The Bitcoin community is facing a serious problem of pollution. A study conducted by different sources showed that the electricity consumed by Bitcoin mining is equivalent to the annual energy usage of entire countries like Ireland and Hungary, being a shocking revelation surrounding the crypto realm. With this alarming situation, the community needs to find ways to reduce the amount of pollution in their system. This article discusses some methods that can be adopted by the community to control bitcoin pollution. But, before that we have a podium that offers you all the potential of crypto investments: BitQL, it offers a secure crypto space to all the crypto enthusiasts.
Measures that can prove to be beneficial
Bitcoin mining is a process where miners are rewarded for their efforts by being given a specific number of bitcoins. However, in order to mine bitcoins, a lot of energy and hardware is required, which means that it pollutes the environment. Therefore, there has been an increasing need to reduce bitcoin pollution. There are four ways in which this can be achieved.
1. Introduction of taxes on mining
Mining is a process where computational power is used to verify and add transactions to the blockchain. Mining requires large amounts of energy and thus, it can be said that bitcoin miners are polluting the environment with their activities. They do this by producing heat, which causes global warming, and also by creating noise pollution. Therefore, it can be concluded that there should be some kind of tax in place on such activities.
The government can introduce a tax on mining to reduce the pollution caused by it. This is because mining will be profitable only if there is a high demand for bitcoin, which might lead to an increase in the number of miners. The cost of mining depends on the price of electricity, so if the government increases the price of electricity, then more people may stop mining and reduce pollution.
2. Creating awareness among people
Bitcoiners should be informed about the effect that mining has on the environment so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to continue using bitcoin or not. The government can create awareness among people about bitcoin mining pollution so that they do not start mining themselves. It can educate them about how much energy is used in mining and what are some alternative ways to earn money without using electricity or any other resources like water and food, etc.
In order to achieve this goal, there needs to be more education about bitcoin’s environmental impact on people who live near mining farms or even those who do not know much about cryptocurrencies at all yet but are interested in learning more about them through various sources available online such as forums or articles written by experts in this field who specialize in writing content related specifically towards educating others about these topics (such as myself). This could also include writing articles for magazines/newspapers etc., making videos explaining how bitcoin mining works from an environmental perspective.
3. Introducing better eco-friendly methods
There are many ways to reduce bitcoin pollution. Some examples include using renewable energy sources like solar or wind power instead of coal or natural gas; adopting new technologies like blockchain instead of traditional methods; or setting up facilities near rivers so that wastewater can be recycled back into nature after going through treatment plants first before being released back into rivers again at high temperatures so they don’t cause much harm when they touch land again later on downriver after going through treatment.
4. New policy measures
A fourth way is introducing new policy measures such as introducing taxes on mining activities, making it mandatory for miners to use renewable energy resources and imposing fines when they do not comply with these rules, etc. The government can also take steps towards reducing bitcoin pollution by introducing new policy measures that encourage people who mine bitcoins through environmentally friendly methods such as using renewable energy sources over those who don’t care about their impact on nature.
The way ahead
Bitcoin mining is an energy intensive process that uses a lot of electricity. This has led to concerns about the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining and also the potential for bitcoin to contribute to global warming. Thus, given above are some measures which can be adopted at administration and personal level to reduce the pollution level.
The negative environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining is significant, and the problem is only getting worse. Bitcoin Motion uses a lot of energy, which means that it consumes a lot of natural resources. The need for these natural resources in the ever evolving success marked by the bitcoin period is increasing as more and more people are taking up cryptocurrency mining as a hobby or profession. As a result of this increased demand for resources, there have been some severe consequences for the environment.
Cryptocurrency mining is a process that involves the use of heavy-duty computers to solve complex mathematical equations. The reward for solving these equations is cryptocurrency, which can then be exchanged for goods and services. While the benefits of cryptocurrency mining are obvious, it helps you rise your income potential! So, are you ready to scale up your investment journey with bitcoin trading platform, we have every cryptocurrency you are looking for.
The mining equipment used in this process uses a lot of electricity, which means that there is high carbon emission associated with it. Mining operations are very energy intensive, as they require cooling systems and high levels of computing power. The main reason why cryptocurrency mining uses so much electricity is because it requires specialized hardware that are designed specifically to solve algorithms and crunch data.
Each ASIC is customized to perform these tasks more efficiently than conventional processors, but they require an incredible amount of power to operate – and this means that they run hot enough to need active cooling systems, which generate heat themselves and require even more electricity than normal operations would need on their own.
Additionally, mining operations can have an impact on pollution levels in nearby areas due to the release of toxic chemicals from cooling systems used in these operations. These chemicals include:
Arsenic compounds from cooling water treatment plants
Mercury compounds from fluorescent lights in data centers
Cadmium compounds from batteries used for backup power supplies in data centers
Consequences of Crypto Mining
The rise of cryptocurrency mining has come with some serious environmental consequences:
Depletion of natural fuels: Because cryptocurrency mining relies on using a lot of electricity, this has caused coal production to increase, which in turn leads to an increase in the use of fossil fuels. This also creates an increase in carbon emissions and pollution. Mining Bitcoin is a costly process. It requires huge amounts of energy to complete the complex calculations required to mine each block. This has led to an increase in mining farms that rely on renewable energy, as well as an increase in the use of hydroelectric power stations.
