueroa said, “This board carves like any other board.” The most popular electric scooter on campus is Go Trax. An electric scooter is much cheaper than an electric longboard. They’re on sale for $299.99 on their website. The scooter has two triggers on the handlebars a black one to make it go, a red one to stop the front wheel and a pedal on the back to stop the back wheel. It has a top speed of 15 miles and a range of 12 miles. The scooter has a longer charging time of about four hours. Emily Sloan, a freshman hurdle runner at the U of O, also appreciates the ease it has brought to her commute. It takes 10 minutes for her to get from her home to campus and spends about five minutes getting around campus. “It’s an easy thing to learn how to use,” Sloan said, as a teammate asked her to use her scooter.”Everyone on the team wants one.”
Environmental Impact The boards and scooters use a lithium-ion battery, a type of battery that is used in most cellphones to the newest Tesla car. While a lithium-ion battery has an advertised shelf life of a decade, every time the battery is charged the capacity of the battery deteriorates. Shannon Boettcher a chemistry professor who studies electrochemistry at the University of Oregon believes three big problems face the heavy use of lithium-ion batteries. “These lithium-ion batteries are not easy to make,” Boettcher said. “While using an electric mode of transportation can be beneficial, the way these batteries are produced can offset the benefits.” They’re other problems such as lithium being a natural resource. “As lithium technology is scaled down we may run out, just like any other resource,” Boettcher said. Another problem is that there is no efficient way to recycle the batteries either.
Boettcher did seem to be skeptical that these problems would last. “As this tech continues to advance we could find ways to recycle these cells,” Boettcher said, “The time may come where we can recycle batteries. The science isn’t there yet.”
“It only takes me 10 minutes to get to my work at Autzen Stadium from my house on 15th,” Brayden Figueroa said.
ENVISION
5
WHERE Is It
FROM Written by Zina Dolan
In just a decade, Apple has sold over one billion iPhones. The sleek model is ubiquitous, and we are increasingly reliant on this pocket-sized processor. In fact, 83 percent of American teenagers own an iPhone. But where do these beloved devices come from? First, the iPhone requires minerals from around the world. The typical smartphone uses about 70 elements from the periodic table, according to CNBC. Some of these minerals, such as gold and tungsten, are classified as “conflict minerals.” The mining and trade of these metals has historically helped finance armed groups and humanitarian crises, such as in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Another group of these minerals, rare earth metals, possess unique magnetic and conductive properties. These metals are essential to the iPhone’s capabilities, but mining rare earth elements can have devastating impacts on the environment. For example, mines of rare earth metals often 6
ENVISION
generate large amounts of radioactive and toxic waste. Next, the iPhone is manufactured using pieces from over 200 independent suppliers around the world, spanning six continents and 43 countries. With a South Korean battery, Japanese camera, German accelerometer, French gyroscope, Taiwanese sensor, and American software, the making of an iPhone is truly a global endeavor. The iPhone is assembled in China, with about 400 individual manufacturing steps. One factory in Zhengzhou, China employs about 350,000 employees at 94 production lines. According to The New York Times, these workers earn $1.90 per hour on average. This factory produces 500,000 iPhones a day, or about 350 every minute. Lastly, the iPhones are shipped for sale. Most leave China on commercial planes, with thousands of small, lightweight smartphones tucked away with luggage. Over 75 percent of the iPhone’s lifetime greenhouse gas emissions are created just in this man-
ufacturing process, according to Greenpeace. Perhaps the iPhone’s most devastating impact on the environment, however, is in its death. According to the United Nations, less than 16 percent of electronic waste is recycled. Another study by MIT showed that only 10 percent of mobile phones in the U.S. are recycled. Due to its toxic components, electronic waste is damaging to both the environment and public health. While consumers continue upgrading their iPhones to get the latest model, production also continues. According to Greenpeace, over 7.1 billion smartphones have been manufactured in the past decade -- one for nearly every person on Earth. The creation of a single iPhone involves a complex global chain of production, impacting miners in the DRC and factory workers in China. Before buying your next phone, consider where it comes from.
martphones What Our
Have to do with it
by Luci Sloan
When we consider climate change, we think of mining, coal and petroleum industries as the leading contributors to environmental degradation. Never do we blame our own smartphones for emitting carbon into the atmosphere, but we should. The manufacture of a smartphone alone causes a detrimental impact on the environment. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the production of a single mobile device emits 60 kg of carbon dioxide because of the heavy metals like lead, lithium, and mercury used to assemble a smartphone. The mining of these precious metals comes with significant environmental costs, from ecological devastation to excessive toxic waste. A severe case of the world's technology addiction is found in Baotou, China, which holds the world's largest mines and factories for these rare metals. According to the BBC the environmental impacts are evident from the sulfuric air, contaminated water, and dystopian landscape of the city. To fully understand the byproduct of harvesting these precious metals, the human-made Baotou toxic lake, specifically made to dump excess waste, has been tested for radioactive materials linked to various types of cancer and the demise of agriculture. Meanwhile, the residents of Baotou have reported that their teeth have fallen out and their hair has turned white. According to Statista, there are currently 13.09 billion mobile devices worldwide. By 2023 it is predicted that that number will increase to 16.8 billion. It is easy to blame consumers for the ever-increasing production of mobile devices, but Telecommunications service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are the predominant cause of this rapid influx. The business model of the telecom industry pressures consumers to purchase a new smartphone every two years to either
Production of a single iPhone emits 60kg of CO2
Americans dispose of 130 million smartphones annually.
