Written by: Kelly L. Hunter
Over fishing our waters is causing a great deal of concern amongst environmentalist and commercial fishermen. According to the Declining Fish Stock video, the average commercial fishermen’s catch is about 20,000 pounds. This has been estimated to equal a couple hundred fish per day per vessel (Declining Fish, 2007). Some studies indicate that commercial fishing fleets have stripped the ocean waters of at least 90 percent of its big fish (Declining Fish, 2007). This has begun to cause heavy competition between commercial fishermen who are left competing for the other 10 percent of the remaining fish population (Declining Fish, 2007).
Studies indicate that our oceans are not as resilient as we had once believed (Declining Fish, 2007). According to Dr. Jeremy Jackson of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, we will never again be able to fish our waters at the level that we have been over the last half century (Declining Fish, 2007). Dr. Jackson also states that over fishing is more destructive to the ocean waters than toxic pollution or degrading water quality (Declining Fish, 2007). This is a frightening thought and seems to have environmentalists and commercial fishermen at each other’s throats.
When asked if the damage to the fish population is at a level of completion, Dr. Jackson said that the damage was near completion but that the damage could be reversed if we take much needed drastic measures to ensure that these fish have a chance to repopulate (Declining Fish, 2007). Dr. Jackson also feels that we need to change the way that we use our ocean waters and find a better way to utilize its resources. Dr. Jackson goes on to say that because we have over fished our waters and caused such depletion in most if not all of the species of fish, we need to protect nearly half of the ocean’s waters and prohibit any type of fishing in those restricted waters (Declining Fish, 2007). This kind of restriction would allow for big fish to repopulate and replenish themselves.
Many commercial fishermen do not agree with these studies and say that they are catching just as many fish daily as they have for years. One fisherman, Pete Dupuis, says that these restrictions will hurt commercial fishermen the most (Declining Fish, 2007). Dupuis also believes that water restrictions will not solve this problem and hopes that commercial fishermen and environmentalists can come to some sort of agreement (Declining Fish, 2007). Many commercial fishermen rely completely on this industry for survival and in many cases; it is the only thing that these people know how to do. So what can we do as a community and as a world to ensure that we do not destroy our fish populations or our waters and still be able to maintain this industry that six billion of us rely on for part of our survival?
What we do know is that the damage has been caused; and the question is, what are we going to do to fix it? It is possible that we need to restrict some of our waters from commercial and personal fishing. More studies need to be conducted and are necessary to find out exactly which parts of our oceans have the largest amounts of fish population decline. Those are the areas that should be closely monitored and protected. On the other hand, I understand and feel for the commercial fishermen who rely on this industry for their own survival.
Fish has been said to be a beneficial source of protein and Omega 3 in human diets. However, not everyone eats fish; therefore, it does not seem to be essential to our survival that we consume fish. For individuals who do enjoy eating fish, maybe it is possible that they could consume less. There are many other foods that can provide enough protein for our survival. Manufacturers of vitamins offer Omega 3 tablets; this is a wonderful way to supplement our daily diets.
As for the commercial fishermen and their means of economic survival, maybe it is possible to fish for smaller fish or fish that are not as endangered. There does not seem to be an easy solution to this problem. On one side you have the people who want to protect our planet from extinction and on the other hand, you have the people that solely rely on this industry to feed their families and pay their bills.
We have many aquariums and zoos across the United States and throughout our world. It is possible that we could take those fish and put them back into our waters where they could live amongst their natural habitat. On the other hand, we could use these facilities and other marine laboratories for breeding and release the offspring back into our ocean waters. However, even this is a small solution for a large scale problem.
Commercial fishing has not only depleted the population of many species of fish; it has caused other problems within our waters as well. According to R. Chuenpagdee, “The potential impacts of fishing go well beyond the targeted fish and often include other non-target animals as well as marine habitats, such as coral reefs and seagrass beds” (Chuenpagdee, 2003). In another article, J.B.C. Jackson states that “the cumulative effect of these impacts is according to some scientists, the leading cause of current changes in the structure and functioning of coastal and marine ecosystems” (Jackson, 2001).
