Self-Rejuvenating Ozone layer?

Ozone depletion is the cumulated decrease of ozone over the last few decades in the Earths Stratosphere. It was first observed in the late 1970’s and found to be caused primarily by halogen atoms chlorine and bromine which are found in chlorofluorocarbon compounds (CFC)(Glenn 1998). These substances are mostly found in refrigerators and aerosols. In order to prevent irreversible damage to the stratosphere, an international treaty was created September 16, 1987, to protect the depletion of ozone levels (Glenn 1998). This treaty is famously recognized as the Montreal Protocol, the treaty outlined the ban of chemical substances commonly used that are believed to cause the destruction of ozone (CFC’s).

In the Australian Geographic journal article, “Ozone layer on the mend, says report” (September 17, 2010), the author makes numerous pretentious claims, without proper supporting evidence. Primarily he claims that ozone depletion in our stratosphere has stopped completely, solely due to the ban of harmful CFC compounds (AAP 2010). Also he gives the assumption that only CFC’s compounds cause ozone depletion by claiming that the Montreal Protocol (1987) has sheltered us from the furthering of ozone decay. Additionally the author argues that the level of ozone in our atmosphere will be reestablished fully to levels around the 1980’s by 2045( AAP 2010). In every statement proposed, the author provides no evidence or data whatsoever to support and strengthen the claims made. Nor does the author anticipate the criticism to the claims and provide a rebuttal to disprove opposition. Due to the extreme lack of evidence to build its case the article provides a very weak argument.

Fig 1. Gas trends in ozone decay between 1992 to 2008.

The claim that the Earth’s ozone layer has stopped depleting completely, although it contains a fragment of truth, it is very drastic. There is data available that supports the claim that the rate of ozone depletion due to CFC specifically has decreased (Figure 1), however the generalization that it has stopped thinning completely is not evidently supported. The article also gives the reader the impression that only CFC compounds contribute to the decay of the stratosphere. This is not the case, CFC compounds make up only 80% of the harmful free radicals that are degrading the ozone layer (Bora 2009). Greenhouses gases are also important contributors to global warming and ozone depletion, however the article does not mention these factors.The article also gives the reader the impression that all harmful chlorine compounds that negatively impact the levels of ozone come from man made products such as refrigerators. Contrary to the impression given, not all of these chlorine based compounds are man made, 18% of the ozone depleting compounds are naturally produced in our environment , as seen in figure 2 (Glenn 1998).The journal article claims that the ozone hole in the stratosphere will not only be reduced to its original state in the 80’s by 2045, but it declares that the ozone hole may actually disappear in the future (AAP 2010). There is no actual evidence provided to support such an allegation in the article, thus making the claim arbitrary. Not only does the author provide inadequate evidence, but he also fails to provide any details about the method of how such claims were formed. The article does not supply the reader with any information in regards to how the researchers came up with their conclusions. Therefore this journal article fails as an informative piece of literature as it does not accomplish its objective, which should be to inform the public on a specific issue. It does provide enough supporting information in order for the reader to make an informed decision on the topic. Due to the fact that the author does not provide information on how the conclusions were reached, the reader does not know if the claim is reliable because there is uncertainty on the amount of experimental data collected.

Fig 2- The origin of harmful chlorine compounds in atmosphere.

Another flaw in the journals argument is the fact that the author contradicts himself quite often near the end of the article. The majority of the article consists of many allegations stating that the diminishing of the ozone layer has permanently stopped thanks to the ban of harmful chemicals, and that scientists have proclaimed that by 2045 to 2060 by the latest, the amount of ozone in the stratosphere will be identical to conditions in the 1980’s( AAP 2010). However the article also states that scientists are still in the midst of learning and understanding completely the implications and effects of ozone decay and global warming. How can the author confidently claim that the scientists “findings” that our stratosphere will be much healthier in 35 years is true if he also states that the scientific community has much to learn about ozone depletion interactions? By contradicting himself, the author decreases the value of the information in the article, therefore weakening his arguments and claims.

In conclusion the author of the journal article presents an extremely weak argument. Not only is there no information provided to support each claim presented, but the author leaves out many crucial details needed for the reader to fully understand how such conclusions were drawn. He neglects many other contributing factors to ozone depletion, thereby further restricting the information available to the public. The authors position is not solidified due to the lack of information in the journal. Additionally because not enough information is provided to inform the public, the author fails to anticipate opposition or criticism which reduces the strength of the claims. In order to be considered a more reliable source, I believe that a greater depth of research is needed on the topic, in order to provide more evidential data.