High carbon emission: The CO2 emissions produced by cryptocurrency mining are increasing at such a rapid rate that they are outgrowing other sources such as transportation and manufacturing. This is having a negative impact on the environment and is also causing global warming, which can lead to more severe weather conditions like hurricanes or tornadoes, as well as rising sea levels which will affect coastal areas around the world. However, this is not enough to counteract the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining. The carbon emissions generated by a single transaction are estimated to be around 3 kg CO2—or about as much as driving 15 miles in an average vehicle.
Increased pollution: As mentioned above, there are lots of CO2 emissions being released into the atmosphere because of cryptocurrency mining activities; these emissions cause smog which can lead to respiratory problems such as asthma attacks or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This is combined with high levels of pollution from other sources such as coal-powered plants and smokestacks from factories. Mining operations also cause environmental damage through deforestation and habitat destruction for endangered species such as tigers and rhinos. Another source of pollution comes from mercury which can cause brain damage if ingested orally or absorbed through skin contact; this substance is found in many types of electronics like smartphones and laptops that people use every day without knowing how dangerous it really is!
The way ahead
The world of cryptocurrency mining is not a friendly one for the environment. Mining uses an enormous amount of electricity, which is generated by burning fossil fuels. This results in high carbon emissions as well as other forms of pollution. Additionally, mining requires a lot of resources to keep up with the demand for new coins and tokens.
Mining also creates waste products such as heat sinks that contain metal particles from soldering; these can be recycled into new products like jewelry or other metal objects when they’re no longer usable for their original purpose.
Municipalities and organisations around the world are facing a growing problem in disposal and recycling of EPS foam packaging and products. EPS foam (Encapsulated Poly-Styrene) packaging is a highly popular plastic packaging material which finds wide application in packaging of food items, electronic goods, electrical appliances, furniture etc due to its excellent insulating and protective properties. EPS foam (also known as polystyrene) is also used to make useful products such as disposable cups, trays, cutlery, cartons, cases etc. However, being large and bulky, polystyrene take up significant space in rubbish bins which means that bins becomes full more quickly and therefore needs to be emptied more often.
Polystyrene is lightweight compared to its volume so it occupies lots of precious landfill space and can be blown around and cause a nuisance in the surrounding areas. Although some companies have a recycling policy, most of the polystyrene still find its way into landfill sites around the world.
Environmental Hazards of EPS Foam
While it is estimated that EPS foam products accounts for less than 1% of the total weight of landfill materials, the fraction of landfill space it takes up is much higher considering that it is very lightweight. Furthermore, it is essentially non-biodegradable, taking hundreds perhaps thousands of years to decompose.
Even when already disposed of in landfills, polystyrene can easily be carried by the wind and litter the streets or end up polluting water bodies. When EPS foam breaks apart, the small polystyrene components can be eaten by marine organisms which can cause choking or intestinal blockage.
Polystyrene can also be consumed by fishes once it breaks down in the ocean. Marine animals higher up the food chain could eat the fishes that have consumed EPS, thus concentrating the contaminant. It could be a potential health hazard for us humans who are on top of the food chain considering that styrene, the plastic monomer used in manufacturing EPS has been classified by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a possible human carcinogen.
Styrene is derived from either petroleum or natural gas, both of which are non-renewable and are rapidly being depleted, creating environmental sustainability problems for EPS.
Trends in EPS Foam Recycling
Although the Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers have reported that the recycling rate for post-consumer and post-commercial EPS in the United States have risen to 28% in 2010 from around 20% in 2008, this value is still lower than most solid wastes. According to USEPA, auto batteries, steel cans and glass containers have recycle rates of 96.2%, 70.6% and 34.2% respectively.
Because it is bulky, EPS foam takes up storage space and costs more to transport and yet yields only a small amount of polystyrene for re-use or remolding (infact, polystyrene accounts for only 2% of the volume of uncompacted EPS foams). This provides little incentive for recyclers to consider EPS recycling.
Products that have been used to hold or store food should be thoroughly cleaned for hygienic reasons, thus compounding the costs. For the same reasons, these products cannot be recycled to produce the same food containers but rather are used for non-food plastic products. The manufacture of food containers, therefore, always requires new polystyrene. At present, it is more economical to produce new EPS foam products than to recycle it, and manufacturers would rather have the higher quality of fresh polystyrene over the recycled one.
The cost of transporting bulky polystyrene waste discourages recyclers from recycling it. Organizations that receive a large amount of EPS foam (especially in packaging) can invest in a compactor that will reduce the volume of the products. Recyclers will pay more for the compacted product so the investment can be recovered relatively easier.
