Activity 4.2.1 – Applying My Environmental Policy Frameworks.

 Problem Statement

The case I chose looks at Newton County, Georgia, where Meta built a massive $750 million data center right next to rural homes that rely on well water. Soon after construction began in 2018, some local residents including Beverly and Jeff Morris, started noticing that their water pressure was dropping, appliances were failing, and sediment was building up in their well (Tan, 2025). Over the next few years, the problems got worse. The Morris’s replaced appliances multiple times, spent thousands of dollars on repairs, and still have only one working bathroom in their home. Their water sometimes comes out brown, and they no longer feel safe drinking it.

This is happening at the same time the entire county is facing larger water stress. Meta’s data center uses around 10% of all water consumed in Newton County each day, and new companies want even more and some are requesting millions of gallons a day (Tan, 2025). Local water officials have said the county may face a water deficit by 2030, which means residents could be forced to ration water. Water rates are already set to increase by 33 percent, which is much higher than the normal 2 percent yearly rise (Tan, 2025).

Part of the problem is that data centers rarely share their full water usage. Policymakers often do not know how much water companies need until after projects are approved. Another issue is that no well study was done before Meta started construction, so no one knows how the project might have affected the groundwater in the area. Meta now claims its facility “likely” didn’t cause the problems, but the timing and the experiences of multiple neighbors suggest otherwise (Tan, 2025).

This conflict shows how economic development, water resources, and community well-being can crash. Below is how this issue looks through each of my five environmental policy frames.

 Identity Frame

With the Identity Frame, people respond based on who they are and what they value. Many residents in Newton County chose this rural lifestyle because they wanted quiet land, clean well water, and a place to retire. People like the Morris’s see themselves as long-time homeowners trying to protect their future health and property. When their water starts failing after Meta moves in, they feel unseen and powerless compared to the million-dollar corporations.

Local leaders, however, may see themselves as economic builders. Their identity is tied to bringing new jobs and tax revenue into the county. For them, approving data centers fits their role as people responsible for “growth.” Meta, on the other hand, sees itself as a global tech company driving innovation in AI and not as a threat to rural communities. These identities shape how each group interprets the situation.

 Characterization Frame

Characterization is about how each side views the other. Many residents characterize Meta as a company that caused the groundwater problems and refuses to take responsibility. From their point of view, Meta’s denial feels dismissive and dishonest, especially since the issues began right after construction of the data center.

Meta characterizes the situation differently. By saying the well problems were “unlikely” caused by its data center, the company frames residents’ concerns as assumptions instead of evidence-based complaints (Tan, 2025).

Local officials may characterize residents as emotional or resistant to progress, while viewing data centers as economic opportunities for the community. These characterizations lead to mistrust and make collaboration harder.

 Ecological Frame

The Ecological Frame focuses on physical limits and environmental conditions. Data centers need huge amounts of cooling water. Meta’s facility uses roughly 500,000 gallons of water per day (Tan, 2025). While newer centers could require millions more if they were to come into the community as well. Newton County depends on a reservoir that is only refilled through rainfall, which means the area does not have an endless supply of water.

Construction may have affected groundwater, too. Some land must be “dewatered,” meaning water is pumped out of the ground to prepare the site. This can change how water flows underground and cause sediment to move into nearby wells. Even if there is not absolute proof, the ecological conditions suggest the environment is being stressed beyond what it can handle.

 Risk Frame

Residents face the highest personal risk. Losing access to clean water affects their health, their finances, and their ability to live comfortably in their own homes. Their property values could also drop because no one wants to buy a house with unreliable and unsustainable water.

Local officials worry about running out of water for the entire community. A county-wide deficit by 2030 would be a major crisis, especially with water rates rising sharply.

Tech companies face almost no risk at all. Water is cheap for them, and if problems get worse, they can move or expand somewhere else without any hesitations. Because each group sees risk differently, they argue for different solutions and priorities.