References

P, A. A. "Ozone Layer on the Mend, Says Report." Australian Geographic. 17 Sept. 2010. Web. 09 Nov. 2010. report.htm>.

Bora, By Chandramita. "Ozone Layer Depletion: Effects and Causes of Ozone Depletion." Buzzle Web Portal: Intelligent Life on the Web. 2009. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. .

Carver, Glenn. "The Ozone Hole Tour : Part III. The Science of the Ozone Hole." Centre for Atmospheric Science. University of Cambridge, 1998. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.

Morality and Science, Friends or Foe?

Alex Heim

0726107

The article posted on Treehugger.com, written by John Laumer makes many claims about environmental ethics and the true meaning of environmentalism. Recent fluctuations in salmon populations in which the cause of these fluctuations is the iron rich ash deposited by the Kasatochi Volcano in august 2008 is the main example used by Laumer to criticize environmental ethicists who argued that iron seeding in the pacific as a dangerous method to revive salmon populations.

“Anti-science thinking presupposes negative outcomes. It skips over complex issues and pulls us into ethical and moral opposition to new ideas before real understanding can even be offered.

The 2010 Fraser salmon explosion by all accounts was not negative. Quite the opposite: it is relieving to see a return of bountiful nature.”

Above: Diatom algae, the abundant food source of young salmon in the 2010 Fraser river boom

Laurmers opinion is that any argument which has carefully weighed the possible outcomes and determines that the risks outweigh the benefits is anti-science. Science and morality are closely linked especially in the field of environmental science. The environment is something which the human population has just begun to realize may have more value than that of its obvious instrumental value to the human race. This shift in thinking is leading to a shift in moral beliefs from that of an anthropocentric moral outlook to something in-between anthropocentric and ecoholist. To hold an opinion on the environment and how it should be maintained and managed in a sustainable way is to hold a specific moral view which Laumer is failing to recognize in his argument.

Laurmer is also implying that the iron from the volcanic eruption can act as a study reflecting the effects that iron seeding would have on ecosystems. He uses the growth in the salmon population as a positive result of iron seeding. He talks of “the complexity of the marine ecosystem” and then states that there is no evidence of ecosystem disruption or upset and that this had no effect on the people living on the other side of the globe. History has shown that environmental issues can take a long time to manifest themselves; from the disaster with DDT and bird populations which took years to become visible through bioaccumulation and amplification or the use of freons and chloroflourocarbons and their effect on the ozone layer, if we are to lean from these mistakes we need to take caution when introducing and implementing “a fix” for an environmental problem. Laumer would be better off saying that this eruption and subsequent deposit of iron rich ash could serve as a “natural” study to see the effects of iron seeding rather than making claims that it proves the growth of salmon populations due to iron seeding is a good thing with no adverse effects. The boom in population was just this year we have yet to prove that no adverse effects have occurred.

Laurmer could have had a great article supporting the field geo-engineering had his arguments been backed by reason and not opinions and personal vendettas attacking political groups for doing their jobs. Laurmer himself pretty much sums up my arguments to the weakness of his when he states:

“there is no evidence indicating that the predators which normally preyed on salmon, humans included, suddenly disappeared. The evidence does, however, point to the ocean pastures having been provided a missing nutrient or nutrients, giving the young salmon an unusually good and lasting food supply.”

Laurmer hits the nail on the head with this one causing all his previous arguments to come crashing down. It’s true, the salmon were provided with an unusually good food supply, unusual being the key word, this deposit of iron while being a natural process does not occur every year or even every few years, it was a rare geological process which humans probably shouldn’t try to mimic as a method of conservation but as Laurmer argues we won’t know unless we try or more correctly observe . All in all the arguments made are weak but when examined it is seen that his point could have been portrayed in a stronger manner not laden with bias.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/massively-volcano-stimulated-rebound-of-us-salmon-runs-challenges-anti-science-environmentalism.php?campaign=th_rss_science

Photo:http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci124/lec36.html

Who needs biodiversity?

