AP Environmental Science

According to new research, the fish and seafood population will collapse by 2048. The marine biodiversity is significantly decreaseing with 29% of marine species already in collapse. The collapse that is estimated for 2048 would effect all marine species, including ocean mammals.

Photo Credit: www.wikipedia.com

Why exactly is a collapsing marine biodiversity important? Well, for starters the ocean would be less able to deal with global climate change, pollution and over-explotation, amoungst other major issues. Plus, seafood would no longer be a part of the human diet. The populations would be gone, thus no seafood to eat for us. There being no seafood for us to eat would also hurt the economy. People would loss out on jobs, which translates into losing out on money.

The population is decreasing due to over-fishing and the ruining of the oceans. Marine-life reserves and no fishing zones should be put in place to help prevent the collapse of marine biodivresity.

   A No Fishing Zone                               

Photo credit: http://www.montereybay.noaa.gov/new/news/italia/asinara.html

Something needs to be done quickly about this. It not only effects wildlife, but it also affects humans. Not only the quality of life for humans is affected (not being able to enjoy seafood), but also what humans do for jobs to support themselves and their families. The oceans being less able to handle major changes also would place a burden on humans. If the oceans cannot support the changes of global warming, etc. something is going to have to change. People are going to have to be more consciencious of what they are doing, i.e. driving a SUV, etc.

Information from: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11584   Article: Ocean Fish, Seafood Could Collapse by 2048    By: Deborah Zabarenko

It is now being thought that forest fires are not all bad. Some new research indicates that forest fires may actually reduce global warming. Previously, it was thought that forest fires would increase global warming because they released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

                                         Photo Credit: www.wikipedia.com

The fires burn down the trees in the forests, affecting the amount of shading of the ground. More sunlight is reflected back into space for numerous decades after the fire has occured.

The new research shows that the greenhouse gases emitted from the fire and the cooling effect do make a significant difference in global warming because, in effect, they cancel each other out when averaged globally.  However, fires in the northern regions may result in cooler temperatures.

Some people are sceptical because this data is only from 1 fire, the Donnelly Flats fire in central Alaska. This fire burned approximately 16,500 acres in 1999. Some of the tests included were: measurements of incoming & outgoing radiation, carbon dioxide being absorbed or emmitted by plants,  and wind speed. Some similiar measurements were taken from surrounding land that had been burned by fires in 1987 and in 1920.

With these fires, new trees had to replace the old ones. The newer trees took in more carbon dioxide, resulting in less global warming. It took more than 80 years before the old type of trees took over again.

I don’t really know which side to believe. It makes sense that greenhouse gases and the cooler temperatures would cancel each other out; however, only one place was really studied. I think that it might take a couple more studies before people start to believe this. Plus, I think that more climates and different types of forests need to be studied.

Information from: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11681  Article: Forest Fires May Actually Cool Climate  By: Randolph E. Schmid

A fence in India that was put up about 3 years ago between the India - Pakistan border is now having some major impacts on the wildlife in the surrounding area. This  fencing was put up to stop “guerrilla activity linked to a separatist revolt.” The fence is about 8 feet high and stretches for about 460 miles in the region, dividing Kashmir.

This fence is not allowing for the free movement that the leopards and the black bears in the area are used to. They are now moving into villages and killing people. They are dragging people from their houses and mauling them.  At least 12 people have been killed by the wild animals. 5 of those 12 were killed last month and numerous others have been injured.

Photo credit: www.wikipedia.com

The number of bear and leopard populations have been increasing since a ban on hunting them was put in place in 1970; however, the number of pine forests have been decreasing, leaving the wild animals no where to go. There are approximately 8,000 leopards in India. The number of leopards in Kashmir is not known, along with the number of black bears in both places.

Control rooms are being set up and the authorities are educating the local people, cautioning them about the issue.

In approximately the last 10 months, six bears and leopards have been killed by villagers and authorities together.

I understand the concern about the militant groups crossing the border, but I think that a new solution needs to be developed. It is not fair that the wildlife in the area is suffering. Plus not only is the wildlife suffering by not being able to move freely and by being killed, but the people are being hurt. They are being seriously injured and even killed. Another solution needs to be found.

Information from: http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11708  Article: Fenced in, Kashmir’s Leopards, Bears Stalk Villages   By:Ashok Pahalwan

In the proposed budget files, FY07, President Bush is suggesting that the United States sell off land to raise money for the national treasury. The land planned to be sold: 800,000 acres of National Forest and Bureau of Land Management lands.

According to The President’s Billion Dollar Public Land Sell Off Scheme, “The President’s budget proposal is part of a troubling trend to sell off American natural heritage.” Who mostly opposes this? Everyone from western conservationists to businesses and hunters & anglers to Democratic AND Republican Senators.