 Decision-Making / Power Frame

This frame looks at who actually gets to influence decisions. Meta and other tech companies have a lot of power because they bring in tax revenue. They can negotiate water access, push for rezoning, and apply for enormous water permits. Residents, on the other hand, have almost no power. No one studied their wells before construction, and their complaints were not taken seriously until years later. The county water authority is stuck trying to balance economic development with limited water resources. This uneven power dynamic explains why residents feel ignored and why the issue keeps growing.

 References

Tan, E. (2025, July 14). Their water taps ran dry when Meta built next door. The New York Times.

Activity 2.3.1 Ranchers, Anglers, and Beavers

1. Exploratory

The article and video show that riparian areas recover when ranchers switch from heavy summer grazing to conservation-oriented grazing. The BLM and Trout Unlimited used 30 years of satellite images to prove that vegetation increased by 10–40% where grazing was changed and beavers returned (Fesenmyer, 2016). Hot-season grazing kept plants from regrowing, but once cattle pressure was reduced, willows came back. This then attracted beavers, whose dams slowed water, raised the water table, and kept the soil wet year-round. Other studies in class also showed how restoring natural processes can be more effective than engineered solutions.

 

2. Diagnostic

This recovery happens mainly because cattle were grazing too long during the “hot season,” which wiped out young plants before they could regrow. Once ranchers changed the timing and intensity of grazing, plants actually had time to recover. After vegetation improved, beavers returned on their own because they had food and material for building dams. Their dams then boosted the recovery even more by spreading water across the floodplain and keeping moisture in the soil.

 

3. Cause and Effect

·         If grazing is changed to conservation-oriented grazing, plants grow back, and this attracts beavers.

·         If beavers return, their dams trap water, raise groundwater levels, and make the area much more productive.

·         If a stream keeps getting grazed heavily in the hot season, vegetation stays degraded, water runs off faster, and wildlife habitat remains poor.

 

4. Priority

The most important issue is creating the right conditions for recovery. The study shows that changing grazing practices is the key first step, because beavers won’t come back unless there’s enough vegetation for them. Without fixing the grazing problem, nothing else can really work.

 

5. Application

This connects to me because it shows how land managers and ranchers can work together instead of fighting. It also relates to culture because different groups like ranchers, agencies, and conservationists had to adjust their values and practices to meet shared goals. In class, we’ve talked about how environmental solutions often require cooperation, not just rules, and this is a good example of that.

 

6. Critical

This changed my thinking because I always assumed fixing streams would require expensive construction projects. I didn’t realize that simply adjusting grazing timing and letting beavers return naturally could rebuild an entire ecosystem over time. It made me see how powerful natural processes can be when people just give them the chance.

References:

Fesenmyer, K. (2016). Restoring streamside vegetation using grazing and beavers. Trout Unlimited. https://www.tu.org/magazine/science/restoring-streamside-vegetation-using-grazing-and-beavers/

Fesenmyer, K. A, Dauwalter, D. C., Evans, C., & Allai, T. (2018). Livestock management, beaver, and climate influences on riparian vegetation in a semi-arid landscape. PLoS ONE 13(12). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208928

Activity 4.2 Environmental Policy Frameworks

 

My Five-Point Environmental Policy Framework

 Identity Frame

This frame focuses on who a person is and what background they come from. People’s values, beliefs, and life experiences shape how they respond to environmental issues.

Characterization Frame 

This frame looks at how people view the “other side.” Understanding who they think they are dealing with helps explain why groups disagree or mistrust each other.

Risk Frame 

This frame focuses on how people see possible danger or harm. Different groups usually see risk differently based on knowledge, experience, or what they feel they could lose.

Knowledge/Fact Frame

This frame is about how people understand and trust information. Some rely on science, some on personal experience, and others on community knowledge.

Decision-Making/Power Frame

This frame looks at who has a say in decisions and who holds power. It includes legal rules, political influence, and which voices are included or left out in the process.

