As reported by the Guardian on February 3, 2016
The Danish state-backed energy utility, Dong Energy, announced plans to build the world's largest wind farm, off the Yorkshire coast of the United Kingdom. Such a windfarm is expected to supply energy to around one million homes in the area and be a significant addition to offshore energy in the UK, which is already the world leader in the field. The approval of the plan by the British government is also good for three other large projects around the British coast: Neart na Gaoithe and Beatrice One in Scotland, and East Anglia One. The Guardian Article: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/03/worlds-largest-offshore-windfarm-to-be-built-off-yorkshire-coast As reported by the Washington Post on February 3, 2016, the Zika Virus, currently carving a path through the Americas and causing the birth defect microcephaly, is likely exacerbated by human activities in Brazil, Latin America, and around the world.
Urbanization and the subsequent waste that covers the landscape provides a perfect breeding ground because of collected standing water. The building of dams, especially unreliable dams that cause greater flooding, allow for even more places to breed for the Aedes aegypti mosquito. Deforestation brings humans and animals together, enabling quicker and easier transmission of diseases. Finally, global warming means the global environment is becoming better suited to the Aedes aegypti, who thrive in warmer climates. Based off this information, it is clear that the Zika virus is not something that Brazil or even mosquitoes should be blamed for, but we all should be blamed for. These human activities are things in which we are all culprits. Washington Post Article - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/03/the-hidden-environmental-factors-behind-the-spread-of-zika-and-other-deadly-diseases/ China, the "Middle Kingdom" and one of the oldest civilizations on Earth, has seemed unconquerable for much of its history. The only people ever to conquer the Chinese were horsemen from the Asian steppe: the Xiongnu, the Mongols, the Manchu. Yet today there is no horsemen tribe in Asia to conquer China, yet one threat still exists. The Third Horseman of the Book of Revelations, Pestilence, holds China's capital Beijing in the palm of his hand.
As Bloomberg reports, the seat of the People's Republic has already experienced reports of toxic haze and advisories to stay indoors. Though the haze disappeared recently, it's reported to return in only a few days. The Chinese government blames the smog on the country's many cars and the weather, but activists and scientists disagree. The country's Energy Research Institute implicates the small coal furnaces that litter the northern half of China. These furnaces and the larger power plants that fill much of China's energy needs are also under attack from the international community in terms of the country's greenhouse gas emissions. If anything, the consensus is that Chinese pollution is not just harming the environment but is now directly harming the Chinese people. Thus, the Chinese government, in reducing pollution, has the chance to hit two birds with one stone. Growing up in California, it seemed to me California is unique in just how many people were living in what was basically a desert. Places like Los Angeles, Bakersfield, and Modesto really shouldn't exist and only do because of huge reservoirs and irrigation systems. As it turns out however, California isn't alone in this unusual characteristic, however.
As reported by National Geographic, a new study out of Columbia University's Earth Institute has used climate models to predict changes in rainfall and snowpack in the northern hemisphere over the next century. Including areas like the American West, the Middle East, Central Asia, and southern Europe, the scientists concluded that there is a global 67% risk of less water available from snowpack by 2060; however, certain areas, including California are worse off than others. Additionally, the team did not account for rising populations and water demands as well as the ecological needs of river basins, thus we can expect these to be the most conservative estimates. First off, the reason Mankin and his team looked at snowpack is that snow, unlike rain, creates a more long-term and positive effect on water supply. While yes rain can be captured in aquifer, lakes, and reservoirs, only some of it can. If snow falls instead, it often gathers into snowpacks from which it melts slowly, trickling down a more steady supply of water. Now, the regions identified as having that California dream of water susceptibility are as follows: the California Central Valley, the Colorado River Basin, the Rio Grande Basin, the Indo-Gangetic Plains, Southern Europe and North Africa, and the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean. In