David Evans

0703017

Everyone has their own preferences and their own moral judgements. A personal preference does not contradict the personal preference of others and does not need any evidence or proof to validate it. A moral judgement however may contradict the moral judgements of others and must have reasoning (evidence) to back it up. Moral judgements must have reasoning to back them up or else they would be just personal preferences.

Alan Caruba divulges many moral judgements in his Emerging Corruption.com blog posting “Goodbye Global Warming, Hello Biodiversity” (31 October, 2010). His most prominent discusses how we should not trust long term predictions made by global organizations that are cause for international concern due to past inaccuracies and the waste of resources associated with the steps taken to alleviate the proverbial “problem”.

Caruba opens the blog posting displaying his distaste for the concept of global warming calling it a scam “where billions could be made selling and trading bogus “carbon credits”’ (Caruba 2010). Caruba discredits the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as they had been “regularly documenting a rise in the earth’s average temperature even when a new natural cooling cycle began in 1998.” (Caruba 2010) These “false” documents then “caused governments to invest billions into the worst forms of energy, wind and solar, along with endless other equally worthless “Green” programs.” (Caruba 2010)

The concept of global warming has given rise to carbon credits but there is no evidence referenced supporting the claim that global warming is a scam. Global warming has not yet been conclusively proven but is generally supported in the scientific community. What has been proven is the yearly reduction of ice in the arctic. Sea ice in the arctic is essential as a reflector of sunlight lowering the heat transfer from photons of light to the water in the arctic ocean. “... Arctic amplification is largely driven by loss of the sea ice cover, allowing for strong heat transfers from the ocean to the atmosphere.” (Serreze et al. 2009) This stronger heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere slowly increases the temperature of the globe.

There is no evidence cited to back up the other controversial claims made by Caruba either. No publications stating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had created false data were sourced. No reasoning for why wind and solar energy are the so-called “worst” forms of energy was stated. The statements stood by themselves and opens Caruba up to lots of criticism.

Caruba’s main claim focuses on the statement made by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which states that 26000 species worldwide are in danger of becoming extinct. The Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) consists of delegates from 200 countries that translates new scientific knowledge into policy to benefit the environment and humans. The IPBES met in June 2010 in South Korea but as Curaba explains they met “with the goal of denying vast areas of the earth from the development needed to feed six billion people and provide the raw materials vital to the energy required for a modern technological society dependent on electricity and on transportation fuels.” (Caruba 2010)

Caruba compared the statistics provided by the International Union for Conservation of Nature to the “false” statistical predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “In the same fashion people were told that the global warmers could predict the temperature of the Earth fifty to a hundred years from now, we are expected to believe that all current species are imperiled.” (Caruba 2010) The IPCC did make predictions about the future effects of global warming and these statistical predictions have not yet been validated because we have not yet reached the target area of the predictions. This comparison is valid as it is very difficult to make an accurate prediction many years into the future.

In support of his defense Caruba states “Consider that of all the species that ever existed on Earth, 99% are extinct.” (Caruba 2010) Although this raises a valid point Caruba again neglects sourcing the statistic.

Caruba believes that money spent on discussing, researching and solving potential problems is better put to use on humanitarian ventures. People are sick, starving, and are in desperate need of aid from the western world. At the same time we spend countless resources that could lift these people and nations out of poverty and to safety on bigger issues.

What the issue really boils down to is what you personally believe has intrinsic value. Caruba’s arguments clearly denote him as an anthropocentrist. “Nicholas K. Dulvy, a co-author of the list of alleged endangered species, complained that “We’ve transformed a third of the habitable land on earth for food production.” Oh, heaven forbid that humans should have enough food!” (Caruba 2010) Anthropocentrists only recognize humans as having intrinsic value and moral standing. Anthropocentrists believe humans are ends in themselves while all other species of animals and ecosystems are just a means to an end. This view does not respect animal rights as non-human animals hold no intrinsic value to the anthropocentrists.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature holds an eco-holist view. The name of the organization gives its view away let alone what it stands for. As an eco-holist all species of animals, including humans, and ecosystems have intrinsic value and have rights. They believe these rights must be respected and we should therefore do everything within our power to conserve land for the continued protection of these species and ecosystems.

Personal preferences need no support as they only pertain to the individual which holds said preferences. Moral judgements require support as they attempt to state what actions should or should not be acted upon. Without evidence moral judgements are only personal preferences.