I chose these five frames because, after looking closely at Davis & Lewicki (2003), Bryan (2003), and the Environmental Framing Consortium, these were the ideas that came up the most and made the most sense to me when thinking about why environmental conflicts get really complicated. I noticed rather quickly that every conflict in the readings started with people seeing the situation differently because of who they were, what they valued, and what mattered to them. That’s why I put Identity first. If people don’t understand their own beliefs and where those beliefs come from, then it’s hard for them to even explain why they care about an issue. Identity frames came up a lot in Davis & Lewicki’s article, and Bryan showed how people’s identity within their organization or community shapes how they “sit” in the conflict.

My second frame, Characterization, logically follows from identity. Once people figure out “who I am,” the next step is “who are they?” In the readings, this was a major reason things became intractable. People assume things about the other side, or they blame them, or they see them as the “problem”. Once people start doing that, it becomes even harder to work together. I chose characterization because it affects trust, attitudes, and the willingness to negotiate with one another.

I added Ecological as my third frame because Bryan’s article made it clear that the physical environment, like droughts, wildfires, or pollution, can wholistically shift how people view a conflict. Even if people disagree, real environmental conditions can force them to rethink their positions. To me, this frame fills the gap between people’s opinions and the actual science or natural changes actually happening around them.

My fourth frame, Risk, was important because people react strongly to what they think might happen. In Davis & Lewicki’s example about nuclear power, people weren’t arguing only about facts, they were also arguing about the risks they believed were real. Risk awareness affects emotions and decisions, sometimes more than the data does.

My last frame, Conflict Management, pulls in the reality that eventually, someone has to decide how the conflict is going to be handled. This includes legal and political processes, which Bryan talked about in detail. Even great ideas can fail if the conflict is managed poorly.

Overall, I picked these five frames because they help explain not only what people think, but why they think it, and how that shapes environmental conflicts.

References:

Davis, C. B., & Lewicki, R. J. (2003). Environmental conflict resolution: Framing and intractability--an introduction. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 200-206. https://alamo.instructure.com/courses/1677567/files/264902988/download?wrap=1

Bryan, T. (2003). Context in environmental conflicts: Where you stand depends on where you sit. Environmental Practice, 5(3), 256-264. https://alamo.instructure.com/courses/1677567/files/264902989/download?wrap=1

Environmental Framing Consortium. (2005). Framing choices. Understanding Environmental Problems. https://www.intractableconflict.org/environmentalframing/framing_choices.shtml

Activity 4.1 – US Environmental History and Major Regulations

 

The history of environmental thought in the United States shows how people’s views of nature have changed from something to conquer to something to protect. Over time, cultural values, science, and policy have shaped how Americans understand their connection to the environment. What started as a mindset focused on survival and expansion has turned into a belief in sustainability and shared responsibility.

In the early years, most Americans saw nature as an endless resource. Settlers cleared forests, built dams, and expanded farmland with little to no concern for the environment. Nature was viewed as something to use, not something to care for. This attitude came from the idea of “manifest destiny,” where people believed it was their duty to control and use the land. Nature was separate from human life, and progress meant domination.

By the mid-1800s, this view began to shift. Writers like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau introduced the idea that nature had moral and spiritual meaning. Their transcendentalist ideas taught that being close to nature brought peace and truth. George Perkins Marsh, in his book Man and Nature (1864), warned that humans could damage the Earth through deforestation and poor land use. His work was one of the first to show that human actions could change the planet in harmful ways.

In the early 1900s, the conservation era began. John Muir and Gifford Pinchot represented two main perspectives which are preservation and conservation. Muir believed nature should be left untouched for its beauty and spiritual value. Pinchot argued that resources could be used wisely to benefit society. Their debate influenced President Theodore Roosevelt, who created national parks and forests to protect land for future generations. This was the first time the government officially recognized the need to balance use and protection of our environment.

After World War II, industrial growth caused pollution and health problems. The modern environmental movement took shape in the 1960s and 1970s. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring exposed the dangers of pesticides and showed how human activity threatened both nature and people. Public concern led to major laws like the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Environmentalism expanded from solely protecting nature to protecting life itself.