Producing one iPhone emits as much CO2 as:
There are currently 13.09 billion smartphones on earth
replace their old one or upgrade to the latest smartphone. Although the telecom industry is aiming to maximize profits, it comes with devastating environmental repercussions. Therefore, to reduce the rapid production of mobile devices, manufacturers should work to increase the lifetime of mobile devices and consumers should refrain from buying a new phone every two years. Many people are apathetic or unaware of the correct way to dispose of their smartphone. According to the Environmental Protections’ Agency (EPA), annually, Americans dispose of 130 million smartphones, but only 8 percent gets appropriately recycled, partly, because tech manufacturers fail to educate consumers on proper methods of disposal, while, on the other hand, many consumers are utterly unconcerned about the harmful effects that come with improperly disposing of their smartphone. Oregon prohibits the disposal of electronics in the garbage.
Luckily, Lane County Electronic Recycling Program offers free recycling. The Glenwood Disposal Site is the closest recycling center from the University of Oregon campus to drop off your old electronics. There is also a non profit organization based in Portland, Oregon called Free Geek that is committed to sustainable reuse and recycling of technology. Free Geek donates technology to members of the community in need, and gives volunteers the opportunity to earn a free computer. They accept donations of your old electronics (computers, monitors, TVs, printers, and keyboards) at their facility on SE 10th Ave., and will reuse them to create refurbished technology or properly recycle anything unable to be reused, to their trusted recycling partners. These electronic recycling facilities are easily accessible to us, so we have no excuse not to take the initiative to properly dispose of our mobile devices.
Driving a car for 2.5 hours
Watching TV for 15 days
Leaving a lightbulb on for 192 days
ENVISION
7
Footprint Flying The of
Words by Oscar Bernat Illustration by Daisy Jones
Air travel is more accessible than ever before, but there are hidden costs to flying. Flying just one fewer round-trip transatlantic flight has the same potential to reduce carbon emissions as switching to a plant-based diet for two years. Making two such flights has a larger footprint than an entire year of driving. Assessments like these, collected by the University of British Columbia, compare all the environmental implications of an action, from the production of raw materials through manufacturing, use, repair, and disposal. The UBC team found that some of the most commonly-promoted strategies in environmental education — comprehensive recycling and changing to energy-efficient light bulbs — have eight and 16 times less potential to reduce emissions across a year than a single transatlantic flight. One of the reasons flights have such a drastic impact is due to the fact that planes release their emissions at a higher altitude than cars, so their vapor trails and tropospheric ozone are much more damaging, albeit shorter-lasting. Trains and buses are far more carbon-efficient travel methods, up to 55-75 percent better than flying, according to The Huffington Post. In many cases, people are stressing to address lower impact problems instead of focusing on a simple way they can reduce their footprint. Yet for college 8
ENVISION
students, this doesn’t do the story full justice. Study abroad, trips home and vacations are valuable experiences in a college student’s life. They offer students the chance to maintain relationships, practice new languages and explore new values, governance, and art. Yet to reduce our carbon impact, we’ve got to temper our desire for travel with our responsibility to the planet and future generations. Our generation is the most passionate about preventing climate change, and that’s not necessarily compatible with travel the tourism industry accounts for 10 percent of global carbon emissions, according to The Independent. Professor Kenneth Doxsee, green chemistry and sustainability specialist at the University of Oregon, has spent quite a bit of time grappling with the hefty carbon cost of air travel. In his “Decision-making for Sustainability” Clark Honors College class, he says the lecture on air travel emissions is, “One of the most stressing, but also one of the most appreciated.” There are several seemingly easy ways to reduce emissions when booking flights, like only booking flights that are near capacity, choosing airlines that recycle, traveling nonstop and going when temperatures are lower, but these don’t have very significant effects. As Doxsee says, “The most obvious way to reduce carbon di-
oxide emissions from air travel is not to fly. Stay home.” In practice, this might mean challenging conventions like coming home in the middle of study abroad, or during short school breaks: “If [students] are overseas, and their families are here, how do they stay in communication other than coming home? Coming home for the major holidays is just something we’ve come to expect.” It might seem excessively demanding to reduce flights from a consumer perspective, but so far the alternatives have not worked well. Strategies to take accountability off of the passenger have been largely unsuccessful up to this point. According to Reuters, in
We can’t give up hope, but at the same time we’ve got to recognize that just being hopeful’s not enough. - Kenneth Doxsee