Maybe the answer isn’t that we prohibit fishing, but that we fish less and change the way that we fish. Maybe we need to find alternative methods to the ones that we are currently using and design better gears to use while fishing; gears that will not pose such dangerous hazards to non-targeted marine life and to our ecosystems. Doing such could create jobs and benefit our communities as well. It is essential for our future generations that we take this matter seriously and that we do something about it before it is too late.
Reference(s)
Chuenpagdee, R.; Morgan, L.E.; Maxwell, S.M.; Norse, E.A.; and Pauly, D. Shifting Gears: Assessing Collateral Impacts of Fishing Methods in the U.S. Waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10. (2003). P517-524.
Declining Fish Stock VLR. University of Phoenix. (2007).
Jackson, J.B.C.; Kirby, M.X.; Berger, W.H. Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Costal Ecosystems. Science 239. (2001). P629-638.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Malathion: The Ugly Truth Behind Pesticides
Written by: Kelly L. Hunter
Is Malathion, a pesticide used to kill mosquitoes, safe for human exposure and is it safe for our environment? After careful study, I have decided that malathion is not safe for humans or our environment. Malathion is an organophosphate that was first registered for agricultural use in the United States as early as 1956. (Malathion for Mosquito. 2007). There is great debate from opposing sides as to whether or not malathion has short and/or long-term health risks to human beings and to our already sensitive environment. Proponents argue that this pesticide is safe while the opposing side says that it is not safe and in fact, it is quite harmful. Truthfully, the total risk involved with using malathion to rid towns and cities of mosquito infestations is unknown. However, there is enough scientific evidence, in my opinion, to raise questions as to whether or not this substance is safe for use. As I said before, after careful consideration, I do not feel as though malathion is the answer to our problem.
Although malathion could potentially take care of our severe mosquito problem in Genericville, I believe that we will see many significant long term effects to not only human health but to our wildlife and the cycle of life as well. According to Doctors Jerry Reeves, David Driggers, and Vincent Kiley, of the David Grant Medical Center; seven children with bone marrow disorders have been observed over the past 8 years by physicians at Travis Air Force Base Medical Center in California. The physicians believe the blood disorders, in all cases, were caused by organophosphate pesticides. (Sinclair, W. 2007). These physicians go on to say that “All blood disorders occurred shortly after exposure to the pesticides DDVP/propoxur and malathion. The duration of inhaling insecticides ranged from 2 minutes in a patient enveloped in a thick insecticide fog in a small shed to 2 days in other patients whose homes were fumigated by their parents.” (Sinclair, W. 2007).
Doctors from Erasmus University, Rotterdam and the University Hospital, Utrecht, say that “Malathion has been shown to cause birth defects in a variety of wildlife and at levels lower than some other pesticides. (Sinclair, W. 2007). These doctors go on to say that researchers suspect that malathion may be the cause of Amyoplasia, a disorder characterized by the absence of skeletal muscle. (Sinclair, W. 2007). As if this is not enough evidence to suggest that at- the-very-least, we need to do far more testing on this product before we continue to expose human life and our environment to it’s dangers; researchers at the University of Toronto are quoted as saying, “Pregnant test animals exposed to malathion in this study did not show any physical health effects. When their offspring were born there were also no obvious health effects observed. However, when these offspring matured and had their own babies – the researchers found this newest litter had significantly lower body weight, grew slower and had approximately twice the number of infections.” (Sinclair, W. 2007).
It seems obvious that this research provides enough substantial evidence to suggest that there is a great deal of potential for severe health problems to manifest and appear long after being exposed to malathion. As far as dose- response assessment is concerned, small amounts of malathion exposure are suppose to not be harmful. However, malathion can become more toxic if it is stored for long periods of time and if it is exposed to high levels of heat. There are two types of malathion that are studied amongst scientists, doctors, and other researchers. There is the purified form, (which is approximately 99.9% malathion) and the other is called technical grade (which is approximately 96.5% malathion). The technical grade is what is generally used in mosquito spraying and control. Unfortunately, according to studies, the technical grade is estimated to be 10 times more potent in causing deaths amongst laboratory animals. (Sinclair, W. 2007). The most frightening part of all of this is that the technical grade is not the type of malathion that is being researched and discussed in health studies.