As Russell and Fairfax (2014) explain, recent environmental thought focuses on sustainability which is the idea that economic growth, environmental protection, and social well-being must all work together. Modern challenges like climate change and resource depletion require cooperation between governments, businesses, and communities. Many states and cities now lead the way when federal action is slow, and public awareness continues to grow.

Today, environmental thinking is about connection. It’s not just about saving nature, but learning how to live responsibly within it. Sustainability asks people to think about fairness for future generations and the balance between what we take and what we give back to our environment. The journey from domination to stewardship shows that protecting the environment is also about protecting ourselves and ensuring a better future for everyone.

U.S. Federal Environmental Law Timeline (based on Theis & Tomkin 2018; Russell & Fairfax 2014)

Activity 3.3.3 – My Plastic Use

Microplastics: The Hidden Pollution Problem in Our Everyday Lives

When people talk about waste, they usually think of trash trucks picking up garbage from the curb. In environmental science, this everyday waste is called municipal solid waste (MSW). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that in 2015, Americans produced about 262 million tons of MSW, or 4.48 pounds per person per day (EPA, 2018). While paper and yard trimmings make up large portions of this waste, the most concerning material is plastic, because it does not break down naturally. Instead, it slowly fragments into smaller and smaller pieces called microplastics, which are now found in the environment and even in our own bodies (Haab & Haab, n.d.).

What Are Microplastics?

Microplastics are tiny plastic particles less than five millimeters in size, which are roughly the size of a grain of rice. Scientists divide them into two types. Primary microplastics are made intentionally small, such as the microbeads that used to be found in cosmetics or the plastic pellets (“nurdles”) used to manufacture goods. Secondary microplastics come from the breakdown of larger plastic items like bottles, bags, and fishing gear (Haab & Haab, n.d.). Because they don’t decompose, these small fragments keep circulating through the environment for decades.

Research by Haab and Haab (n.d.) with Adventure Scientists found that microplastics are present even in remote North Country waterbodies. Their study showed that inland areas like rivers, lakes, and streams are significant contributors to plastic pollution. Rainfall, stormwater runoff, and wastewater all carry tiny plastic pieces into waterways, where they eventually flow downstream and reach the ocean. This proves that microplastic pollution starts locally but eventually spreads globally.

How Do They Get Everywhere?

Microplastics enter the environment through many normal daily activities. Washing synthetic clothing releases thousands of plastic fibers each time a load of laundry is done. Studies have found that a single wash can shed hundreds of thousands of fibers, depending on the fabric type (Dudas, 2018). These fibers move through wastewater systems and often pass-through filters that can’t catch such small particles. Larger plastics like bottles or bags also break apart over time due to sunlight and wave action, turning into micro-sized fragments that can float across oceans. Scientists have tracked these movements with GPS-equipped buoys and discovered six major ocean garbage patches, including one in the Arctic (“Charting the Garbage Patches of the Sea,” 2019).

Why Are Microplastics a Problem?

The problem with microplastics is that they’re everywhere and they simply don’t go away. Haab and Haab (n.d.) explain that microplastics can carry toxic chemicals such as heavy metals and industrial compounds. When fish, plankton, or shellfish eat them, the plastics and toxins gradually move up the food chain. People can be exposed by eating seafood, drinking contaminated water, or even breathing microscopic fibers in the air.

A recent medical report found polyethylene and PVC microplastics in more than half of artery plaques removed from patients who had surgery for clogged arteries. Those patients were more likely to suffer heart attacks, strokes, or death within a few years, suggesting possible health risks linked to inflammation (Watson, 2024). Although the study could not prove direct harm, it shows how plastic pollution may also be affecting human health, and not just the environmental quality.

What Can We Do About It?

Because microplastics are so small and widespread, cleanup isn’t realistic. Even if we stopped using plastics today, the existing pollution would last for centuries (“Charting the Garbage Patches of the Sea,” 2019). The best solution is prevention. Dudas (2018) suggests adding three new “R’s” to the old slogan: refuse, rethink, and redesign. People can refuse single-use plastics, rethink fast-fashion habits that create fiber pollution, and support redesigning products that can biodegrade or be reused. This is critical if we want to see an improvement on human and environmental health.