2012 the EU established a carbon credit system that would tax airlines for their flights. However, they couldn’t make the plan as large as they wanted because other countries refused to participate, and they’ve been scaling it down since then. Another strategy for sustainable travel is carbon offset programs, which calculate the given emissions from a flight, match them with a project to reduce carbon in the atmosphere like planting trees, and allow the customer to pay enough money on top of their ticket to balance the damage. This sounds great, but these programs are so unpopular that, according to The Smithsonian, major airlines with carbon offset programs like United and and Delta refuse to release the statistics on how many people actually make use of their programs. Furthermore, most programs simply aren’t effective. A 2016 study commissioned by the EU found that, of carbon offset projects, “Only two percent of the projects and seven percent of potential CER (Certified Emission Reduction) supply have a high likelihood of ensuring environmental integrity.” Adoption of biofuels is yet another potential way to reduce plane emissions. According to The New York Times, United Airlines was able to reduce their emissions on flights out of L.A. by 60 percent after switching to a company called AltAir Fuels. Yet
so far, per NYT, “a viable commercial market has not been developed.” Doxsee warns of such fuels, “If you pick the typical plants we’re looking at for bio-fuels, they’re things like corn; they don’t just grow randomly everywhere, but they require farming, and fertilizers, and our fertilizer technologies are bad, so it leads to other environmental impacts. Or we’re taking food and turning it into fuels instead, and we start to starve the planet.” This is why life-cycle assessments, like those done by UBC, are so useful: they aren’t blind to increased efficiency at one step at the expense of inefficiency at another. Our current flight culture doesn’t seem likely to change on its own. It will take engagement, education and breaking of norms to reduce the popularity of air travel. Doxsee advocates
for a “soft-touch approach” when it comes to influencing the decisions of others, educating rather than confronting. He notes, “We do have a reasonably receptive audience here on campus, but people just don’t always recognize the implications of what they do.” In some carbon accounting situations, choices can end up looking rather ambiguous because of all the life-cycle factors. One example is the impact of printed paper vs. electronic. Doxsee says, “That piece of paper I used came from somewhere, and paper’s very expensive to produce, and tough on the environment. On the other hand, a computer’s expensive to produce and tough on the environment too. But if I use it enough times, and save enough paper, then it makes a difference.” Yet when it comes to air travel, there’s no reason to get
bogged down in the numbers. Carbon-wise, there’s a clear win to be had by not flying, even if that means using another means of transportation. It’s tempting to throw the towel in on the whole carbon-accounting business, but Doxsee is emphatically optimistic about the fight against climate change even if his class does often elicit cynicism. “We can’t give up hope, but at the same time we’ve got to recognize that just being hopeful’s not enough.” Ultimately, how much you fly is a personal choice. But it’s worth recognizing the gravity of that choice, and giving some real consideration to whether or not flying less is realistic for you.
"Our current flight culture doesn’t seem likely to change on its own. It will take engagement, education and breaking of norms to reduce the popularity of air travel."
ENVISION
9
E-WASTE A Developing Problem with a Developing Solution Words by Julian Croman || Illustrations by Daisy Jones
10
ENVISION
EUGENE, Oregon – Wires and cords hang out the bed of a Ford Ranger as it backs into the donations section of NextStep Recycling. The truck is filled with cracked computer monitors, prehistoric televisions and outdated printers. Cart after cart, the truck is unloaded and its contents are brought into the recycling warehouse. Inside, a crew of volunteers surround the rubbish and sort the devices into corresponding bins. These groups of electronics are distributed to dismantlers in-house and are either refurbished or disassembled and sold to third-party recyclers in Oregon. This process can be witnessed across local non-profits in Lane County partnering with the state to reduce toxic materials in landfills and improve landfill ecology. Toxic materials inside electronics are thrown into landfills or incinerators daily. When introduced, this waste releases harmful chemicals into local ecosystems. In an attempt to combat this harmful practice, many states are sponsoring non-profit electronic waste recycling organizations. These organizations provide citizens accessible options for responsible disposal of their e-waste. Unfortunately, this recycling process is not one practiced internationally. According to a report by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union, it is estimated that in 2016, nearly 45 million tons of electronics were thrown out across the world with only 20 percent being recycled. To put those numbers into perspective a male elephant weighs around 5 tons on average, that’s over 9 million male elephants 1,285 times the amount of wild elephants in the world. In the United States however, a slightly improved 27 percent of e-waste is recycled annually, according to the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, a project of the