References

Caruba, A. 31/10/2010. “Goodbye Global Warming, Hello Biodiversity” Emerging Corruption.

http://emergingcorruption.com/?s=goodbye+global+warming

Serreze, M. C., Barrett, A. P., Stroeve, J. C., Kindig, D. N., and Holland, M. M. 2009. The emergence of surface-based Arctic amplification, The Cryosphere, 3, 11-19.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/3/11/2009/tc-3-11-2009.html

How Do We Reduce Our Use of Disposable Plastics?

By: Breanna Linn


The vast use of disposable plastics in the world today has many detrimental effects on the environment and it would be great to say that solely using recycled materials is an easy thing to do. However, due to the state of the economy, it may be a difficult task to ask people and manufactures to turn to using recycled plastics instead of one time use plastics. Although this may be a possibility, the circumstances of each company and individual creates an issue for making this more predominate.

Plastic Pollution and the Great Pacific Ocean Gyre Garbage Patch, a recent blog posted by www.closetheloop.com, suggests ways in which we can use recycled plastics as an alternative to single use ones. The argument being made presents deductive logic as the premises stated throughout provide support for the conclusion. Though the premises being stated do convey us with ways in which we can improve our ecological footprints and eliminate the use of disposable plastics, they are not the most tangible solutions for each person. For example, the article provides the readers with a website where they can purchase recycled products from small scale manufactures and family businesses. This suggestion does provide a good solution to improving our use of recycled materials, but seeing as this is not the most convenient source to purchase these items for many people it might not have as great of an impact. Also, the use of disposable plastics for large manufacturing companies is probably a lot cheaper and easier to get hold of in comparison to recycled plastic. Even though using recycled materials is a greener solution to the problem, a lot of time would be needed in order for this to become implemented. As well, recycled plastics need to first become more available in order for there to be an impact made on our world.

Although the argument being presented is one that may not be quickly put into effect at the current time, the premises stated do support the fact that recycled materials are much more beneficial to us and our environment. It seems as though one of the main culprits for use of disposable plastics in excess is manufactures. Since they do indeed produce mass amounts of waste, it is these companies that need to be targeted first. As the article states, our recycling rates will improve by more than 7%, which may not seem like a lot now, but in the long run will have great benefits. Another solution stated within the article shows that plastic from the oceans is being used to create prototypes of vacuum cleaners by the Electrolux vacuum company. Unfortunately, the process of making these recycled vacuums is prohibitively long and not sustainable for long term usage. Due to the fact that the solutions needed to be implemented are not so easy, this creates an issue in minimizing the production and accumulation of plastic on land and in water.

The arguments being made throughout the article do present validity as it offers ways in which we can reduce our use of disposable plastics. However, the lack of consideration for the current circumstances that we are faced with creates a weakness in pursuing the solutions that are suggested. It is highly unlikely that we as a nation will be able to make drastic changes to the way in which we live and work over a short period of time, especially since there had been a downfall within the economy. In order for us to make an impact and help our environment, we need to take baby steps and slowly progress toward changing our ways. Though the article does present us with methods in which we can use recycled materials, for example the fencing made out of 100% recycled plastic, it is not necessarily a practical solution for each individual. Trying to force big ideas to make improvements will prove little change because everyone has a different situation. If we take action in small steps however, this will create more leeway, allowing each individual or company to progress at its own rate. Ultimately, this will give us time to create a greener, healthier world.
When thinking of ways to solve the issues that our environment is facing, we must take all circumstances into consideration in order to come up with a reasonable and efficient solution for improvement. The article presented to me did indeed provide the readers with ways to stop the use of disposable plastics, but unfortunately did not pay attention to the surrounding situations that may not be able to follow through with the suggestions provided. Yes, we are coming up with new designs and technologies that use recycled materials and are environmentally friendly. However, these solutions seem to be too far from our reality at the time. Instead of forcing these solutions onto society, we need to be faced with easy answers that provide us with enough information to make reasonable changes. All must be taken into account in order to come up with practical and achievable solutions. If this is done, then there is hope for making a difference.



References

http://iclosetheloop.blogspot.com/

Are Electric Vehicles a Solution?