There are also breakthroughs in studies concerning EPS recycling although most of these are still in the research or pilot stage. Several studies have found that the bacteria Pseudomonas putida is able to convert polystyrene to a more biodegradable plastic. The process of polystyrene depolymerization – converting polystyrene back to its styrene monomer – is also gaining ground.
In recent years, the world has seen significant economic progress, which greatly relied on energy fueled by coal and petroleum among others. With the continuously growing demand for energy, it is a fact that these energy sources may be depleted in the near future. Apart from this, there are several other reasons why humankind already needs to find alternative energy sources.
It is a known fact that different manufacturing processes and human activities, such as using vehicles, cause pollution in the atmosphere by releasing carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide traps heat in the earth, and this phenomenon is known as global warming. Global warming has several harmful impacts such as stronger and more frequent storms, as well as drought and heat waves. Renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass to name a few, all generate minimal global warming emissions.
Wind power, for instance, has the capability to supply energy with a significantly lower emission compared to burning coal for fuel. This is the reason why wind energyis more beneficial compared to carbon-intensive energy sources. Still, the emissions generated by wind power are even lower compared to other renewable energy sources such as solar, geothermal, and hydroelectric power sources. This makes a huge potential for wind power to sustain the world’s energy demands, while preserving the environment.
It goes without saying that the pollution caused by burning coal and fuel not only has an environmental impact, but it also has a significant effect on public health. Various diseases and ailments can be attributed to pollution, which usually affects the respiratory tract. Contaminated water also causes various bacterial infections. Wind power, solar energy, and hydroelectric systems have the capability to generate electricity without emitting air pollutants.
Additionally, wind and solar energy sources do not need water to operate, thereby, eliminating the probability of polluting water resources. Clean air and water that is free from pollutants, will have a significant positive impact on public health.
Constant Energy Source
While coal and fossil fuels are on the threshold of depletion, renewable energy sources are inexhaustible. Wind can be a constant energy source and no matter how high the demand for energy will be, the wind will not be depleted. In the same manner, as long as the sun shines bright on earth, there will always be an abundant solar energy source.
Fast-moving water that can be translated into hydroelectric energy, the earth’s heat that can be converted into a geothermal power source, as well as abundant plant matter that can be used as biomass, can all be constantly replenished. These can never be fully exhausted no matter how great the energy demand will be. The utilization of a combination of each of these energy sources will prove to be even more beneficial. Additionally, with its continued use, there will no longer be a need for combustible energy sources.
Lower Energy Costs
The cost of electricity continues to be a burden on the earth’s greater population. The use of renewable energy sources to light up the earth is considerably cheaper and inexpensive compared to the cost of burning fossil fuels for electricity and other energy needs. Apart from a cheaper cost, renewable energy sources can help stabilize to cost of energy in the long run, with an unlimited supply being able to cater to greater demand.
While it cannot be denied that setting up clean energy technologies comes with a cost, it can be noted that the cost of its operation is significantly lower. Conversely, the cost of coal and fossil fuels for energy consumption fluctuates over a wide range and is greatly affected by the economic and political conditions of its country of origin.
Fossil fuel technologies, often, revolve around the capitalistic market. Hence, the use of combustible fuels is often linked to unfavorable labor conditions, and even child labor and slavery. On the other hand, the use of renewable energy sources provides decent jobs, contributing to several economic benefits and aids in decarbonizing the future.
For instance, workers are needed to install and maintain solar panels. In the same manner, wind farms employ technicians for maintenance. Thus, jobs are created directly in parallel with the unit of energy produced. This means that more jobs will be produced if more renewable energy sources are utilized.
Clean energy sources, specifically wind and solar power, are less susceptible to large-scale failures. The reason behind this is that both wind and solar power both employ distributed and modular systems. This means that electricity will not be totally cut off in instances of extreme weather conditions because the energy sources powering up the electricity is spread out over a wider geographical area. In the same manner, there will still be a continuous supply of energy even if certain equipment in the entire system is damaged because clean fuel technologies are made up of modules such as a number of individual wind turbines or solar panels.
With all the reasons to check out alternative energy sources, it still holds true that there remain several barriers that hinder the full implementation of renewable energy technologies. Some of these challenges are capital costs because of reliability misconceptions, as well as a difficult market entry due to an unequal playing field.
Because renewable energy sources are cheap to operate, the bulk of the expenses in its implementation is building the technology. Thereby, the rate of return for capitalists and investors in the market entails a longer waiting period. Adding to this barrier is the hidden political agenda that most governments need to overcome.
Economic progress and advancement in technology are not at all bad. On the contrary, it has brought forth a lot of benefits such as cures for ailments and diseases, resources for deep-sea or space explorations, as well as meaningful collaboration and communication. However, this progress came with a price, and unfortunately, it’s the world’s energy resources that are on the brink of exhaustion. Hence, mitigation has been already necessary and finding alternative energy sources is just one of the probable solutions.