It is a known fact that there is a mosquito problem here in Genericville. However, I think that we can better serve members of our community by educating home-owners on how to maintain their property so that they are able to keep mosquito breeding at a minimal rate. I also feel that there are other products on the market today that are of a more organic nature and that will be more beneficial to our community and to our already fragile environment. I vote no on the use of malathion in Genericville.
Reference(s)
Pesticides: Mosquito Control. Malathion for Mosquito Control. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007).
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/mosquitoes/malathion4mosquitoes.htm
Sinclair, Wayne M.D. Malathion Medical Research. (2007).
http://www.chem-tox.com/malathion/research/index.htm
Is Malathion, a pesticide used to kill mosquitoes, safe for human exposure and is it safe for our environment? After careful study, I have decided that malathion is not safe for humans or our environment. Malathion is an organophosphate that was first registered for agricultural use in the United States as early as 1956. (Malathion for Mosquito. 2007). There is great debate from opposing sides as to whether or not malathion has short and/or long-term health risks to human beings and to our already sensitive environment. Proponents argue that this pesticide is safe while the opposing side says that it is not safe and in fact, it is quite harmful. Truthfully, the total risk involved with using malathion to rid towns and cities of mosquito infestations is unknown. However, there is enough scientific evidence, in my opinion, to raise questions as to whether or not this substance is safe for use. As I said before, after careful consideration, I do not feel as though malathion is the answer to our problem.
Although malathion could potentially take care of our severe mosquito problem in Genericville, I believe that we will see many significant long term effects to not only human health but to our wildlife and the cycle of life as well. According to Doctors Jerry Reeves, David Driggers, and Vincent Kiley, of the David Grant Medical Center; seven children with bone marrow disorders have been observed over the past 8 years by physicians at Travis Air Force Base Medical Center in California. The physicians believe the blood disorders, in all cases, were caused by organophosphate pesticides. (Sinclair, W. 2007). These physicians go on to say that “All blood disorders occurred shortly after exposure to the pesticides DDVP/propoxur and malathion. The duration of inhaling insecticides ranged from 2 minutes in a patient enveloped in a thick insecticide fog in a small shed to 2 days in other patients whose homes were fumigated by their parents.” (Sinclair, W. 2007).
Doctors from Erasmus University, Rotterdam and the University Hospital, Utrecht, say that “Malathion has been shown to cause birth defects in a variety of wildlife and at levels lower than some other pesticides. (Sinclair, W. 2007). These doctors go on to say that researchers suspect that malathion may be the cause of Amyoplasia, a disorder characterized by the absence of skeletal muscle. (Sinclair, W. 2007). As if this is not enough evidence to suggest that at- the-very-least, we need to do far more testing on this product before we continue to expose human life and our environment to it’s dangers; researchers at the University of Toronto are quoted as saying, “Pregnant test animals exposed to malathion in this study did not show any physical health effects. When their offspring were born there were also no obvious health effects observed. However, when these offspring matured and had their own babies – the researchers found this newest litter had significantly lower body weight, grew slower and had approximately twice the number of infections.” (Sinclair, W. 2007).
It seems obvious that this research provides enough substantial evidence to suggest that there is a great deal of potential for severe health problems to manifest and appear long after being exposed to malathion. As far as dose- response assessment is concerned, small amounts of malathion exposure are suppose to not be harmful. However, malathion can become more toxic if it is stored for long periods of time and if it is exposed to high levels of heat. There are two types of malathion that are studied amongst scientists, doctors, and other researchers. There is the purified form, (which is approximately 99.9% malathion) and the other is called technical grade (which is approximately 96.5% malathion). The technical grade is what is generally used in mosquito spraying and control. Unfortunately, according to studies, the technical grade is estimated to be 10 times more potent in causing deaths amongst laboratory animals. (Sinclair, W. 2007). The most frightening part of all of this is that the technical grade is not the type of malathion that is being researched and discussed in health studies.
