AP Environmental Science

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