Shipping wastes, long a neglected topic, has started to attract worldwide attention, thanks to the mysterious and tragic disappearance of flight MH370. During the search for MH370, a succession of items floating in the sea were identified as possible wreckage, but later confirmed to be simply pieces of marine litter. Whilst it was large pieces of debris that complicated the search, marine debris of all sizes causes problems for users of marine resources. In the most polluted areas, around 300,000 items of debris can be found in each square kilometre.
Up to 80% of ocean debris originates from land based sources, including beach litter, litter transported by rivers, and discharges of untreated municipal sewage, while ocean based sources (merchant shipping, ferries, cruise liners, fishing and military vessels) account for the remainder. Whilst typically this may be only 20% of marine litter, in areas of high shipping activity such as the North Sea it rises closer to 40%.
Wastes from commercial vessels seems like an area that could be effectively tackled with regulation. However, it is difficult for individual nations or regions to take action when ships operate in international waters and the debris in our oceans is constantly on the move.
So how is it addressed through international legislation?
Law of the Seas
In fact, a good many laws are already in place. The key piece of legislation preventing ‘the disposal of garbage at sea’ is Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). Amongst the numerous other relevant laws are the London Convention and Protocol, the Basel Convention, UNCLOS, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Despite the profusion of legislation, the scale of the current and potential problems caused by marine debris, it is clear that implementation and enforcement is lagging behind. Why so?
As yet, not all coastal or flag states have ratified international instruments such as MARPOL Annex V. This means that ships registered with a non-ratified state under a‘flag of convenience’ may legally continue to discharge garbage in international waters. However, even if the current suite of international legislation was universally ratified, this would serve to expose the remaining gaps in the framework.
MARPOL Annex V includes specific requirements regarding the discharge of different types of waste and location of discharges. For instance, ground food waste can be discharged up to 3 nautical miles from land, but if it is not ground it may only be discharged at a distance of 12 nautical miles or more. Although the discharge of ‘all other garbage including plastics’ is prohibited, compliance relies upon good waste management practices on board vessels.
If waste streams are contaminated, this may result in plastics and other debris being discharged into the sea. The current approach may have been developed to accommodate shipping activity, but in practice it is somewhat confusing and it would perhaps make more sense to issue a blanket ban on discharges.
Another gap within MARPOL Annex V is the scope of the requirements for ‘garbage management plans’ and ‘garbage record books’. Vessels of 100 gross tonnes or more are required to have a garbage management plan, while vessels of 400 gross tonnes or more are required to have a garbage record book. Smaller vessels are not obliged to comply with the requirements.
Less than 1% of vessels in the world fishing fleet have a gross tonnage of over 100 tonnes, the majority has no obligation to implement and maintain a plan or book; with no planning or record keeping, the risk of illegal disposal is increased. Small fishing vessels may not be considered ‘commercial’ shipping vessels at all – thereby avoiding legislation – but they still contribute towards the problem of marine debris. Most notably, abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear has a considerable impact on marine species through ‘ghost fishing’.
Port waste reception facilities
MARPOL Annex V requires the government of each ratified nation to provide facilities at ports for the reception of ship generated residues and garbage that cannot be discharged into the sea. The facilities must be adequate to meet the needs of ships using the port, without causing undue delay to ships. However, MARPOL does not prescribe any set standards or provide for certification. The term ‘adequate’ is instead defined in a qualitative (rather than quantitative) manner in Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) resolution 83 (44).
Furthermore, MARPOL does not set any requirements regarding how waste delivered to port reception facilities should be managed. Only the non-mandatory MEPC resolution 83 (44) requires that facilities should allow for the ultimate disposal of ships’ wastes to take place in an environmentally appropriate way.
Cruise ships operate in every ocean worldwide, often in pristine coastal waters and sensitive marine ecosystems. Operators provide amenities to their passengers similar to those of luxury resort hotels, generating up to 14 tonnes of waste per day. Worldwide, the cruise industry has experienced a compound annual passenger growth rate of 7% since 1990, and the number of passengers carried is expected to increase from approximately 21 million in 2013 to 23.7 million in 2017.
The majority of current legislation on pollution and ship waste was developed prior to the rapid growth of the cruise market; as a consequence, there is no international legislation addressing the particular issues surrounding pollution and waste management on these vessels.
Although there is not yet data to support this, intuitively the amount of waste produced by ships would be linked to the number of people on board, rather than the vessel’s gross tonnage (which determines whether MARPOL rules apply). If the industry grows as forecasted, cruise ships may be responsible for a significant proportion of waste generated by ships, particularly if unmanned are the future.
To address this, onboard waste management systems that implement zero disposal of solid waste at sea are needed for cruise ships, together with a requirement that they only dispose of their waste at ports with reception facilities adequate to handle the type and volume of waste produced.