The article “Electric Vehicles will not solve emission and congestion problems” written by Eberhard Rhein argues that thought the automobile industry is about to go through revolutionary changes, maybe the electric motor is not as good a solution as it is being presented as. Rhein’s argument is that (a) electric vehicles will still indirectly emit CO2 if the electricity they use comes from a CO2 emitting source; (b) electric vehicles will not do anything to solve the problem of congestion in cities because they will not lower the volume of cars; (c) lithium-ion batteries are ideal for being used in the electric motors but lithium may not be a sustainable resource. Though these are all points that are worthy of consideration, none of them are valid reasons for not developing the industry of electric vehicles. Throughout the article, the author makes many claims but does not back up any of his facts with evidence.

Rhein’s first claim that electric vehicles will still indirectly emit CO2 depends on the source of the electricity that the car uses. The electricity used by electric vehicles could be produced from clean energy such as geothermal, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind or carbon capture and storage (CCS) generation. This would eliminate the indirect CO2 emissions by electric vehicles. Though the author does acknowledge this, he does not seem to think it is realistic to produce and mainly use clean energy. He gives the example of Europe, saying it will be 2020 before two thirds of energy produced is clean energy. As with the rest of his facts, he does not state a source for this number. And even if this is the case, implementing electric cars will not be a fast process. The majority of people will not have much incentive to switch to an electric car until either their current vehicle is no longer functional or the cost of operation their internal combustion engine vehicle is too high (for example the increased cost of gasoline is too high to be worth their while).  This could easily be at least a ten year process, meaning that by the time the majority of people have converted to electric vehicles the majority of energy produced would be clean energy.

The second claim that electric claims will not do anything to help with congestion in cities is true, but I don’t think it is a valid argument for not introducing electric vehicles. This problem exists whether the vehicles causing the problem are internal combustion engine vehicles or electric vehicles. The author argues that:

“Making big cities, where two thirds of humanity will live in the future, largely CO2 emission-free by massive investments in trams, buses and subways as well as by incentives to switch to public transportation and bicycle should therefore have preference over the drive for electric cars.” (Rhein 2010)

This is a valid point; however the argument is not specifically about electric cars but about electric vehicles. These include trams, buses and subways. Rhein is right in saying that people should be encouraged to use public transportation, but public transportation should at the same time be made CO2 free. The government should enforce the use of electric vehicles in public transportation. If the incentives to switch to public transportation work for the majority of people, the CO2 problem will still exist only on a smaller scale. Switching to public transportation is not a solution to the CO2 problem but merely an improvement.

Rhein’s third point is that the batteries which will be used in electric motors may potentially contain an unsustainable resource, lithium.  His argument is that:

“There is plenty of lithium available across the earth, especially in Latin America. But though only tiny quantities are needed in the battery, nobody is presently able to say if the estimated global reserves of 6 million tons of lithium will suffice as a sustainable basis for the annual production of some 100 million batteries, which the global automotive industry might require by 2050 for satisfying the future demand for electric vehicles.” (Rhein 2010)

In this argument, Rhein is using the Precautionary principle. He is speculating about 40 years in the future and assuming that we would be using the same technology in batteries, which is extremely unlikely. Being uncertain about whether the world supply of lithium is enough to last for the next 40 years is not enough justification to not develop electric vehicles.

                Throughout this article, the argument seems to be that electric cars will not completely solve the problem of CO2 emissions and that there is a degree of uncertainty about the long term availability of resources involved in the production of electric vehicles. The author does not give any sources for the facts presented in this article, which makes the evidence seem weak.  I think that though electric vehicles will not completely solve CO2 emission problems, they will be a major contributor to the solution. 

Reference:

Rhein, Eberhard. "Electric Vehicles will not solve emission and congestion problems." Rhein on Energy and Climate. Blogactive.eu, 10/11/10. Web. 9 Nov 2010. <http://rhein.blogactiv.eu/2010/11/10/electric-vehicles-will-not-solve-emission-and-congestion-problems/>.

Polar Bears Don't Matter?

The article “Polar Bears: Maybe the prospects aren’t so gloomy” (2010) published in False Alarm and written by Paul MacRae gives two major claims. Firstly, MacRae claims global warming is barely affected by humans and that humans are only slightly speeding up the process that is meant to happen. Secondly, he claims that polar bears will adapt as the glaciers shrink and humans shouldn’t be spending such a great deal of money trying to save them from extinction.

