http://www.twotomorrows.com/issues/biodiversity/

BIODIVERSITY

Summary:

Biodiversity is the variety of species in a given environment. The bio diversity on earth is becoming a crisis. As human demands increase with population the environment is being altered. If we ignore this then the food chain could be disrupted ending with us not having enough food. Along with more species becoming extinct. The first way you can help is by realizing there is an issue in the first place. Then trying to conserve the environment and it's natural resources.

Questions:

1. Do you believe this is true ? why or why not?
2. What are other ways to help biodiversity?
3. WHy is biodiversity important?

Opinion:

I believe we should try and help conserve natural resources and the environment. If we ignored the need for biodiversity then we would just continue to put ourselves in danger.

Carbon Taxes?

Poll: Greenhouse gas regulation favored over carbon taxes

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/281743-poll-americans-favor-greenhouse-gas-regulation-over-carbon-taxes

 

Image: This image of protestors shows the debate between the taxation of carbon use and the regulation of greenhouse gases in our country. As is shown in the image, many people prefer not to pay more for their energy use, but to rather use less energy in the first place.

Summary: A recent poll run by Duke University shows that most U.S. citizens prefer a federal regulation on greenhouse gas emissions over taxation on carbon emissions. As environmental groups demand tougher climate policies from the White House, the climate bills are in the hands of Congress. The poll found that over 60% of Americans support regulation on greenhouse gas emissions from factories, automobiles, and power plants, while less than 30% support a rise in taxes on the use of fossils fuels that would be meant as an endeavour to enhance use of alternative energy. Support for this regulation rose when the possibility of a tax rebate would be offered to residents. The Obama Administration has already made several moves when it comes to auto mileage standards and carbon emission standards for power plants. However, environmentalists are still pushing for tougher standards on carbon emissions. The Duke poll also shows that only half of Americans acknowledge a change in the climate, while 34% say that a global climate change is “probably” occurring.

Opinion/Reflection: I find it funny how Americans agree that they’re need to be stronger regulations on carbon emissions, yet once we try to limit this greenhouse gas by proposing higher taxation, residents get all defensive, as if they don’t want to regulate their own carbon emissions. It is mainly everyday human activity, such as driving cars and using fossil fuels for energy that creates this problem when it comes to carbon emission in the first place. I feel that there should be higher taxation when it comes to carbon emissions, because that will force Americans to rely on alternative energy source that will be healthier for the environment.

Questions:

1.)    If Americans want regulation on greenhouse gases, then why wouldn’t they want to start by regulating their own emissions?

2.)    If there were a higher taxation for U.S. residents, would the emission of carbon possibly decrease, or would people just continue to pay to use their resources?

3.)    If carbon emissions were regulated, what would be the strongest, healthiest energy alternative after?

Title: Klondike, Puppy Born from a Frozen Embryo, Fetches Good News for Endangered Animals

Author: no author was posted

Publication: Science Daily                                  

Date: February 5, 2013

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130205101153.htm
Picture Link: http://www.dddbeagles.com/images/largetilly.JPG

  

This picture shows a pregnant beagle much like what Klondikes mother would have looked like.

Summary:

     This article began with introducing Klondike, a now nine month old eagle-Labrador retriever mix that was conceived using artificial insemination. Artificial insemination is when sperm cells and eggs are joined together in a less traditional manner to form an embryo. It is then inserted into a surrogate. This reproductive technology is intended to be used on endangered species, with the hope to scientifically produce animals that are on the verge of extinction. Due to varying times that an animal is able to produce the embryos made are able to be frozen. This is also known as cryopreservation. This is another step so that scientist can aid in reproduction of animals in order to preserve genetic diversity of endangered species. 

Opinion/Reflection:

  I personally believe that artificial insemination should not be permitted. It is cruel taking animals out of their natural habitat and forcing them to hold another animal’s young. What if an animal surrogate does not want to be pregnant, and a scientist forces them to be? The world got alone fine without this advancement in science. It is my hope this scientist allow animals to breed traditional way. This is also done with humans. Couples who are having trouble getting pregnant can find someone else to hold their baby, while still having the other two parents DNA.

Questions:
   Do you think the artificial insemination is ethical? Explain.

  How do you think that this will improve biodiversity, and lower the extinction rate? 

 How could doing this affect other species? How could it affect (benefit/harm) humans?