Tides Center. Still an abysmal amount considering the growing production of technology. Outdated electronics are the fastest growing source of waste on the planet and are the largest source of toxic metals in landfills, according to World Economic Form. There are no federal laws against e-waste dumping in landfills, but there are state laws banning e-waste disposal in landfills. However, these state laws are not very well known and difficult to enforce. The result is, millions of tons of electronics in landfills across the county. But, what is e-waste? Cimmeron Gillespie, Zero Waste Outreach Coordinator at the University of Oregon, knows e-waste and its potential threat. “E-waste is a major category, one of the things with e-waste is that it’s combining so many different resources,” Gillespie said. “We see a lot of plastics and often glass and metals that are combined together which createsand that makes a challenge, because anytime you combine materials, to recycle them efficiently you have to separate those materials out into individual material streams.” Basically, e-waste is any electronic waste that is no longer wanted or is now obsolete, whether it works or not. This includes all items of electrical and electronic equipment and their parts that have been discarded without the intent of reuse. Many see value in these unwanted scraps however, like Nancy Retzman, NextStep Director of Operations. She claims nearly every component of electronics has the potential to be reused or recycled. “People just upgrade, everybody is wanting new, we get a lot of re-furnishable stuff through here,” Retzman said. “We refurbish before we recycle, always refurbish before recycle” Inside these outdated electron-
There are many precious resources, everything from: gold, aluminum, and copper, valuable metals that are in electronics waste,
E-waste is any electronic waste that is no longer wanted or is now obsolete, whether it works or not. ics are valuable materials worth savaging. “There are many precious resources, everything from: gold, aluminum, and copper, valuable metals that are in electronics waste,” Gillespie agreed. “When we throw these away, we are throwing away valued resources.” These non-profits rely solely on the repurposing of these precious materials. Although these organizations work with the state to provide many collection outlets, the organizations receive no funding from the state government. They rely on sales from refurbished items and raw material sales to third- party recyclers. This process not only sustains these non-profits, but also fuels jobs for regional third- party recyclers. “There are outlets for everything,” claims Retzman. The process is simple. Gaelen McAllister, Garten Recycling Resource Development Manager, broke it down for me over the phone. First, these non-profits gather the undesired electronics and attempt to refurbish and resell any electronics of value. For the broken or outdated electronics, many are disassembled in-house and categorized by materials and value. These raw materials are then sold to third party recyclers in the Pacific Northwest. The third- party recyclers smelt down the electronic parts and resell the new forged materials to production companies, completing the cycle. There are some parts of e-waste that are more difficult to recycle thean others however. “Plastic is my biggest problem right now when it comes to recycling. There’s no outlet for it. I have 40 gayloards (large storage bins) full of plastic,” said Retzman. “Plastic is becoming a really huge problem for me.” Plastic is a threat to this recycling process because the plastics used in electronics are fused with metals to prevent melting when surrounded by hot comput-
er gears and batteries. Plastics aren’t the only restraint on these organizations either. A lack of knowledge of their services leads to e-waste in landfills and less material to recycle. Some people might even know about the recycling options and decide it’s more convenient to throw their TVs out with their trash. Just ask University of Oregon junior Luke Mitchell, “I know recycling is important, but as a student I just don’t have the time or transportation to bring my trash to these non-profits. I just end up throwing a lot of it out.” When asked how NextStep combats these issues, Retzman replied, “We work very closely with the Lane County Waste Management Program and the Master Recycling Program. We even have two trucks. We pick up from 700 local businesses and about 800 around the state. We put in the work.” Retzman is right. The DEQ report confirms that NextStep recycled over 13 tons of e-waste in 2017. NextStep has recycled around 33 million pounds (approximately 16,000 tons) of e-waste since they opened in 1999. McAllister and her organization Garten and their two locations recorded recycling approximately 1,390 tons of e-waste in 2017 alone between their two locations. Studies are still being conducted by the DEQ to find the exact change of ecology in landfills after these programs were founded, but any reductions are a step in the right direction. These non-profits are templates for a self-sustainable solution to e-waste. If this process is spread throughout the United States and even globally, we could see a large-scale impact. An impact Nancy Retzman hopes to see., “I love my job, you know I feel like we save the world,.” she said.
ENVISION
11
CONSUME
LESS SAVE MORE
Unplug Devices Even when turned off, many devices still continue to draw power from the socket. In fact, 75 percent of the energy used up in households is conducted from devices that are left plugged in. Buying an advanced powerstrip is also a great way to combat this problem.