The indirect fee system aims to remove the disincentive for ships to dispose of waste at port rather than at sea by including the cost of waste disposal services in the port fees paid by visiting ships, irrespective of whether ships use the facilities
The Clean Shipping Index is an easy to use, transparent tool which can be used by cargo owners to evaluate the environmental performance of their sea transport providers. The information is entered on a ship-by-ship basis but is also added to a total carrier fleet score for an overall ranking. Questions on waste relate to garbage handling and crew awareness, and scores can only be obtained for measures that go beyond existing regulations.
One commercial container operator (Matson Navigation) has introduced a zero solid waste discharge policy. The ‘greentainer’ programme uses containers specifically designed for storing solid waste. Since 1994, this programme has prevented over 10,000 tonnes of garbage being disposed of at sea.
Currently, international legislation does not properly support a closed loop system for waste management onboard ships. Despite legislative progress and improvements in practice, the monitoring of waste from shipping remains problematic. ‘Policing the seas’ to verify what a ship discharges and where, and whether this follows recommended best practice, remains one of the most challenging aspects of waste management practice at sea, but critical to making the legal framework effective.
The United Nations Environment Programme neatly summarised the issue in 2005:“… marine litter is not a problem which can be solved only by means of legislation, law enforcement and technical solutions. It is a social problem which requires efforts to change behaviours, attitudes, management approaches and multi-sectoral involvement.”
The limitations of international legislation governing the case of marine litter disposed of at sea do need to be addressed; but unless legislation is accompanied by environmental education for seafarers, and improved monitoring, our attempts to tackle this source of marine litter will remain all at sea.
Note: The article has been republished with the permission of our collaborative partner Isonomia. The original version of the article can be found at this link.
Waste disposal methods vary from city to city, state to state and region to region. It equally depends on the kind and type of waste generated. In determining the disposal method that a city or nation should adopt, some factors like type, kind, quantity, frequency, and forms of waste need to be considered.
For the purpose of this article, we will look at the three common waste disposal methods in Africa and the kind of waste they accept.
This is the crudest means of disposing of waste and it is mostly practiced in rural areas, semi-urban settlements, and undeveloped urban areas. For open dumping or open burning, every type and form of waste (including household waste, hazardous wastes, tires, batteries, chemicals) is dumped in an open area within a community or outside different homes in a community and same being set on fire after a number of days or when the waste generator or community feels it should be burnt.
There is no gainsaying that the negative health and environmental impact of such practice are huge only if the propagators know better.
This is apparent in most States in Nigeria, if not all and some cities in Africa like Mozambique, Ghana, Kenya, Cameroon, to mention but a few. It is a method of disposing of all kinds of waste in a designated area of land by waste collectors and it is usually controlled by the State or City Government.
Controlled dumps are commonly found in urban areas and because they are managed by the government, some dumps do have certain features of a landfill like tenure of usage, basic record keeping, waste covering, etc. Many cities in Nigeria confuse the practice of controlled dumping as landfilling but this not so because a landfill involves engineering design, planning, and operation.
A sanitary landfill is arguably the most desired waste management option in reducing or eliminating public health hazards and environmental pollution. The landfill is the final disposal site for all forms and types of waste after the recyclable materials must have been separated for other usages and other biodegradables have been extracted from the waste for use as compost, heat, or energy; or after incineration. These extractions can be done at household level or Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) operated by the government or private individuals.
As desirable as a landfill is, so many factors need to be put into consideration in its siting and operation plus it requires a huge investment in construction and operation. Some of these factors include but not limited to distance from the residential area, proximity to water bodies, water-table level of the area the landfill is to be sited, earth material availability, and access road.
With a crude production capacity of 2.5 million barrels a day, Nigeria is Africa’s largest producer of oil and the 13th largest oil-producing country on the globe. Oil account for around 65 percent of government revenue.
Over its five decades of oil exploration, it has made tens of billions of dollars from crude oil proceeds. But despite the humongous revenue year in year out, the oil host communities reek of poverty and many other economic and humanitarian issues, including frequent occurrences of black soot, environmental degradation, high rate of unemployment/underemployment, gas flaring, and oil spill from pipelines.
Most of these problems are recurring issues they have suffered for years without any lasting solution. The health and economic effects of these plights have become a serious burden on residents, including the elderly and children.
The Menace of Black Soot
Black soot, which is gradually becoming a persistent challenge in many Niger Delta communities, has been linked to the upsurge in adverse respiratory, skin, and reproductive health conditions. A 2019 report showed that black soot-related health disorders were responsible for about 25,000 deaths in the region.
In the past few months, the situation has become even much escalated, and soot pictures gathered from the communities are devastatingly worrisome. Unfortunately, pleas to the state and federal governments have seemingly fallen on deaf ears as residents continuously groan in discomfort and pain.
There has been rising concern among residents in Bayelsa, one of the states in the Niger Delta, over the noticeable black soot across the skyline.