the California Central Valley, with the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, 95% of the team's trials resulted in snowmelt falling short of demand. This will impact over 11 million people already suffering from California's worst drought in recorded history. In the Colorado River Basin, another 11 million people are at risk with a decline in snowmelt in 74 percent of trials. Further to the east, in the Rio Grande Basin on the border of Mexico, 16 million are experiencing the same risk as in California. Outside of North America and with a significantly greater population, the river basins of the Indus and the Ganges are home to 966 million people and have snowpack declines probability of 37 percent and 63 percent, respectively. In the western Mediterranean with numerous river basins like the Ebro-Duero basin in Iberia, there is again a 95 percent probability of decreased snowpack. Likewise, in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East, the same probability is seen. This region has some impacts already seen, with reduced water supply a possible cause of the recent conflict in Syria. Ultimately, this new study shows a need for humanity as a whole, and not just specific nations, to begin rethinking the way we use water or, rather, the way we view it entirely. Beginning in the 15th and 16th centuries, soon after the rediscovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus, Europeans came to the realization that the best place for cod fishing was off the coast of the new found land of Newfoundland, in a region called the Grand Banks. Early explorer John Cabot noted in 1497 that "the sea there is full of fish that can be taken not only with nets but with fishing-baskets." Now, over five centuries since John Cabot made this observation, Cabot must be corrected. The sea was full of fish. After World War II, the Grand Banks entered into a period of factory farming that tripled the production of the cod lode, but would also go on to doom it. Beginning in the late 1960s, the overfishing of the region caused a severe dropoff in the region's cod production. By 1992, the biomass of Northern Cod had fallen to 1% of previous levels, posing a risk of total destruction of the cod stocks in the region. Because of this, the Canadian government instituted a moratorium on cod fishing and placed substantial controls on fishing in the region.
The plight of the North Atlantic cod is a sad one and there is no doubt that humans are to blame. But new evidence has come out showing the region's cod were faced with not just human fishermen, but human climate change. As reported by the Washington Post, a new study has found evidence of a causation link between the warming of the waters off Newfoundland, which between 2004 and 2013 warmed by .23 degrees Celsius per year, and the decline of fishing stock. The warming temperatures were harmful to the development of larval and juvenile cod, though the exact relationship is unknown. Thus, the warming temperatures reduced the size of the adult cod population in the region after a short delay and already high fishing quotas that ignored the impact of global warming caused the ultimate downfall of the cod in the area. What's more interesting is how this effect is interconnected with developments around the world and even in the same region. Specifically in the Atlantic, the warming of the ocean has caused both the northward movement of the warmer and saltier Gulf Stream as well as the slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. This changing of water circulation in the Atlantic has caused some regions, like the Grand Banks, to become substantially warmer and some, like the waters south of Greenland and Iceland, to become substantially colder. These temperature changes caused huge changes to the region's environment, like the destruction of cod stock as well as the introduction and thriving of lobster in the Grand Banks, and sends a message to humanity that we not only need to solve global warming, but we need to adapt to many of its changes quickly and hugely. The end of North Atlantic cod is a sign of things to come in fisheries around the world as warming shifts ocean currents and changes the abiotic environment these fish live in. When it comes to climate change, one of the most talked-about impacts is the loss of coral reefs, some of the most productive and visually striking ecosystems in the world. The loss of the coral causes a domino effect throughout the ecosystem the coral maintains through its status as a foundation species. This biological crisis has a human impact as well, though, as the Christian Science Monitor explains, "If the reefs vanished, experts say, hunger, poverty and political instability could ensue." Ultimately, the loss of these coral reefs represents a huge danger to every facet of society.
