Scientific topics tend to dominate the discussions of long
range pollution so I thought I would divulge away from this for a week and
focus purely on the use of spray aerosols deodorants. Deodorant is part of everyone’s morning routine (or so I would
hope!) but I doubt many of us consider the environmental impacts associated
with the product.
The canned deodorants use aerosols (such as Nitrous oxides) to propel the product out of the can. Previously, CFCs were used but after the negative effects (depleting ozone) were established, companies moved to aerosols thinking they were a better alternative... I have touched upon both the direct
and indirect
impacts of aerosols in the Arctic now and can conclude they are having a series
of negative effects on the Arctic’s climate. Switching from spray deodorant could be just one of the things YOU could do to reduce aerosol emissions.
Implementing change
As with any environmental policy there are debates to who
should be responsible for implementing change. One option is encouraging a
bottom up approach and ‘leave it to the people’. Dryzek (2012)* argues people
need to give up cherished ideas to project the environment and us as individuals
need to make conscious decisions to become more environmentally aware.
However in order for this to be successful you would need to
change a series of social practices which are embedded
in daily our routines. An example of this is the use of spray deodorants. There
are several reasons why this may be difficult, creating what is referred to as
the value
action gap. Firstly many people would struggle to conceptualize the idea
that spray cans could be causing warming in the Arctic, this removes the motivation
to change. Secondly, many individuals dismiss that changing a small aspect of
their daily routine may be able to make a difference; many believe a single
persons actions will not be able to combat such large scale problems.
 |
| Ironic eh? But i thought this image demonstrated the issue of the Value Action Gap pretty well... why are our intentions so different from our actions? |
Despite being an interesting topic, the impacts of spray
cans cannot be compared to the large influx of aerosols from other sources. Aerosols
can originate from a range of sources including smoke produced by tropical
forest fire and burning of fossil fuels. Production of aerosols is concentrated
in the northern hemisphere, mirroring extensive industrial activity. Rhan
(1980) argues aerosols found within the Arctic are primarily from Eurasia,
with small proportions also from North America and Eastern Asia. Now I know
this reference is old, but this just illustrates aerosol pollution is a long
standing problem which still remains today. Fisher
et al. (2011) supports this by also stating large volumes of aerosols “from
East Asian and European anthropogenic sources… growing contribution from North
America”. However, since this reference was written, aerosol production in Asia
and Europe
began to decline following the introduction of clean
air policies.
Remember...It is important to note I am looking at aerosols as a whole
in this post, varying types (sulphates
and black carbon for example) all have individual sources. For example large
volumes of black carbon is produced from burning boreal
forests; however in relation to the total amount of aerosols in the Arctic
this volume
is minor.
So the question still stands… Would you stop using deoderant to save the Arctic? (Comment and let me know!)
*Dryzek, J.S. 2012. The Politics of the Earth, Oxford University Press, Oxford
I guess I've never really thought about spray cans and stuff affecting places like the Arctic! I don't actually use spray deoderant anymore, I use roll-on! I think if the impact of aerosols were more mainstream and well-known then many people would limit their uses, if alternatives existed.
ReplyDeleteChanging social norms is definitely something that takes a long time and lots of marketing, advertising, word-of-mouth, political influence, and alternative options. I think people struggle to see their own actions impacting somewhere far away like the Arctic. However melting ice in the Arctic, for example, has additional impacts such as altering ocean circulation patterns which would directly affect those of us in the UK and Western Europe if the Gulf Stream shuts off.
Agree with you there Katy. But sadly although it doesn't have the propellant, roll-on is still packed with smog creating VOCs... They're what permits the deodorant to dry so quickly when applied; by their nature they rapidly evaporate into the atmosphere when applied; good for quick drying pits but not so much for air quality!
ReplyDeleteI'm very impressed with your knowledge of deodorants, Rob! I had no idea roll-on was just as bad. What do you think can be done about the air quality issue, is there another alternative to the chemicals used currently in deodorants?
DeleteWow Rob! Didn't know you were such an expert on the topic! I have had a little google and found out that stick deodorant is better than roll on but one guy suggested not wearing deodorant at all (?!?) and using doing these three things instead:
Delete1. Take a shower including scrubbing your armpits daily.
2. Wear a clean undershirt everyday.
3. Swab the hair in your armpits with some 70% isopropyl alcohol on a folded square of toilet tissue daily at first and occasionally once the odor problem is under control.
I guess it just depends how far you are going to go to save the Arctic!
I think a key aspect is the social change and perception. As you are not directly in the Arctic and spraying aerosols, you do not perceive that it has an influence. I disagree with Dryzek (2012) in this instance, as a top down approach of a total ban of aerosols would probably be more effective - I personally would not understand how or think that I could have any impact on the Arctic from spraying deodorant in my room.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you here Louis as i feel many companies will not change until change comes from the top BUT currently this isn't in place and I am unsure when it will? when people start to establish aerosols as having negative climatic effects? In the mean time I believe this bottom up process of people making conscious decisions of how they can change their lifestyles to benefit the environment and this is just one way to do this! Currently bottom up is the best alternative to carrying on as usual.
DeleteThe alternative to both a bottom up or a top down approach is technological innovation. Here is a great product that uses inert gases as propellants as opposed to air, oxygen or LPG (http://www.salvalco.com/). They describe it as an environmentally friendly aerosol!
Delete