According to a group known as Niger Delta Vigilante (NDV), the development is largely linked to the increase in ‘Kpo-fire,’ an illegal but booming oil bunkering activity in the Niger Delta region. Kpo-fire is a local oil production process of heating the crude oil in a fabricated oven to get petroleum products while its residual is indiscriminately released into the environment, with no regard for its effects on the ecosystem.
Some other factors said to be responsible include the burning of seized stolen crude by security operatives and setting ablaze crude oil sites by some oil contractors in the industry, all in the name of cleanup.
“Presently, as you walk with barefoot in your home, the sole of your foot becomes black, wash your clothes and hang same outside, they are stained with black particles, you wipe your face with a handkerchief, and it becomes black,” a Bayelsa resident, Oyinkuro Jones noted with concern.
A few months ago, towards the end of the rainy season, some residents in the state raised the alarm over what was described as black rain anytime there was a downpour but did not take their worry seriously until the soot started appearing in late November and turned the cloud to a hazy grey. The problem is reportedly more noticeable in the morning time when the thick blanket of black soot covers the landscape.
Immigration Advice Service (IAS) spoke with some residents in Port Harcourt, Rivers, another Niger Delta state, who lamented the health and environmental impacts of the soot.
“The black soot has been a big problem to the environment. In my home, we do not open our doors or windows because the place gets dirty almost immediately after we clean,” Mildred Alerechi, a health style coach, complained. “My nails are also dirty for no reason; the black soot finds its way into my fingernails.”
There has been a wide outcry on the sheer negligence by the government to the residents’ plight. Unfortunately, concerned authorities both from state and federal levels haven’t shown significant willpower to end the menace.
Another resident who spoke with an IAS correspondent said: “To the best of my knowledge, no concrete action has been taken; I’m sure they [the government] are aware of the underlying cause and can tackle the problem if they want to.”
The debilitating impacts of oil exploration on the ecosystem have been a great concern for decades. According to a report on the Niger Delta ecosystem, the advent of oil production in the region has also negatively affected the communities due to unprecedented oil spill, which has been happening “for the past five decades, making the region one of the most polluted in the world.” The reckless corruption in the government-established agencies that ought to be responsible for the welfare of the region has further contributed to the persisting ecocide.
An NNPC report back in 1983 noted that the slow poisoning of the waters and the destruction of agricultural land and good water source by oil spills usually occurred during petroleum operations. But since the beginning of the oil industry in Nigeria, there has been no effective and lasting effort made by the government and oil operators to control the environmental crisis associated with the industry.
Even to date, oil firms in the country still play the blame game on who should be responsible for these environmental problems. A Dutch Appeal Court recently found the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) culpable for some farmland and fishpond pollutions in the region.
Despite the court order asking SPDC to compensate the affected farmers, the oil company insisted that the damages were caused by sabotage and the firm should not be held responsible for the financial losses.
It took about a year before Shell began a mediation process with the farmers to settle the case out of court. Until now, the case is still ongoing, and it is left to be seen if both parties will reach a resolution soon.
Unemployment and Other Economic Problems
Economically, most oil-producing areas are poverty-stricken and plagued with a high unemployment rate. They also lack basic amenities such as stable electricity, potable water, hospitals, motorable roads, and a conducive learning environment in their schools.
As the communities suffer all these, paradoxically, local and foreign oil firms and politicians benefit handsomely from oil proceeds. Years of illegal bunkering, pollution from leaking pipelines, and other unwholesome activities have rendered several fishermen and farmers from the region jobless as their livelihood continues to be affected by oil exploration.
“The crude by-products are usually released into the rivers and on farmlands. Take Ogoni as a case study, oil spill has stopped fishing activities in that area, and it’s bad,” said Michael Ndukwu, a University of Port-Harcourt student.
Though unemployment is a nationwide issue in Nigeria, the challenge for Niger Delta residents is peculiar due to certain factors, such as environmental pollution resulting from oil exploration affecting farming, fishing, and other commercial activities in the region.
In a report that explored the root causes of unemployment and poverty rate in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria, Dr. E.D Simon, a researcher at the Cross River University of Technology Calabar, reported that the “Oil and mineral extraction in the region promoted the looting tendency by various government in Nigeria and have linked with unusually high poverty rates, poor health care and high rate of mortality. This means that sustainable development can hardly be achieved under this unfavorable and in a secured environment”.
The cost of living is relatively high compared to most other places in the country, which makes salaries and wages of most employed residents insufficient, as they could best be described as underemployed.
While the huge cost of food importation/transportation usually increases feeding expenses among Nigerians, the burden is greater on Niger Delta residents, as they could barely source any food items locally due to the damage on farmlands and waters by oil exploration. They, therefore, depend more on food items imported and transported from other parts of the country. This, in turn, renders them underpaid even when placed on the same salary structure as people from other regions.
