In the year 2000, an international panel of eleven climate experts conducted a nine month study on the evidence of global climate change. After this period of carful consideration, the panel finally agreed that global climate change is an existing phenomenon however, whether or not the blame could be placed on human activity was a subject of a controversial nature. The argument of who is to blame for global warming is on going and in all likeliness will continue until the opportunity to make a change and reverse it has passed.
The warmest years on record have occurred since 1998 with the warmest being 2005. Because of this rise in global temperature, Glaciers worldwide lost an average of about 5 feet of ice in 2006, compared to just 1 foot of ice lost in 2005. Melting glaciers are a major factor in sea-level rise around the world which will result in the loss of habitable land worldwide as the seas flood some of the world’s most populous areas. The deaths of over 150, 000 people have been blamed on global climate change by the world health organization. These are just some facts that are the results of the rising temperature of our planet. Proof of these facts is an easy thing to acquire. One must simply look around because there are many effects of global warming that are a daily experience for most people.
Even with multiple sources for evidence, there are still a multitude of those nay Sayers and even those who deny that global climate change even exists. Some attempt to debunk scientific research that millions of dollars have been invested in by claiming that it is merely an attempt scare people into reducing green house gas emissions. Many skeptics agree that climate change has yet to be proven. There are claims that the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is a result of the rise in temperature not the reverse that studies are showing.
My opinion to the arguments of skeptics is that the effects of Climate change are seen everyday and to deny that it is a real occurrence is a ludicrous argument. We see the results of human activity on our planet on a daily basis and very few of these effects are of a positive nature.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Dam Decision
The question of whether or not a dam should be removed from a river system is a difficult one to answer. Dam’s have both positive and negative aspects. Although many feel that dams are both a good investment and a positive addition to the environment, some feel that the exact opposite is true. Adding a dam to a river ecosystem could generate appeal and earnings for those involved but at what cost? When a dam is introduced to an ecosystem it could completely disrupt it. Many ways in which the disruption of an ecosystem can be the result of a dam and their other negative effects will be explored in the essay that follows.
Firstly, when considering the environmental aspect of dams in river systems, the effect on other industries can not be simply passed over. On a short term scale, a drastic decrease in the population of fish in the ecosystem may not be anticipated. Not only would the restriction of water flow result in flooding, the fish ramps that are sometimes installed simply do not suffice in assisting the fish population in swimming upstream and crossing a dam. With a decrease in the population in aquatic life, the aquaculture industry’s profit margin would experience radical abatement.
Secondly, dams can result in a serious reduction in economics. Not only can the cost of a dam achieve upwards of one hundred and sixty-five million dollars (the Hoover Dam, constructed in march of 1931), but this water could be put to better use and benefit a great number of the world’s population. The momentum that is brought to a stand still by an enormous wall of steel and concrete could be used in the generation of hydroelectricity. While some dams do generate large amounts of money, others can lead tax payers into debt after funding one. The risk of putting everyone within close proximity to a dam in hopes of earning a profit is simply too great.
Finally, the aesthetic values of adding a dam to an ecosystem are simply nonexistent. Although the view from the top of a dam could be potentially breathtaking, the enormous wall of steel and concrete would be nothing more than an eye sore for those who are unfortunate enough to have to experience it. An example of a long term effect of a dam in relation to aesthetics is the potential negative effects on the surrounding vegetation. Not all plant life would survive under the new conditions and thus the beauty of much of these plants would be lost to the area.
In conclusion, the addition of a dam to a river ecosystem can have some positive results. However, the small amounts of positive aspects are drastically outweighed by the negatives. On a multitude of levels including environmental, economics, and aesthetics, the truth that introducing a dam to a river ecosystem has no value when considering the consequences, simply cannot be ignored.
Firstly, when considering the environmental aspect of dams in river systems, the effect on other industries can not be simply passed over. On a short term scale, a drastic decrease in the population of fish in the ecosystem may not be anticipated. Not only would the restriction of water flow result in flooding, the fish ramps that are sometimes installed simply do not suffice in assisting the fish population in swimming upstream and crossing a dam. With a decrease in the population in aquatic life, the aquaculture industry’s profit margin would experience radical abatement.
Secondly, dams can result in a serious reduction in economics. Not only can the cost of a dam achieve upwards of one hundred and sixty-five million dollars (the Hoover Dam, constructed in march of 1931), but this water could be put to better use and benefit a great number of the world’s population. The momentum that is brought to a stand still by an enormous wall of steel and concrete could be used in the generation of hydroelectricity. While some dams do generate large amounts of money, others can lead tax payers into debt after funding one. The risk of putting everyone within close proximity to a dam in hopes of earning a profit is simply too great.
Finally, the aesthetic values of adding a dam to an ecosystem are simply nonexistent. Although the view from the top of a dam could be potentially breathtaking, the enormous wall of steel and concrete would be nothing more than an eye sore for those who are unfortunate enough to have to experience it. An example of a long term effect of a dam in relation to aesthetics is the potential negative effects on the surrounding vegetation. Not all plant life would survive under the new conditions and thus the beauty of much of these plants would be lost to the area.