The Right Light Bulb
Words by Saralyn Troeger
Your home is leaking energy by the second. According to the U.S. Energy Administration, over 58 percent of the energy we consume in America is wasted. While no single individual or industry is solely to blame, we can all collectively take steps towards limiting our wasteful tendencies. As a college student, you can do a lot more to help protect the environment than you may think. Although it may seem minuscule, limiting your energy consumption can be a great first step towards decreasing your carbon footprint. The more power you save, the less toxic fumes are released from power plants, further decreasing your carbon footprint and conserving Earth’s natural resources. In order to generate power, most power plants take shortcuts to produce inexpensive and unsustainable energy. Power plants burn natural resources like coal, which emit fossil fuels like carbon dioxide. The onset of human-emitted greenhouse gasses within our atmosphere can lead
Energy Efficient Appliances When purchasing new appliances for your home, look out for the ENERGY STAR certified products. According to Energy Star, using these products is an easy way to save about 30 percent on your annual energy bills and help protect the environment. They may be a bit more pricey, but in the long run you will be saving money.
to forest degradation, rising sea levels, biodiversity loss, increased natural disasters and climate change. Not only will decreasing your energy consumption help out the environment, but it will also help save you money. It’s actually pretty simple: when you use less energy such as gas, water, and electricity, your electric company will have less utilities to bill you for. By using old and outdated appliances in your home, not only are you creating unnecessary pollution but you are actually spending money at a much quicker rate. You may ask, how exactly can I strive to limit my energy consumption as a struggling college student? Well, a great way to start is by identifying possible misused energy at home. Beyond the obvious ways to reduce your energy, such as turning off the lights or limiting air conditioning, you may be using up energy in hidden places without even realizing it.
According to the Department of Energy, light-emitting diode bulbs (LEDs) and compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) use a range of 25 to 80 percent less power and can last up to 25 times longer than conventional incandescent bulbs. Incandescent light bulbs are extremely wasteful because 90 percent of the energy they emit is given off as heat, while only 10 percent results in light.
Wash Cold Being smart about your clothes washing practices are crucial. Washing your clothes on hot accounts for 90 percent of the energy used by the washer while only 10 percent is allocated towards the washer motor. Washing full loads on cold can actually save you up $63 annually.
Smart Water Consumption Replacing your shower head with an energy-efficient one is a great way to save money on water. Choose a shower head with a flow rate of less than 2.5 gallons per minute. Reducing your shower time by four minutes a day can also save you up to 3,650 gallons annually. 12
ENVISION
A New Wave of
ENERGY A Look at Marine and Wave Energy Technology
Written by Robbie Kessler || Photos by Marin Stuart While society debates the validity of climate change, researchers around the globe are simultaneously hard at work engineering new renewable energy technologies. One field making major strides is marine technology, which has the potential to be a vital addition to fighting the impacts of climate change and creating a cleaner planet. One organization particularly dedicated to marine energy is the Pacific Marine Energy Center (PMEC). The Department of Energy (DOE) created PMEC in 2008 and tasked the new organization with conducting research and testing for new renewable marine energy technologies. Today, PMEC operates out of three universities that include the University of Washington (UW), Oregon State University (OSU) and the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF). “The beauty of having the three universities and also having an academic space is that we’re not a mile wide and an inch deep, we’re a mile wide and a mile deep,” said Dr. Bryson Robertson (co-Director of PMEC and Director of PMEC at OSU). “We can rely on individual faculty members to bring understanding, knowledge and expertise to each space.” Dr. Robertson has been in the marine energy field for about 15 years. As an undergraduate he spent time studying tidal energy and went on to work on the Race Rocks tidal deployment that took place off the southern coast of Vancouver island in the early 2000’s. He later went on to study coastal engineering for his graduate degree and eventually landed in the field of marine energy. “We need to find ways of making renewable energy and we need more of them. Climate change isn’t going to happen in five years, it started 10 years ago it’s happening,” said Dr. Robertson.