The mechanism through which coral reefs are primarily lost is through coral bleaching, the rejection of symbiotic microorganisms that give coral its color and are necessary for its survival. The loss of these microorganisms leads to a loss of the coral's pigmentation, thus the effect has the name of coral bleaching. Previously, scientists have identified a host of possible causes for coral bleaching: ocean acidification, El Nino, increased global temperatures, spreading of infectious disease, and even The Blob, an anomalous mass of warm water in the Pacific. Now, they have another cause to add to the list. As reported by TIME, researchers publishing in the journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology have identified the 4,000 to 6,000 tons of sunscreen that enters coral ecosystems as being a component of recent coral bleaching. A specific chemical, oxybenzone, has the effect of endocrine disruption, DNA damage, DNA damage, and of course, the exacerbation of coral bleaching. Like I said earlier, 4,000 to 6,000 tons of sunscreen enter coral reefs worldwide. This might not sound like a lot (and compared to the ocean it isn't) but oxybenzone does not need to have a high concentration to have an impact. The study found that oxybenzone toxicity occurs at a concentration of only 62 parts per trillion, or the equivalent of a drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. The researchers don't entirely reject sunscreen, however, and they do provide an alternative to how everyone can help protect coral reefs. While oxybenzone sunscreen has been found to harmful to coral reefs, sunscreens with titanium or zinc oxides have not been found to be so. So if you have pale skin, take this as a lesson to stop using oxybenzone sunscreen unless you want coral to be pale as well. CSM Article: http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0326/Death-of-coral-reefs-could-devastate-nations The Blob: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean) TIME Article: http://time.com/4080985/sunscreen-coral-reefs/ Journal Article: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-015-0227-7 When talking of extinction and endangered species, one of the many species that is inevitably brought up is the African Elephant. With over 20,000 elephants being poached annually, the African Elephant is certainly threatened. But while most understand this, most also fail to understand the impact the loss of the African Elephant would have. This impact can range from the loss of tourism income to collapsed ecosystem, but just as important are the impacts we don't even know about.
In a new study, scientists have uncovered the solution to Peto's paradox, or why elephants and similar mammals have such low rates of cancer. African Elephants have been shown to have 20 copies of the gene TP53, while humans have only 1 copy. This gene does two things important to stop the growth or spread of cancerous cells: it prevents cells from dividing and it coordinates cellular death. This discovery is important to the treatment of cancer in humans by providing new avenues for gene therapy. In following the example set by the elephants, doctors can investigate the use of TP53 or TP53-mimicking drugs in treating cancer. More important than elephants and cancer, however, this discovery provides yet another example of why we need to protect the environment against biodiversity loss. If we had not begun conservation efforts with the African Elephant in the latter half of the 20th century, we might have never made this discovery that has the potential to save millions of human lives. Similarly, the loss of biodiversity in ecosystems ranging from rainforest to tundra to coral reef has the potential to preventing huge leaps in medical technology through the studying of the plants and animals that live in these ecosystems. Thus, when people argue against conservation and environmentalism by saying it costs too much to conserve, the only response necessary is that it costs too much to not conserve. Apparently not Congress. So far this year, over 80 proposals have been made to reduce the protections for endangered species as guaranteed by the Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1973. None of them have passed, but they have all been justified for reasons that are common: the act kills jobs, is a federal overreach, and in general has huge economic consequences. Thankfully, the American people disagree.
A new poll has found that 90 percent of Americans support the Endangered Species Act. Four other polls found a similar level of support on the state level: 80 percent in Colorado, 74 percent in Missouri, 75 percent in Montana, and 83 percent in Indiana. Clearly, if politicians want votes attacking the Endangered Species Act isn't the way of doing it. So why is Congress so hellbent on reducing the Act's protections? We can just look to Colorado's recent battle over an endangered species: the Gunnison Sage Grouse. The Grouse's habitat is threatened by expansion of the oil industry in the state and the bird was recently classified as a threatened species. In response, the oil industry campaigned heavily against the classification and any increased protections; they argued that the Grouse's protections would kill jobs and industry. Luckily, the Coloradan people neatly rejected them, a poll soon after the classification found 78% disagreed the ESA harmed the economy and instead felt it to be a necessary law. Despite this, the state's politicians were still divided over the issue. Sadly, the exact same situation still exists on a national level. In environmental topics today, buzzwords like "global warming" and "habitat degradation" and "biodiversity loss" are thrown around to make the point that global warming is wholly bad for everyone. As it turns out, this isn't the case. Meet the Arctic Mosquito. As researchers from Dartmouth have found, this particular species has actually been thriving as the temperatures across the world, and in the Arctic specifically, increase.
The warming of the Arctic helps to synchronize the breeding season of the mosquito with the calving season of the caribou, which gives them better access to warm bodies to feed off of. In fact, just a 2 degree change in the Arctic temperature results in a more than 50% increase in the mosquito's survival. Luckily, these mosquitoes are limited to the Arctic regions, but this may just mean that Arctic tourists will have to start worrying less about covering up for the cold and more about covering up for the bugs. |
ArchivesCategories |