MacRae argues that polar bears have once had to adapt to warming of the earth so they can do it again. It seems that MacRae believes that polar bears are not and will not be affected at all by global warming. However, polar bear populations are already decreasing and isn’t this a sign that maybe they can’t adapt to such high temperatures? He also argues that humans are only slightly affecting the heating of the earth and it would be naturally happening without human contribution. However, MacRae doesn’t give any evidence that the earth would actually be heating if humans didn’t produce such large amounts of carbon dioxide emissions.

I believe both of these claims are slightly ridiculous. Firstly, even if the earth is warming on its own should humans be speeding up the process? In my opinion this is not a smart idea especially since we are seeing so many negative affects of global warming. Viewing these affects why should we contribute without taking responsibility for them? The way MacRae writes it seems like we are barely affecting global warming and thus, we should not have to take any responsibility. I feel that if we had never began polluting our environment global warming wouldn’t be a problem today. Secondly, polar bears may have adapted to natural warming of the earth but with all the pollution and heating of oceans I feel they may not be able to adapt quickly enough for survival. Also, the polar bear population is already decreasing due to ocean warming and thus, it could continue to decrease until they become extinct.

Robert J. Nicholls and Anny Cazenave wrote an article called “Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones” discuss some of the problems with oceans heating. They suggest that there are two main reasons for sea-level rise. Firstly, there is the expansion of water due to heating. Water heats in response to absorption of carbon dioxide which of course is a natural gas in air but is also a pollutant that gets pumped into the air by human behaviour. In this case you can’t say that humans have no affect on the melting of ice caps due to oceans heating. The less carbon dioxide is placed into the air the less warming our oceans will experience. Therefore, I feel like you can’t say that we only slightly contribute to global warming. The second cause of sea-level rise is melting ice. The warmer the atmosphere gets the more ice bergs melt and the higher the sea level rises. This poses a large problem for polar bears. When the ice bergs melt polar bears are forced to swim to other ice bergs or to shore. With high sea-levels this is very dangerous and polar bears can drown, especially when high winds are involved. Thus, how can MacRae even suggest we have only a slight contribution to global warming and that it’s not affecting polar bear populations? It is possible that not all the warming is due to human behaviour but I feel that MacRae should defend this in his article rather then just writing off human contribution to global warming as if it doesn’t exist.

I found another article which speaks specifically about polar bears and how the ice melting affects their weight and their population size. The article is written by Jim Morrison and titled “The Incredible Shrinking Polar Bears”. When the ice melts polar bears have difficulty getting to food sources which means smaller polar bears. These polar bears have problems nursing and giving birth to their cubs and thus, the population of polar bears decreases. Therefore, if polar bear populations are already decreasing why is MacRae so confident that eventually polar bears will evolve and survive? Shouldn’t polar bears have started to adapt already? However, he does have decent evidence to support the possibility of polar bears adapting but they don’t seem to be. I also agree that it is possible humans spend too much in donations on saving certain animals. It seems the cuter the animal the more people donate even if there are other things that need donations. So who decides who gets the donations?

MacRae’s first claim that humans do not contribute to global warming is strong and a little over the top in my opinion. It is clear that human actions have a large contributing factor to global warming and oceans warming up then some people want to admit. Also, I feel as if MacRae thinks contributing to helping polar bears from becoming extinct is a waste of time and money. But if they don’t adapt are we supposed to stand by and let them go extinct? Is MacRae saying that this is natures plan and that we should let global warming take whatever path it’s meant to take? I do not agree with this if this is his opinion. I believe we have contributed to climate change and it’s our responsibility to help delay what we have started for as long as possible to have the same thriving environment we once had.

References:
MacRae, P. (2010) Polar Bears: Maybe the prospects aren’t so gloomy. False Alarm, 02 Oct 2010 http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=140#more-140

Nicholls, RJ. Cazenave, A. (2010) Sea-Level Rise and Its Impact on Coastal Zones. Science vol. 328 pp. 1517-1520

Morrison, J. (2004) The Incredible Shrinking Polar Bears. National Wildlife. 02 Jan 2004 http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2004/The-Incredible-Shrinking-Polar-Bears.aspx