Gas Flaring and Oil Spills
The consequences of gas flaring are also one of the burdens that the people of the Niger Delta region have to endure. According to International Photography Magazine, “Nigeria flares more natural gas associated with oil extraction than any country. With an estimation of the 3.5 billion cubic feet (100,000,000 m³) of associated gas produced annually, 2.5 billion cubic feet (70,000,000 m³), or about 70%, is wasted by flaring.
The effects of this gas flaring affect not only the ecological system but also have adverse health effects on residents in those communities. The poisonous chemicals and carcinogenic substances released into the environment affect the respiratory system. They are also said to be one of the major causes of cancer and leukemia in the world.
Oil spill is another related challenge faced by the host communities. A United Nations Development Program (UNDP) report shows that 6,817 oil spills were recorded in Nigeria between 1976 and 2001. 69 percent of these spills were said to have occurred offshore, a quarter was in swamps, and 6 percent on land.
Some researchers from the University of Lagos found that certain factors are majorly responsible for the recurring oil spill in Nigeria.: About 50 percent occur due to pipeline or truck accidents, 28 percent are caused by sabotage, 21 percent are caused during oil production operations, and 1 percent occur due to inadequate or nonfunctional production equipment.
The “sabotage” part perfectly describes the situation in the Niger Delta, and it is perpetrated by unemployed youths in the region who have embraced illegal bunkering as a source of livelihood. This worsens environmental pollution in the region and reduces people’s life expectancy.
“The poverty rate in those places is high; hence the reason residents are involved in this illegal business. There are barely health facilities and educational facilities, says Alerechi.”
Outdated and faulty pumping equipment is another factor responsible for oil spills in the country. However, despite its associated disastrous effects like the disappearance of mangrove forests and the death of aqua life, no serious move has been made to reconstruct these outdated production facilities.
While other oil-producing nations like UAE and Saudi use their generated revenues to develop their countries, oil discovery and its related activities seem to be a curse to the host communities in Niger Delta.
There is also great concern that if no concerted and urgent action is taken, oil exploration could result in an ecological disaster, which could lead to a humanitarian catastrophe in Nigeria’s oil host communities.
Rising rates of consumption necessitate an improved approach to resource management. Around the world, from Europe to Asia, governments have adapted their practices and policies to reflect renewability. They’ve invested in facilities that repurpose waste as source of energy, affording them a reliable and cheap source of energy.
This seems like progress, given the impracticality of older methods. Traditional sources of energy like fossil fuels are no longer a realistic option moving forward, not only for their finite nature but also within the context of the planet’s continued health. That said, the waste-to-energy sector is subject to scrutiny.
We’ll detail the reasons for this scrutiny, the waste-to-energy sector’s current status within the United States and speculations for the future. Through a concise analysis of obstacles and opportunities, we’ll provide a holistic perspective of the waste-to-energy progress, with a summation of its positive and negative attributes.
Status of Waste-to-Energy Sector
The U.S. currently employs 86 municipal waste-to-energy facilities across 25 states for the purpose of energy recovery. While several have expanded to manage additional waste, the last new facility opened in 1995. To understand this apparent lack of progress in the area of thermochemical treatment of MSW, budget represents a serious barrier.
One of the primary reasons behind the shortage of waste-to-energy facilities in the USA is their cost. The cost of construction on a new plant often exceeds $100 million, and larger plants require double or triple that figure to build. In addition to that, the economic benefits of the investment aren’t immediately noticeable.
The Palm Beach County Renewable Energy Facility is a RDF-based waste-to-energy (WTE) facility.
The U.S. also has a surplus of available land. Where smaller countries like Japan have limited space to work within, the U.S. can choose to pursue more financially viable options such as landfills. The expenses associated with a landfill are far less significant than those associated with a waste-to-energy facility.
Presently, the U.S. processes 14 percent of its trash in waste-to-energy (WTE) plants, which is still a substantial amount of refuse given today’s rate of consumption. On a larger scale, North America ranks third in the world in the waste-to-energy movement, behind the European nations and the Asia Pacific region.
Future of WTE Sector
Certain factors influence the framework of an energy policy. Government officials have to consider the projected increase in energy demand, concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, space-constrained or preferred land use, fuel availability and potential disruptions to the supply chain.
A waste-to-energy facility accounts for several of these factors, such as space constraints and fuel availability, but pollution remains an issue. Many argue that the incineration of trash isn’t an effective means of reducing waste or protecting the environment, and they have evidence to support this.
The waste-to-energy sector extends beyond MSW facilities, however. It also encompasses biofuel, which has seen an increase in popularity. The aviation industry has shown a growing dedication to biofuel, with United Airlines investing $30 million in the largest producer of aviation biofuel.
If the interest of United Airlines and other companies is any indication, the waste-to-energy sector will continue to expand. Though negative press and the high cost of waste-to-energy facilities may impede its progress, advances in technology promise to improve efficiency and reduce expenses.
Positives and Negatives
The waste-to-energy sector provides many benefits, allowing communities a method of repurposing their waste. It has negative aspects that are also important to note, like the potential for pollution. While the sector offers solutions, some of them come at a cost.