The benefit of adding marine and wave energy into the renewable energy field is to offer a complementary role to other renewable energies such as solar. “In the northwest our wave conditions are maximized in the winter when there really isn’t much sun, so that’s where there’s this great complementary with something like solar. Lots of sun in the summer time generating lots of renewables, but then in winter when the solar dies off you get this great wave resource that comes up off the coast,” said Dr. Robertson. Despite researchers like Dr. Robertson advocating for new renewables, our government’s agenda looks to cut funding for renewable energy. According to an article in the Washington Post by Kate Rabinowitz and Kevin Uhrmacher, the Trump administration looks to cut 71 percent of the funding to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy this coming October. The original budget was $2.4 billion, however the new budget proposes just $696 million. In the meantime the Trump administration also looks to increase the budget for the Office of Fossil energy Research and Development from $502 million to $562 million. “I don’t think there is any benefit in supporting the coal industry any longer,” said Dr. Robertson. “The issues with it are two-fold if you’re diverging money to coal and taking it away from renewables. One, you’re supporting technology that’s economically dead, no private investor is going to give you money to go and build a coal facility in the U.S. Two, you’re making yourself less internationally competitive in a new industry which is your renewables. That is where the growth is going to be, that’s where your companies are going to be, that’s where the technology is going to be, that’s where the world is go-
ing. So by taking money away you just make yourself less competitive. You’re going to be a technology taker not a technology developer.” Marine energy still has a ways to go. At this moment in time it is around 10 or 15 years behind solar and wind renewables. The delayed arrival of marine energy is primarily due to the greater difficulty of conducting research in the ocean as opposed to on land. “To go do anything in the ocean is really expensive, you need big boats, you need to run expensive cables, or you need to have other ways of utilizing electricity off shore,” said Robertson. In addition to this, the ocean poses other problems such as corroding materials and breaking materials and instruments with its kinetic energy. Money also serves as an issue when it comes to the funding of marine energy technology. Dr. Robertson said, “Historically we haven’t been funded at the same scale as the other renewables. Our level of funding is a quarter of what those other folks are getting, so it’s just a lot harder for us to both have an industry that is inherently more expensive to research and having a smaller bud-
get.” Nevertheless, Dr. Robertson stays positive, “It’s easy enough to look to the past and say well marine energy has been around for a long time it’s never going to get there, or there’s no point in doing this for some reason or another. I keep trying to tell people the past doesn’t represent the future.” Dr. Robertson is right to remain positive. Wind and solar energies weren’t initially expected to be as cheap as they are today. Looking at this, it is possible that marine energy has the potential to follow in the footsteps of solar and wind in regards to cost reductions, but it will take time. Despite the ups and downs that the field of marine energy technology has faced, Dr. Robertson is ambitious about its future. “It’s exciting! If we can figure it out, if we can start to generate electricity in new ways that allows us to mitigate our impact on the planet, and get off other fossil based fuel sources, while also allowing us to understand the ocean more and understand what’s happening on the planet and take new measurements all over the world that’s pretty cool. So yeah I get pretty fired up about that.”
ENVISION 13
echnology A Home
for Marine
Inside Oregon State University's O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory Written by Robbie Kessler || Photos by Marin Stuart On the western outskirts of the Oregon State University campus lies the O.H Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory. When you first arrive at the lab, it looks like nothing more than two large metal warehouses. However, a small sign out front that reads “ENTERING TSUNAMI HAZARD ZONE” gives you the feeling that there’s a lot more to the lab than its first appearances, and you’d be right. Built in 1973, the O.H. Hinsdale lab has served as one of the primary tsunami research sites for the National Science Foundation (NSF). While the lab is open to other companies and organizations, it reserves 50 percent% of the its budget and time for NSF. The lab has two major facilities. The first facility is the Large Wave Flume. According to information given out by the lab, “The Large Wave Flume is the largest of its kind in North America” and is primarily used for long wave and tsunami generation. The flume sits at 342 feet long, 12 feet wide and 15 feet in depth. The second facility is the Directional Wave Basin. The basin is 160 feet long, 87 feet wide and 4.5 feet in depth, which makes it one of the largest wave basin facilities in the world. The lab says that the Directional Wave Basin, “was designed to understand the fundamental nature of tsunami inundation, tsunami-structure impact, harbor resonance and to improve the numerical tools for tsunami mitigation.” In non-scientific terms, this means that the facilities job is to help better understand how tsunamis work, what their impact is on a human and environmental level, and study ways to reduce their impact. At the head of the facility is Director Pedro Lomonaco. “My job is to perform, design, execute and understand processes in 14
ENVISION
the ocean but in the small-scale and in the lab as well.” Lomonaco was originally a civil engineer who’s path in the field eventually led him to coastal engineering. “Working with the ocean is really what appeals to me,.” said Lomonaco. The current project going on in the Directional Wave Basin called “Overland Flow Project.” The project’s goal is to replicate a part of a coastal community and reproduce the effects of storm surge and tsunami conditions in order to better understand the impact they could have on a human level. To do this the researchers place 100 cubes that represent houses in a 10 by 10 grid. The majority of the cubes are made out of concrete, but eight are metal in order to house the research technology that take readings of the waves and water surface. A sea wall on the right side of the grid protects 50 of the cubes or while the other 50 remain exposed to the wave conditions. Lomonaco said, “We are going to repeat the test to have a one to one comparison to see what happens when you have a protection that introduces sheltering and whether your house is going to be more protected and how much protection you are getting.” To create more accurate conditions the basin not only produces waves but also creates a current. Two lagoons on either side of the basin take water and put it into the basin or “ocean” which raises the water level and produces a current that flows in the direction of the replica coastal community. Lomonaco expressed his excitement for the project by saying, “At the end of the day you have to enjoy any of it. There are some that are boring and some that are
cooler, I think this is super cool. It has a lot of challenges but it’s very different and the size of it is quite significant in terms of economical investment and time, so it’s something that you have an appreciation for.” The research at the O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Lab is essential to understanding tsunamis. By better understanding tsunamis, we can start to create ways to protect ourselves and our communities against them. In doing so, we have the potential to save communities and the lives of those who live in them.
The Large Wave Flume lies in the middle of the laboratory, surrounded by various tools and instruments used to generate waves.
