we love the enggvironment

When you ask anyone to list down words related to problems in the environment, the word “pollution” would probably be one of those. Many people are aware that every living person on Earth contributes to this problem. Despite this, waste management in most places is still insufficient and inefficient.

Waste management is not a foreign concept, as it has been discussed in all sorts of media: in the family, the school, the laboratory, in television, in the newspaper, etc. In the Philippines, both public and private sectors promote proper waste segregation, recycling, etc., although execution is not exactly their strength. Laws and regulations have also been passed to handle this waste problem; some examples are: Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999 (RA 8749), Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004 (RA 9275), and Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000 (RA 9003). Schools are implementing recycling and reusing programs. For instance, in some public schools, some packagings are cut into small strips to be recycled and converted to pillow stuffing. Some television shows are promoting the recycling of PET bottles through collection with redeemable prizes. These PET bottles were then converted for the production of classroom chairs and tables. These were also used as a material for the construction of classrooms. The common recycling and reusing method is very useful and easy to do, as normal individuals get to contribute in their own little way. As a chemical engineering student, recycling and reusing are ways to augment the input to the process and to minimize the extraction of raw materials from the environment. But is this enough? Is this good enough?

Methods in waste management are not equal to each other in terms of overall effect. In fact, there is a hierarchy that is followed in industries that we believe should also be taught in communities. The hierarchy of waste management is made up of the following (in decreasing priority): source reduction, recycle/reuse, treatment, storage, and disposal. The latter four options are the usual methods used in communities, but to truly minimize the waste produced, source reduction is the best option, though this may be the most difficult method to adapt.

“The Story of Stuff” by Annie Leonard explains this method. According to the video, products are now designed to be disposable to induce a cycle of consumer shopping. Products are designed to last for a certain amount of time, long enough to be considered of high quality and short enough to be replaceable over and over again. Not only this, people are also brainwashed into buying and buying unnecessarily, just to “keep up” with the trends. Computers, cellphones, and other electronic devices are upgrading at a fast rate, and people are encouraged by society to own the “in” model. This is similar to fashion wherein trends are ever changing that even though some clothes and shoes are still useful, they are replaced by newer and trendier pieces.  Although this cycle keeps the production of the goods at a high rate since this is a profitable venture for corporations, this still increases waste, both from the production side and the consumer side. More extraction of raw materials is required, more processes are done, more energy needed, and more waste generated.

Engineers and scientists may invent greener and more efficient methods to create products, which will always be good. But wouldn’t it be better if there would be a change in our outlook on consumerism? Instead of encouraging what is “new”, we should encourage “better” products. And instead of trying to maintain the old ways that do not create a big impact, we should start reducing the source of waste: unnecessary buying.

Normal default answer: “Of course I am!” Well, why shouldn’t you be? One Earth, finite resources, you all know that. Planting trees as kids, reducing wastes that you throw in your trash bins, all the way up to giving much effort in designing and redesigning plants just so we can be environmentally considerate — these and a whole lot more are the different and widely varying ways we show how much we care for the environment. Only a money-hungry short-minded jerk would disregard sustainability for immediate pleasure and satisfaction. But then again, there are many of those jerks roaming around the planet. Some even have a huge power over their peers and subordinates, and that’s actually kind of scary if you think really hard about it.

However, it’s best if we not delve deeply into these social and economic issues regarding the environment. They’re complicated enough by themselves without us getting involved yet, and the depth to which these can extend can be as far as we can imagine. Rather, this blog post of the week will concern us and our part only in taking care and loving our one lonely planet. Specifically, we want to talk about how green you really are when it comes to engineering for the environment and how you can improve your chemical processes so that you can really materialize your love and concern for the environment. Read More

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement by almost all of the nations in the world aimed to meet reduction targets of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It was adopted along with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on 11 December 1997. The rules for the implementation of the protocol, known as the Marrakesh Accords, was made at the 7^th Conference of the Parties in 2001. The protocol was put into force in 16 February 2005. The Accords went to its first commitment period from 2008 to 2012. From there, 37 countries and the EU have agreed upon the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 5% with respect to the 1990 levels. In the Doha Amendment in 2012, parties have agreed upon an 18% reduction of 1990-level GHG emissions from 2013 until 2020.

There are problems associated with the implementation of the protocol. First is that the United States didn’t ratify the protocol. The Clinton administration submitted the protocol to the Senate, though it was turned down on the condition that there must be participation within the developing countries who are non-bound and yet ratified the protocol. In the succeeding administration, President George Bush has said that they will reduce their “greenhouse gas intensity” (or the GHG emissions per capita). Nevertheless, they have reduced their emissions from 2000. Read More