It’s true that resource management is essential, and adapting practices to meet high standards of renewability is critical to the planet’s health. However, it’s also necessary to recognize risk, and the waste-to-energy sector is not without its flaws. How those flaws will affect the sector moving forward is critical to consider.
Pieces of plastic have been trying to get our attention. The first scientific reports of plastic pollution in oceans were in the early 1970s. This waste plastic soaks up other pollutants at up to a million times the concentration in water, harming and killing sea life worldwide. From the point of view of the plastic, we have convincingly failed with solutions. Over the past 40 years the problem has grown around 100 times, with now over 8 million tonnes of plastic waste added to oceans per year.
Everyone is aware about ways for plastic to not become waste. We can set up redesign, sharing, refill, recycling and even composting. When it comes to creating practical possibilities for not making waste, people are super smart. But when it comes to making policy to install this practice throughout the economy, which has been the aim of circular economy for the past four decades, we’re consistently collectively stupid. I call this mob thinking.
We have intelligent activists, business people, experts and officials unintentionally thinking like a mob? always bringing forward the same decades old policy weapons. When these weapons don’t work there is a discussion about strategy but not any actual new strategy, just talk about how forcefully to use the same old policy weapons. This is how it’s been possible for waste management, waste regulation and the unsolved waste problem to all grow in tandem for so long.
The stomach and intestines of sperm whale was filled with 29 kg of garbage
If the piece of plastic had a voice in the circular economy debate what might it say? It would remind us to beware mob thinking. Today’s problems are solvable only by trying new thinking and new policy weapons. Precycling is an example. The piece of plastic doesn’t mind whether it’s part of a product that’s longlife or refilled or shared or refurbished or recycled or even composted (so long as it’s fully biodegradable). It doesn’t even mind being called ‘waste’ so long as it’s on its way to a new use. Action that ensures any of these is precycling.
Our piece of plastic does mind about ending up as ecosystem waste. It does not wish to join 5 trillion other pieces of plastic abandoned in the world’s oceans. It would be horrified to poison a fish or starve a sea bird. Equally it does not want to be perpetually entombed in a landfill dump or transformed into climate destabilising greenhouse gases by incineration.
The two possible outcomes for a piece of plastic, remaining as a resource or being dumped as ecological waste, are the same fates awaiting every product. Our economies and our futures depend on our ambition in arranging the right outcome. The old policy weapons of prescriptive targets and taxes, trying to force more of one waste management outcome or less of another, are largely obsolete.
Circular economy can be fully and quickly implemented by policy to make markets financially responsible for the risk of products becoming ecological waste. Some ever hopeful pieces of plastic would be grateful if we would get on with doing this.
Wastes originate from all stages of leather making process, such as fine leather particles, residues from various chemical discharges and reagents from different waste liquors comprising of large pieces of leather cuttings, trimmings and gross shavings, fleshing residues, solid hair debris and remnants of paper bags.
Tanning refers to the process by which collagen fibers in a hide react with a chemical agent (tannin, alum or other chemicals). However, the term leather tanning also commonly refers to the entire leather-making process. Hides and skins have the ability to absorb tannic acid and other chemical substances that prevent them from decaying, make them resistant to wetting, and keep them supple and durable. The flesh side of the hide or skin is much thicker and softer. The three types of hides and skins most often used in leather manufacture are from cattle, sheep, and pigs.
Out of 1000 kg of raw hide, nearly 850 kg is generated as solid wastes in leather processing. Only 150 Kg of the raw material is converted in to leather. A typical tannery generate huge amount of waste:
Chrome shaving, chrome splits and buffing dust: 35-40%
Skin trimming: 5-7%
Over 80 per cent of the organic pollution load in BOD terms emanates from the beamhouse (pre-tanning); much of this comes from degraded hide/skin and hair matter. During the tanning process at least 300 kg of chemicals (lime, salt etc.) are added per ton of hides. Excess of non-used salts will appear in the wastewater.
Because of the changing pH, these compounds can precipitate and contribute to the amount of solid waste or suspended solids. Every tanning process step, with the exception of finishing operations, produces wastewater. An average of 35 m3 is produced per ton of raw hide. The wastewater is made up of high concentration of salts, chromium, ammonia, dye and solvent chemicals etc.
A large amount of waste generated by tanneries is discharged in natural water bodies directly or indirectly through two open drains without any treatment. The water in the low lying areas in developing countries, like India and Bangladesh, is polluted in such a degree that it has become unsuitable for public uses. In summer when the rate of decomposition of the waste is higher, serious air pollution is caused in residential areas by producing intolerable obnoxious odours.
Tannery wastewater and solid wastes often find their way into surface water, where toxins are carried downstream and contaminate water used for bathing, cooking, swimming, and irrigation. Chromium waste can also seep into the soil and contaminate groundwater systems that provide drinking water for nearby communities. In addition, contamination in water can build up in aquatic animals, which are a common source of food.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.