A worker at the facility stands in front of the colorful simulated “houses.” The objects in the basin are changed every so often to better understand different wave scenarios.
Small pieces of “debris” are used in the basin to simulate the debris a real life tsunami would bring.
ENVISION
15
NOT It’s
Just About
HUMANS
Written by Alysa Wulf || Photos by Meg Matsuzaki
The advancement of human technology has been hailed as one of the greatest achievements in human history. Modern day individuals are able to access and interact with the world around them in ways that were unimaginable a mere 100 years ago. It is hard to comprehend how people would function without cellphones, cars and advanced housing technology. What is often ignored however, is the impact these technological adaptations have on animal populations. To better understand this relationship, it is helpful to turn to an expert. Dr. Larry Ulibarri, a professor of Anthropology at the University of Oregon, specifically focuses on primatology and is one of the few Anthropologists in the world who specializes in Red Shanked Doucs, a primate native to Vietnam. Ulibarri believes his interest in Anthropology stemmed from his infatuation with Jane Goodall at a young age. “When I was growing up, I idolized Jane Goodall and had that picture where she’s reaching out and touching Flint, this little Chimpanzee, and he’s reaching out and touching her,” explained Dr. Ulibarri. “I ripped that out of a National Geographic magazine and had it pinned next to my bed. I thought I would grow up and be Jane Goodall or marry Jane Goodall.” As he made his way through completing a Bachelors, Masters, and later Doctorate degree in An-
thropology, he realized just how much animals in the natural world are influenced by human technology and development. During his time in Son Tra Vietnam, Dr. Ulibarri often witnessed the interaction between human construction and primate populations. “What we saw with some frequency in Vietnam was that the construction forest crew, people that are not paid much in a rapidly developing country... were subsisting off of hunting when they were in the forest. Primates, especially primates that aren’t very fast or cryptic, unlike some of the Colobine primates, were easy prey. There is a significant impact just from development.” The detrimental relationship between the construction workers and the primates in Son Tra highlights an all too familiar scenario. As technological advancements allow for humans to continuously expand into the animal habitats, the tie between humans and animals must be examined and adjusted. Many animal populations are experiencing massive decreases due to new road construction and city expansion. Dr. Ulibarri pointed out the concerning alterations made to habitats as roads are developed. “You are talking about this gap between the forest on one side of the road and the forest on the other side of the road becoming increasingly larger and larger,” said Dr. Ulibarri. “Amphibians, frogs, arboreal primates are not going to be able to cross that
Red Shanked Douc Monkey Photo Courtesy of Dr. Larry Ulibarri
16
ENVISION
road with the same efficiency, and in some cases not at all because it is too large. They can’t cover the distance and the steepness of the slope. It’s open, which exposes them to predators and people and hunters.” Dr. Ulibarri continued on to discuss how we often think of issues like road development impeding the survival of animals as being an issue that takes place “somewhere else” rather than close to home. This assumption however, could not be further from the truth. As America continues to look towards the logging industry for necessary resources, forests that were once home to an abundance of organisms become a more rare sight. “Oregon is a logging state. It’s a significant part of that domestic product. What happens to that whole forest community if people log it out?” Dr. Ulibarri said. “Some of those animals are going to die. Some of those animals are going to move to an adjacent plot of forest and then they are in direct competition at that point. They don’t know the forest as well. Maybe, depending on the species you are talking about, they are an invader into another conspecifics territory, and that’s going to change the dynamics.” The Northern Spotted Owl which originally called old growth forests in California it’s home, has experienced massive displacement and disruption due to the the advancement of logging technology and deforestation. The Barred Owl, which lost its habitat to the logging industry, has been moving into the Spotted Owl’s territory and threatening their survival. Human influence and technology has directly affected the resources and space available to these species, compromising their wellbeing. So is there a way to stop human technology from causing the decline of animal populations? The simple answer is yes, conservation. This idea however is far from simple. In order for conservation to be successful, Dr. Ulibarri explained that educating the global community needs to start from a young age. When people understand that the human relationship with animal populations must be mutual, there is a chance for conservation to work. “Conservation is more about the people than it is about the animals or the landscape,” said Dr. Ulibarri. Through a change of perspective and an increase in awareness, perhaps human technology and development can work in harmony with animal populations.
“Conservation is more about the people than it is about the animals or the landscape.” - Dr. Ulibarri
ENVISION 17
Fighting Flames in the Digital Age Words by Ceili Cornelius
Wildfires in the western United States are growing and becoming more frequent. Over the past few years we have seen longer, hotter and drier seasons across the Western U.S. This is due to the change in our climate creating less moisture, more thunderstorms and a greater risk for large scale wildfires. Just a few months ago, the Camp Fire in Paradise Valley, CA spanned 20,000 acres and destroyed virtually the entire town of Paradise. This fire was caused by an electrical spark out in a field, and became unstoppable due to the drought-like dry conditions in rural Northern California. It was considered one of the deadliest fires in the state’s history.