In conclusion, the addition of a dam to a river ecosystem can have some positive results. However, the small amounts of positive aspects are drastically outweighed by the negatives. On a multitude of levels including environmental, economics, and aesthetics, the truth that introducing a dam to a river ecosystem has no value when considering the consequences, simply cannot be ignored.
Arial Wolf Hunting
Arial Wolf Hunting
Imagine that you are out for a hike in the snowy planes of Alaska, looking for a safe place to sleep or something to eat. A buzzing far off in the distance begins and grows louder and louder. Not knowing what this noise could be, you choose to get away from it fast because hanging around is not worth risking your life. Turning to run you feel the first pellet pierce your snowy white coat. Whether you escape your attackers or not, survival is unlikely with an injury like this. Your life is over because some human thought you would look appealing mounted on his wall. You have become one of many victims of Alaskan Arial wolf hunting. Throughout Alaska, hundreds of wolves are killed each year. Brutally gunned down by people who fly over their heads in planes and either tire them out and land for an assault, or save the fuel and simply fire buck shots from their side door and take them one small piece at a time. The purpose of the following essay is to educate the reader about this cruel and disgusting sport and why it should be outlawed.
The mass slaughter of Alaskan wolves will not only cause the population to decrease greatly but also to allow the species that they prey on to become overpopulated. For example, some of the main food sources for Alaskan wolves are ungulates which are animals like moose, elk, and deer. If the population of these types of animals were allowed to increase at a large rate there would be little food or habitat for them and eventually they could look for refuge in areas populated by humans.
With the rise of ungulate species, there would also be a drop in vegetation in some areas because more plants would be consumed by these species. The decrease of vegetation in an area like Alaska that already has very little plant life to begin with due to its frigid climate, would lead to a lack of oxygen being created by photosynthesis. The lack of oxygen would have a negative impact, not only on the environment, but on the population of other species in the region.
Alaska is home to a large quantity of the world’s wolf population. It is also therefore an area in which the study of their behavior takes place. If there are fewer wolves in Alaska, they would be harder to find hence the observation of this species would diminish. Knowing about our world and all of its inhabitants is very important. The lack of study one any of these species would be a serious blow to the advancement of the human race.
In conclusion, Alaskan Arial wolf hunting is not only a cruel, unethical and immoral form of recreation, but it also has many negative effects on the environment, the population of other species in the region and scientific study that would otherwise benefit our understanding of our world. The question of whether or not this “sport” should be considered unlawful should not exist. The execution of the Alaskan wolf must be stopped before the negative potential it could cause takes its full effect.
Imagine that you are out for a hike in the snowy planes of Alaska, looking for a safe place to sleep or something to eat. A buzzing far off in the distance begins and grows louder and louder. Not knowing what this noise could be, you choose to get away from it fast because hanging around is not worth risking your life. Turning to run you feel the first pellet pierce your snowy white coat. Whether you escape your attackers or not, survival is unlikely with an injury like this. Your life is over because some human thought you would look appealing mounted on his wall. You have become one of many victims of Alaskan Arial wolf hunting. Throughout Alaska, hundreds of wolves are killed each year. Brutally gunned down by people who fly over their heads in planes and either tire them out and land for an assault, or save the fuel and simply fire buck shots from their side door and take them one small piece at a time. The purpose of the following essay is to educate the reader about this cruel and disgusting sport and why it should be outlawed.
The mass slaughter of Alaskan wolves will not only cause the population to decrease greatly but also to allow the species that they prey on to become overpopulated. For example, some of the main food sources for Alaskan wolves are ungulates which are animals like moose, elk, and deer. If the population of these types of animals were allowed to increase at a large rate there would be little food or habitat for them and eventually they could look for refuge in areas populated by humans.
With the rise of ungulate species, there would also be a drop in vegetation in some areas because more plants would be consumed by these species. The decrease of vegetation in an area like Alaska that already has very little plant life to begin with due to its frigid climate, would lead to a lack of oxygen being created by photosynthesis. The lack of oxygen would have a negative impact, not only on the environment, but on the population of other species in the region.
Alaska is home to a large quantity of the world’s wolf population. It is also therefore an area in which the study of their behavior takes place. If there are fewer wolves in Alaska, they would be harder to find hence the observation of this species would diminish. Knowing about our world and all of its inhabitants is very important. The lack of study one any of these species would be a serious blow to the advancement of the human race.
In conclusion, Alaskan Arial wolf hunting is not only a cruel, unethical and immoral form of recreation, but it also has many negative effects on the environment, the population of other species in the region and scientific study that would otherwise benefit our understanding of our world. The question of whether or not this “sport” should be considered unlawful should not exist. The execution of the Alaskan wolf must be stopped before the negative potential it could cause takes its full effect.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