Environmentally Friendly Bags

In this article the author, Julia Christman explains why she believes that everyone should buy environmentally friendly bags. Although I agree with the general idea of this article, I do not agree with some of the claims that the author made. I agree that people do need to be more environmentally friendly, and I think that it is good that more and more people are using environmentally friendly products. However, I question the accuracy of the author when she claims that: “reusable and eco-friendly bags and other items are in huge demand these days. People all across the world love them because they are attractive and durable, besides being eco-friendly” (Christman). There are three different claims in these sentences alone that I find very unconvincing. First of all, the idea that environmentally friendly products, more specifically bags, are in ‘huge’ demand. I can agree that these bags are becoming more popular as I know many people who own them, including myself, however, I still see more people using regular plastic bags. The way that she portrays these bags makes it seem like everybody has them or wants them, which I don’t believe to be true. Perhaps if she had some evidence or statistics to back up this claim it would be more convincing, but since she does not I must question her statement that there is a large economic demand for these three dollar bags.

Secondly is the statement that these environmentally friendly bags are loved by people all over the world. It is my assumption that these bags are only popular in more wealthy countries as they most likely cost more to produce, and in less wealthy countries people are more likely to use the cheaper plastic bags. Providing a meal for their families is probably more important than purchasing eco-friendly products. This leads me to question the accuracy of the claim that people all over the world love these bags.

The last part of this sentence that I question is the idea that people love these bags because they are attractive. I can understand that people purchase them because they are durable and environmentally friendly, but appearance is a matter of opinion and perspective. In my opinion these bags are not very attractive. In fact, in my opinion these bags are not much more attractive than plastic bags, therefore paying extra for one of these bags based on its appearance is not a legitimate reason. Perhaps some people do find these bags attractive, or maybe there are different designs that I have yet to discover, but I still believe that stating that people love these bags because they are attractive is an inaccurate claim.

Throughout the article the author often makes statements that may be mostly true or often true, but are definitely not always true. She then exaggerates these statements which makes them more inaccurate. For example, instead of saying that many people are trying to help the environment by using environmentally friendly products, she says that: “Now everyone wants to use eco-friendly products to protect the environment” (Christman). This statement is not accurate because although many people want to help the environment by using eco-friendly products, I am sure that not every person on earth wants to help the environment, such as the CEO’s of companies in industries such as oil.

Another thing that makes this article seem inaccurate is the fact that the author made no citations or references to any information. Without evidence it is very easy to question everything the author argues. For example, I would like to know which “big corporations are lending their hands for the cause” (Christman) and which recycled materials these bags are made out of. With this extra information this article would be a lot more persuasive and convincing.

The three main claims she makes about why people should buy these environmentally friendly bags are: they are environmentally friendly, they are attractive, and they are durable (Christman). I agree that using these bags is more environmentally friendly since less plastic bags would be getting used, however she provides no proof that the bags themselves are environmentally friendly. She simply states what they are made out of and says that they are eco-friendly. As for the bags being attractive, as I have already stated, attraction is a matter of opinion and many people probably believe that they are not attractive. Perhaps the market is small where we live, but I personally have not seen “a variety of attractive patterns and colours” (Christman) nor do I believe that achieving good “fashion and style” (Christman) are high on the companies' priority list when they are producing these bags. Lastly, she states that these bags are durable, and that “once you invest in these bags, you can relax for quite a long time” (Christman). This statement could be a lot more specific. Also, the statement that after buying these bags you can relax is a bit confusing. After buying these bags you don’t have to worry about anything anymore? If anything I think these bags would create even more stress since you always have to remember to bring them, then have to carry them around everywhere with you. Also, being more specific about the durability of these bags would make her claims a lot stronger, instead of just saying that they can “bear the load of heavy items” (Christman).

The final argument that the author made was that these bags are stylish, attractive, fashionable and bio degradable, as well as being provided by some great companies (Christman). I think this statement would be a lot stronger if she mentioned what these companies are and why they are great. By not being specific about these companies it seems like she is not sure about this information, which causes the reader to question the accuracy of her claims.

Overall, although I agree that these bags are good and that everyone should purchase them, I think that the arguments for them could have been stronger. By making a few minor changes, such as being more specific, giving examples and using evidence to support her claims, this article would be a lot more persuasive, as well as more accurate.


Christman, Julia. “Go Green, Adopt Eco Friendly Bags.” Go Green, Save Earth.
November 3, 2010. http://www.public88.com/gogreen/environment-
friendly/environment-friendly-go-green-adopt-eco-friendly-bags/.

David Tarascio
0705039