Conclusion

Microplastics may be small, but their impact is enormous. They move through waterways, harm wildlife, and are now part of the human environment. What started as a convenience has turned into a global challenge. The work of Haab and Haab reminds us that solving it begins close to home with the choices we make every day. By reducing our plastic use, rethinking what we buy, and supporting better design, we can each play a small role in tackling this immense problem.

My Day of Plastic

This picture shows a lot of the plastic I used in just one day. I didn’t realize how many things I use are made of plastic until I started putting them together for this photo. The Gatorade bottle, food containers, snack tubs, and even the bag under everything are all plastic. My Bombers baseball shirt is made from synthetic material too, which means it’s technically plastic as well. Most of these items are things I use without thinking, but they’ll eventually get thrown away or turn into tiny pieces called microplastics. After learning about this in Dudas (2018), it really hit me how hard it is to avoid plastic in daily life. Doing this activity made me want to reuse what I can and pay more attention to what I buy.

References

Dudas, S. (2018). Microplastics are everywhere [Video]. TEDx Binghampton University. https://youtu.be/jjsrmFUmyh4?si=GKrp0L-0LZLfaFaT

Environmental Protection Agency (EPS). (2018). National overview: Facts and figures on materials, wastes and recycling. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials

Haab, S., & Haab, K. (n.d.). The environmental impacts of microplastics: An investigation of microplastic pollution in North Country waterbodies. Adventure Scientists. https://www.adventurescientists.org/uploads/7/3/9/8/7398741/haabhaab2016_environmental_impacts_of_microplastics.pdf

Plastic Soup Foundation. (2019). Beat the microbead. https://www.beatthemicrobead.org

Van Sebille, E. (2013). Charting the garbage patches of the seas[video]. University of New South Wales.

Van Sebille, E. (2013). Charting the garbage patches of the seas[video]. University of New South Wales. https://youtu.be/M4UK9Yt6A-s?si=pst9jYU0PKDtVspb

Activity 3.3.1 Air Pollution Core Activity

 Air Pollution Basics

Sulfur Pollutants
Sulfur pollutants include gases like sulfur dioxide (SO2) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which come from burning fuels or processing ores that contain sulfur. Once released into the air, SO2 can react, especially in sunlight and moisture, to form sulfate ions and acidic compounds such as sulfuric acid. These create fine particles (aerosols) that reduce visibility (haze) and contribute to acid rain, damaging plant leaves, soils, and aquatic systems. Some plants show visible tissue injury at moderate SO2 levels, while others suffer “hidden injury,” meaning reduced growth without obvious symptoms (Freedman, Chap. 16).

Nitrogen Pollutants
Nitrogen pollutants, often called NOx (nitric oxide, NO, plus nitrogen dioxide, NO2), mainly arise from combustion in vehicles, power plants, and industrial processes. In the atmosphere, NO can oxidize to NO2, which may further convert to nitric acid and nitrate ions in rain or particulate form. These nitrogen compounds contribute to acid deposition, nutrient loading (eutrophication), and help form fine particles that degrade air quality. Another nitrogen gas, N2O, is more inert and has a long atmospheric lifetime, which makes it important for climate. Ammonia (NH3), from soil, fertilizer, and animal waste, also plays a role by often converting to nitrate in the air. While direct injury to vegetation is uncommon at normal levels, the chemical transformations make nitrogen gases very influential (Freedman, Chap. 16).

Hydrocarbon and Volatile Organic Compound Pollutants
Hydrocarbons (chains of carbon and hydrogen) and VOCs (volatile organic compounds) can be emitted naturally by plants and decomposition or from human activities such as fuel combustion, solvents, and evaporation. Although many VOCs at ambient concentrations are not directly harmful to vegetation or humans, they become critically important in air chemistry. In the presence of sunlight, VOCs react with NOₓ in a chain of radical-driven steps (for example, RO2 + NO → NO2 + RO), producing ground-level ozone (O3) and other oxidants. These oxidants damage cell membranes in leaves, reduce photosynthesis, and irritate human respiratory tissues and lungs. Thus, hydrocarbons and VOCs are the central “fuel” for photochemical smog formation (Freedman, Chap. 16).

