Environmental Propaganda

I've used the word environment a lot throughout this blog but that's simply because it has multiple categories. From soil nutrients to mitigation, the environment is all encompassing. So, with a little knowledge, now you can make your own conclusions about what mother nature is trying to tell us. But let's not forget that a little humor is always great to lessen come tension. 

Here's some propaganda, as some may call it, about the environment. Whether it speaks to you is up to your judgment, but like always--enjoy! =)

Mitigation or Adaptation

What's better: Environmental mitigation or Adaptation? Well mitigation consists of prevention/control, compensatory measures, and remediation. What's key to mitigation is environmental monitoring, which gives an indication of whether the mitigation strategies listed above are working.

First, let's talk prevention and control. This is more of like the design of a conservation project that has favorable location (won't harm or disrupt the environment) while also specifying the operation of said practices. So a wetland for instance is a great example for prevention and control. Instead of filling yet another one for construction purposes of any type, the location of the project can be changed. Wetlands are vital to nutrient cycling, cleaning an ecosystem, and even for proper flowing of water bodies. Why are most of them filled? Great question. We always just assume that we didn't have such advanced knowledge "back then."

Second, there's compensatory measures. This course of action is used to offset adverse impacts in one area with improvements to another. It's related to preservation of species--plots of land dedicated to conservation of biodiversity and sustainability, similar to a animal reservation.

And last, there's remediation. This involves restoring the environment after the damage has already been done. So you can guess that planting trees where they were once plowed down is one example. Also, introducing crop rotation to agricultural fields can same time, money, and provide stable nutrient cycling, resulting in natural fertilizer.

Environment mitigation is simply the implementation of measures to reduce undesirable effects of a proposed action on the environment. So all the construction and wants and needs to change the environment for economic stability always has some sort of costs on our surrounding ecosystems.

Now let's get to environmental adaptation~

A touching video on Pakistani adaptation to climate change. 

Key word: flooding.

Environmental Benefits

We depend on the environment in three main ways:

#1. Direct Use-- Food
                        - Extractive products like woods, dyes, & oils
                        - Medicine: 50% of modern medicines are derived from nature
                        - Shelter
                        - Leisure activities like: Hiking, skiing, swimming, parasailing, etc...

#2. Indirect Use-- Climate regulation
                           - Nutrient cycling
                           - Photosynthesis
                           - Pollination: 1/3 of our food crops rely on pollination from bees, wind, etc...

#3. Non-use-- Existence value
                     - Grand Canyon, Great Coral Reefs, Amazon Rainforest, the moon

As you may see, we depend on the environment in so many different ways so it's vital to conserve it... or what's left of it. Sustainable use is essential to a stable existence of the human population. Well at least in my point of view.

CO2 Regulations and the EPA

An online article in Time Magazine in the Space and Science section discussed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) carbon dioxide regulation. The title of the article is "EPA's CO2 Regulation Upheld as "unambiguously correct."As of June 28, 2012 (when this article was written), the EPA was granted permission to regulate CO2 emissions, which they proved in 2009 to be a hazard to public health. There were many challengers to their proposed argument, however, after three years of a lawsuit, the court finally ruled that they were correct.

One policy called the "Tailpipe rule" limits the carbon dioxide emissions from cars and trucks. Regulations such as permits for construction and operation of industrial facilities is another regulation the EPA is in charge of. Regardless of the continual opposing arguments of whether the EPA should have this right and whether these regulations are valid and/or beneficial, they still regulate the emissions of CO2.

Opposers reason that our economy and jobs will suffer now since the EPA has taken charge over emissions. Companies claim that energy prices will be higher while jobs will be destroyed, resulting in a dampened economy. EPA has been accused of trying to side-step Congress by imposing a "cap-and-trade" policy without congressional legislation. In spite of all the fight, congress has not reversed their decision on allowing the EPA to regulate emissions.

From a personal point of view, I see it as yes the economy is not the greatest, but neither is the environment. As provided in previous post, there are valid arguments against the whole global warming business, but are they sound? As a growing environmentalist (yes, I'm a tree-hugger), you can guess where my arguments and bias lie. What I took from this article is that it's very important for everyone, worldwide, to be knowledgeable on the topic of the environment whether it's a little or a lot. Conservation is key to our survival on this plant, and if we don't begin to open our minds to adaptation and regulation then the chances for future generations to live on this planet may be limited.

Understanding even the most basic concepts are important so that you, as an individual, can make your own inferences about the environment--where you stand ethically. Whether you're for or against sustainability or see no trends to support global warming, then that's up to you. What really matters is the fundamental education of how everything is connected. If you have that, then there's no reason for anyone to say "Oh, I didn't know."

Global Warming: Yes, No or Silly?

Support for Global Warming

Against Global Warming

Global Warming Hoax Argument

What do you think?

Arctic Ice Melting and Methane

Methane is a natural gas that absorbs 20-30 times more infrared radiation than carbon dioxide per molecule. So as Arctic ice continues to melt because of increasing global temperatures, more methane is emitted into the atmosphere acting as a positive feedback loop for more melting.

As you may know, Arctic animals such as the polar bear have been suffering because of increasing climate and ocean temperatures. Their habitat and food supply have been heavily impacted. Is it all our fault? Well that's arguable. According to the geologic time scale, the earth was bound to warm as a natural cycle. But it was not predicted to happen so soon and so rapidly. So is that our fault? Based off our continued emissions, Yes... yes it is. 

Deforestation: What really happens

Photography: Courtesy of U.S Forest Service

Forests make up a large terrestrial portion of The world, but right now, I'm going to focus on North and South America. If you live in either a country or suburban area, you may have witnessed once an abundantly green and luscious area cleared for commercial or residential purposes. It's small, typical and perceived to have little to no impact on the environment. But like I mentioned before, even the smallest changes to the environment impact all the big parts. But let's dig a little deeper and broader. Let's head to Brazil with one of the most amazing tropical rainforest, rich with biodiversity of species that are found no where else.

What happens when 100k acres of forest are clear-cut for agricultural purposes? What happens to the soil, the animals, the people?

Well you might say that the people benefit (and the people represent the economy as Brazil is a developing country). But what happens when the tropical soils are so acidic that plants grown there cannot last for more than a season or two. So what's next? Everyday, 100+ thousand acres were deforested to support the expansion of agriculture. But the same soil problem occurred creating a vicious and detrimental cycle to us and our surrounding environment.

Here's a little science for you:

1) Forests are like gigantic carbon sinks that lead to a quarter of the world's annual carbon dioxide     emissions.

2) Nutrient cycling. Vital to plant growth and tropical forest survival especially. Shrubs, tree roots, water and air all play a key role in soil nutrient cycling. Ammonium and carbon cycle through the tree roots, facilitated by shrubs, and in the air for a short periods of time, then repeat. You can guess that all of the dead and decaying organic material (material composed of carbon) is what helps the flow of the carbon cycle in this biome. So, like I said, everything is vital--even the dead stuff.

3) When forests are clear-cut for commercial use or affected by natural disaster, all of the soil carbon releases as atmospheric carbon and makes its way up to the sky, facilitating global warming.

4) Rising temperatures then increase the rate of  the decomposition of organic material and can cause plants to lose their "carbon-capturing prowess." Heated soils= increased tree growth and carbon storage, which you can assume why that might be bad if a plot of land is cleared.

5) Sustainable plant growth is vital to forest survival.

Enough with the science. This is just one example of how global warming is impacted via a positive feedback loop. As always, there's more to come so stay tuned.