“Often in fire services, we are reactionary.” - Fire Chief Frank Revolt Due to that fire, many firefighting agencies within the state of California, as well as on the regional and national level, have developed programs and initiatives involving new technologies to combat these wildfires and hopefully be able to better prepare and educate the public. One of these technologies is data sharing amongst firefighters and firefighting agencies in order to better understand the surrounding landscape and the wildfire risk. Fire chief Frank Revolt of the Mammoth Lakes fire protection district says, “Often in fire services, we are reactionary, and we can’t afford to let that time pass and the scale of wildfires is new to us,” he said. Technology in firefighting has always been a huge factor in what level of destruction is present during and after a massive wildfire. Today, due to the new landscape, fire chiefs and agencies are starting to come together to 18
ENVISION
discuss what they can develop to be better prepared. Places such as the Fire Data Lab is an organization committed to accelerating the use of data-driven decision making within firefighting. This means that when there is a wildfire, the response will be based on data collected using the technologies developed to assess what to do going forward. Oregon State University has been funded by the U.S. Department of Defense to better help firefighters predict how wildfires behave in places like Central Oregon and across the West. The university has been given over $2 million dollars to research and determine what conditions affect the way certain plants and shrubs burn in a wildfire. Their goal is to better understand the conditions in which wildfires are spreading in order to further efforts to prevent severe wildfires. “Rather than focusing just on how different trees burn, Blunck’s team plans to examine how temperature and the presence of flammable gases impact fuel conditions. The team will take pencil-sized samples of different trees in Oregon’s forests and examine commonalities in how they burn,” said the Bend Bulletin article on the research. “With both projects, the team is trying to develop research that can better guide computerized wildfire models that fire managers use to simulate wildfire behavior,” said Blunck. Michael McLaughlin, California director for the Western Fire Chiefs Association and Fire Chief with the Cosumnes Fire department in Elk Grove California, works mostly in fire policy coming up with ways to implement technology to minimize risk and impacts of wildfire. He spoke about the emergence of new technology in the firefighting world and its effect on the way research and data is collected: McLaughlin mentioned the emergence of many types of technology including integrating location services for fire apparatus’ so response times and
resource distribution can be more efficient. One of the biggest things he mentioned that is an integral part of the firefighting services and tracking the environmental impact is having the ability to track and predict the pathway of a fire. “We can track the destruction and course of a hurricane using weather and radar. But we cannot do that for a fire as easily because it is wind driven and burning across topographical land with a variety of fuels driving the fire,” he said. “Fire is a physical and chemical thing so the variables of fire reacting with fuels and reacting within the atmosphere makes it difficult to track,” he said. In regards to the environment, the biggest piece of technology to be implemented is creating a more efficient way to measure destruction as well as the effect on the forest itself. Mechanisms such as tree health and soil acidity measurements are often considered to be old school because they use properties of physical forest health which is important. However, it may be easier to mea-
sure the environmental and atmospheric impact that a wildfire can have on an area using emerging technologies such as satellite data, improved measurement tools and a better understanding of the fuels in a given area. McLaughlin said that “technology touches all aspects of what we do- from the pre-planning stage, understanding the landscape and fuel types. Then, using technologies during the event of a wildfire itself, deploying resources having to alert communities and assess risk. As well as in the stages after a fire- trying to make more predictions and how we can change and do better after an initial attack.” Technology can play a vital role in the prevention and fighting of wildfires. With drier, hotter and longer fire seasons, fires are inevitable in the western United States. Agencies and companies have to learn how to better use and invest in technology that will help assess and protect communities as well as the forests and environment.
Fire Emergencies Per Hour 14.3%
23.8%
00:00-06:00
18:00-00:00
27.6%
06:00-12:00
34.3%
12:00-18:00
Behind the Stories Executive Staff
Christa Huddleston
Alysa Wulf
Marin Stuart
Shilpa Vinod
Laura Vanhouten
Annika Minges
Oscar Bernat
Lucianne Sloan
Savana Gordon
Saralyn Troeger
Ceili Cornelius
Zina Dolan
Robbie Kessler
Meg Matsuzaki
Jake Pighetti
Julian Croman
Whitney Calvin
Madison Rossetti
Editor in Chief
Financial Director
Writers
Writer Writer
Writer
Photographers
Photographer
Managing Editor
Communications Director
Writer
Writer/Photo Editor
Visual Director
Writer
Writer/Photographer
Writer
Photographer
Photographer
Lucas Warner Photographer
Engagement
Tzila Lowe-Cowan Engagement Specialist
Advertising Specialist
Social Media Specialist
Kelly Mckeen
Engagement Specialist
Design
Camille Feinstein Illustrator
Daisy Jones Illustrator
ENVISION
19