The Facts

• 32 states would be affected
• California would have thee most land up for sale with 85,000 acres
• How much money? From BLM Land (approx. 500,000 acres) - $182 million over 5 years, $351 million over 10 years
• Places up for grabs would include: 730 acres of Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in both Oregon and Washington, 1300 acres in Washington close to Sultan’s Canyon.

Map of Columbia River Gorge

I think that it is a ridiculous plan to sell of land that belongs to the United States, even if we do need money (which I am not sure if we do). What if the people that end up buying the land decide to tear down the trees or do something drastic like that. Then ecosysystems would be ruined and wiped out. At least if they are going to sell it, there should be a clause in the document. These places that are being planned to be sold off provide fun for residents of the communities, but also for visitors. This should not be done.

The President’s Billion Dollar Public Land Sell Off Scheme            Information From: http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/notforsale/  Picture From: www.wikipedia.org

Mohave Generating Station, coal power plant in Nevada

The Environmental Protection Agency required coal-fired power plants to reduce mercury pollution earlier in 2006. Many individual states disagreed with this rule and watned the standards to be set highere.  About 12 states have increased the requirements for coal-fired power plants.

One of the states, Michigan, is going to require that plants “to cut 90 percent of mercury emissions by 2015.”

Is it really possible? Yes. In fact, 1 power plant, We Engeries, has already began reducin as much as 90% of its mercury from its emissions. “It is the first in the country to permanently install the necessary equipment.”

Althouh We Engeries in Michigan is doing this, pollution controls will not be needed to be installed accross the US for mayny years to come.

However, some argue that decreasing the mercury emissions from coal-fired plants will not necessarily decrease mercury in the State’s fish.

 I think that is worth a try and even if it doesn’t decrease mercury in the fish, it would probably still help the environment. Plus it might. We won’t know until we try.

States Toughen Federal Mercury Pollution Rules    By: Elizabeth Shorgren Information from: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6444174  Picture from: www.wikipedia.org

I never really thought that global warming would hit the US, but after reading CLIMATE CHANGE IN S.F.: Local Solutions, Local Impacts my view has been changed. A recent plan that has een developed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors covers ways to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. The goal: to decrease greenhouse gas pollution to 20% below the 1990 levels by 2012.

San Francisco and northern San Mateo County

Ways to get the word out:

1. Future Sea Level Project: the people of San Francisco get together to discuss solutions to global warming                                                                       

2. San Francisco Department of Environment- “staff is also available to speak at any San Francisco community or business organization about solutions to climate change.”

Individual Involvement:

1. Have the right car- No, I am not talking about a Mercedes or a BMW. I am talking about cars with properly inflated tires burn less gasoline. What does this mean? Less money spend on gas, plus you are helping the environment. OR there is alwasy the option of walking, riding a bike, taking public transportation, or carpooling.

2. Write the leaders to encourage them to increase fuel economy standards to at least 40 miles/gallon. What exactly would this do? 4 million barrels of oil would be saved each day. To put this in perspective, this is “more than we currently import from the Persian Gulf and could ever extract from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge combined.”

3. Encourage wind and solar power, renewable energy sources, which will “reduce our reliance on coal-burning power plants, the largerst source of global warming in the United States.”

4. Change normal lightbulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs. They both produce the same amount of light. The fluorescent bulb uses only a quarter of the electricity and lasts 10 times longer.

One type of compact fluorescent light bulbs

5. Lower your thermostat. You should not be cold if before you cualk and use weather-strips along doorways and windows.

6. Low-flow shower heads and faucets will decrease water used by half. You will also save as muh as 50% on your elecctrical bill if you turn your hot water heater down to 120 degrees F.

7. Replace old electronics and appliances with energy-efficient models.

8. Plant trees in your own yard to reduce Carbon Dioxide.

9. Recylce and Buy Recycled. Recycled materials are made with 70-90 percent less energy and pollution as non-recycled new products.

10. Include your community and encourage them to do what is listed above.

Impacts of Global Warming:

It is predicted that the California temperature will increase between 3-10.5 degrees F by the end of the century. Why is there such a broad spectrum? Varying amounts of what action people have done to decrease global warming. Along with the 10.5 degree increase, a possible 3 feet of water would rise the sea level by the end of the century. $48 billion in property damage would most likely accompany it if there was a  3.3 feet rise of sea level in San Francisco.

This article listed some really good suggestions. It is a major problem. I really liked the idea of writing leaders to encourage them to raise the fuel efficiency level to 40 miles/gallon. It would make us less dependent on foreign oil and it would illiviate some of the global warming that is going on.

Information from:   http://www.futuresealevel.org/solutions.asp    http://www.futuresealevel.org/sf.asp Pictures from: www.wikipedia.org