All About: Developing cities and Pollution

March 09, 2008|Rachel Oliver for CNN

If you fix the cities, do you fix the problem? With 50 percent of the entire human race currently living in cities and responsible for emitting up to 80 percent of all global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions every year, they certainly don't seem a bad place to start.

The Tyndall Centrer for Climate Change Research says "the fate of the Earth's climate" basically hinges on what we do with our cities from now on. But the fate of the world's cities largely hinge on what the developing world decides to do with their own growing metropolises in the next 20 years.

According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), urban populations in the developing world are growing at 3.5 percent per year, compared to less than 1 percent growth rates in developed world cities.

UN-Habitat says that a staggering 95 percent of the expected global population growth we will see over the next 2 decades will be absorbed by cities in the developing world.

What that means is by 2030 another 2 billion people from the developing world will be living in cities (only 100 million from the developed world meanwhile will be doing the same). Currently 75 percent of world's poorest people -- 1 billion -- live in cities.

Higher density, lower standards

Whether the new wave of migrants will find a better life in cities remains to be seen. More than 70 percent of city dwellers in the developing world (that's around 900 million people) live in slum-like conditions, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

And that number is predicted to more than double to reach 2 billion slum-dwellers by 2020.

The health risks for people living in slum-like conditions will come from every corner and will include increased mortality rates from heat waves; higher risk of exposure to flash floods, mudslides and landfalls; and more frequent exposure to waterborne and infectious diseases (notably dengue fever).

When it comes to poor cities, bigger is by no means always better. According to UN Habitat, the mega-cities of the future, (those with more than 10 million residents) will be "giant potential flood and disaster traps" if insufficient action is taken on behalf of their residents.

Already, 75 percent of the world's 21 mega-cities are based in the developing world, and by some estimates, 27 of the 33 mega-cities expected to exist by 2015 will be in developing countries.

Reflection and Opinion:

       This article written by Rachel Oliver about overpopulation and the effects it will have over time was very informative. I was also unaware that all 21 mega cities hold seventy percent of the world's city dwellers that live in slum-like conditions. All of these people are prone to disease and increase the worlds mortality rate. These people are living in "giant potential flood and disaster traps." They are also emitting up to eighty percent of the earth's carbon dioxide each year. If more people were to move out of these mega cities and into more rural areas, it would make a surprisingly significant difference.

Questions:

1) Why do you think this major concern is not brought to closer attention?

2) How does that last sentence impact you personally? Why?

3) Do you agree that in this case, bigger is not better when it comes to mega cities?

4) Were you aware of the effect these cities and living conditions have on our Earth?

Going Vegetarian- Maing It Easier to Go Green

Article Title: Are Cows Worse Than Cars?

Author: Ben Adler

Publication Date:December 2008

Link: http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-clean-copy?id=SPL2298H-0-3548&type=ART&artno=0000289301&key=vegetarianism%20and%20the%20environment&shfilter=U  

                                Summary:

PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

Lately the topics of global warming and “going green” have been receiving much attention. However, one simple way to help the environment is consistently overlooked. That simple action is consuming less meat, especially beef, or even going vegetarian. The result would be a smaller carbon-footprint for those who make the dietary change.  Taking into account all the energy that goes into raising livestock, transporting it, and the energy that goes into the feed, farming livestock is overwhelmingly more “energy-intensive” that farming plants. Not only does deforestation to make room for livestock farming wipe out massive amounts of trees that absorb carbon dioxide, but burning this foliage released greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere that assist in global warming. Animals, such as cattle, emit gasses that are 30 times more damaging to our environment than carbon dioxide. The upsetting piece of the story is that the easy solution of eating less or absolutely no meat is completely ignored. Environmentalist organizations are afraid of the retaliation they would receive form the American people, especially farmers.

  

 Opinion/Reflection:

I am very surprised about just how bad livestock such as cattle are for the environment. I have heard before that eating vegetarian is healthier and may be better for the environment; however I had no idea the impact consuming beef had on the environment. It is very sad how timid the government and environmentalist organizations are being about this issue because global warming is so terrible and eating less meat is such an easy way to help prevent global warming. I hope someday this is taken more seriously and action is taken. Although it would be difficult to make the switch, I am open to gradual change, as long as I can have an occasional cheeseburger.  

Questions:

1.     Why do you think this simple action is not brought to attention on a larger scale?

2.    How would you function if there was a limit to meat consumption?

3.    What toll could decreasing or eliminating livestock farming have on the economy? Any positive repercussions?

4.    How else is going vegetarian (or eating significantly less meat) good for the environment? Personal health?