 

Comparison of Current AQI

First, What is AQI?
The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a scale from 0 to 500 that translates pollutant concentrations into a unified metric. Lower AQI means cleaner air; higher means more health risk. An AQI up to about 50 is “Good” 51–100 is “Moderate” and anything beyond that comes “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups,”. The purpose is to help everyday people see at a glimpse how air might affect health­­.

At 3:00 pm, Riverside County, California, recorded the highest Air Quality Index (AQI) in the United States at 473, indicating hazardous conditions driven by extremely high particulate matter. In contrast, both San Antonio, TX, and Los Angeles, CA, reported much cleaner air with AQIs of 50, placing them in the moderate range. Ozone readings were available for San Antonio (50) and Los Angeles (44), both well within safe levels, while Riverside had no current ozone data to upload. Overall, the table shows a blunt difference between regions with severe particle pollution and those experiencing only minor or routine levels of air pollution at the same time of day.

Comparison of Current PM 2.5 and O3 (Ozone)

What is PM2.5?
PM2.5 refers to particulate matter with diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers. These fine particles can bypass the nose and throat and reach deep into the lungs and even cross into the bloodstream, causing inflammation, cardiovascular stress, respiratory disease, and contributing to premature death.

What is O3 (ground-level ozone)?
Ground-level ozone is a secondary pollutant formed when NOx and VOCs react under sunlight. Unlike “good” ozone in the stratosphere, this ozone damages lung tissue, leads to coughing and shortness of breath, worsens asthma and lung disease, and impairs plant growth and agricultural yield.

References

Air Now Interactive Map

Freedman, B. (2018). Environmental science: A Canadian perspective. Dalhousie University Libraries.

Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

Activity 3.2.3 – Alternative Energy – Solar Energy

 

Alternative energy refers to energy sources that can be renewed or replenished in a human time frame, such as sunlight, wind, water, geothermal heat, or biomass. These energy sources differ from fossil fuels because they are not limited and produce far fewer pollutants. As explained in the chapter reading, renewable energy comes from the sun or processes powered from it, like wind and hydro power, and if used sustainably, these resources can last for thousands of years. The concept behind alternative energy is to find ways to meet modern energy demands without running out of resources or impairing the environment.

There are many arguments for using alternative energy. The most convincing reason is that it helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions that also contribute to global climate change. A majority of renewable sources like solar, wind, and hydroelectricity produce little to no air pollution when generating electricity (Mutiti et al., 2018). For example, solar panels and small wind turbines can provide power in remote areas that are not connected to an electrical grid. Using alternative energy also lovers the risk of oil spills or coal mining accidents that can occur when forging for fossil fuels. In addition, renewable resources create new economic job opportunities through jobs in manufacturing, installation, and maintenance showing that taking care of the environment also has a plus in economic growth.

Solar energy is one of the most favorable alternatives because it can be used almost anywhere sunlight is available. It converts sunlight into electricity using photovoltaic (PV) cells or also can use solar thermal systems to heat water and air (Mutiti et al., 2018). Solar power is clean, renewable, and easy to scale from rooftops to large solar farms. However, solar energy also has its limitations. Solar energy only works when the sun is shining, so cloudy days and nights completely reduce output. The storage systems like batteries are needed to keep power available at all times or it would not be able to be stored. The manufacturing of solar panels also requires energy and chemicals, which can create environmental waste if not handled properly (Mutiti et al., 2018). Despite these challenges, the advantages of clean energy, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and long-term sustainability are what make solar one of the best options for a greener future.

 References

Mutiti, S., Mutiti, C., Manoylov, K., VandeVoort, A., & Bennett, D. (2018). Introduction to environmental science (3rd ed.). Biological Science Open Textbooks. University System of Georgia.