It is a known fact that there is a mosquito problem here in Genericville. However, I think that we can better serve members of our community by educating home-owners on how to maintain their property so that they are able to keep mosquito breeding at a minimal rate. I also feel that there are other products on the market today that are of a more organic nature and that will be more beneficial to our community and to our already fragile environment. I vote no on the use of malathion in Genericville.
Reference(s)
Pesticides: Mosquito Control. Malathion for Mosquito Control. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2007).
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/mosquitoes/malathion4mosquitoes.htm
Sinclair, Wayne M.D. Malathion Medical Research. (2007).
http://www.chem-tox.com/malathion/research/index.htm
Energy Conservation
Written by: Kelly L. Hunter
Research has indicated that humans are depleting the Earth of the necessary natural resources that it needs for survival. For many years we have been mining for fossil fuels, metals, and minerals for transportation purposes, heating and cooling our homes, and for other various forms of consumption. Such things as surface mining for coal has been said to have caused extreme pollution to our land, water, and air. Scientists are now trying to educate the general public on these dangers and the long-term effects that we may endure if we do not change our way of living.
According to the Nonrenewable Energy Resources (2007), “Coal mining, especially surface mining; has substantial effects on the environment” (p. 410). Before the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) was passed in 1977, most surface mines were left abandoned once their resources were depleted. These large open pits of land that were once a functioning mine were left exposed and vulnerable to the elements. This led to such things as acid and toxic mineral drainage, land erosion, water pollution, and the lack of vegetation to hold the ground together. In some cases the unstable terrain would turn into landslides causing even greater damage to the towns that surrounded these areas.
The Axia College Week Seven reading (2007), also states that “One of the most land destructive types of surface mining is mountaintop removal” (p. 410). These studies go on to say that mountaintop removal is responsible for an estimated 15 to 25 percent of the leveling of mountains in West Virginia. According to reports, the valleys and surrounding streams have been destroyed as well and are now filled with debris and toxic wastes that were left behind from the mines.
The United States alone relies heavily on the mining of coal and coal produced fuels. According to the Nonrenewable Energy Resources (2007), “In the United States, coal-burning electric power plants currently produce one-third of all airborne mercury emissions” (p. 410). Much of the coal that is being burned contains dangerous minerals like sulfur and nitrogen. When these harmful oxides are released into our atmosphere, they create different kinds of acid reactions when coming into contact with water. This creates a reaction that is commonly known as acid deposition or “acid rain”. This form of precipitation has significant harmful effects on the environment and is associated with forest decline and greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.
Acid deposition unfortunately is not the only harmful side effect caused by the burning of coal. Burning any form of fossil fuel in general can be harmful to our atmosphere because this releases carbon dioxides into the air; burning coal however, is even more harmful. Coal is said to release more carbon dioxides per unit of heat energy manufactured into the air than any other fossil fuel being used today. As stated by the Nonrenewable Energy Resources (2007), “Currently we are releasing so much CO² into the atmosphere that global temperature may be affected (because the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases prevents heat from escaping from the planet)” (p. 411). Coal resources are not our only concern according to scientific research; oil and natural gas also play a major roll in environmental pollution as well as in our current economic issues. Approximately 63 percent of the energy resources used in the United States is that of oil and natural gas which we purchase from foreign countries (Axia College, 2007). The remaining resources used in the U.S. are nuclear power, hydropower, and coal.
The United States does not seem to be using very many of the renewable resources that are available to us. In fact, if you go by the chart, you will see that “other” represents renewable resources such as wind, solar, and agricultural products which ranks at approximately only one percent. Knowing what we already have learned about the harmful effects of nonrenewable resources, why is it that we are not following in the footsteps of many European countries who are utilizing these wonderfully clean and readily available fundamentals?
It is detrimental to our survival and to the future of our children that we educate ourselves on topics such as renewable and nonrenewable energies and resources. I also feel that it is way past decision time on whether we will or will not convert to a cleaner way of living. At this point, much is known about the damage that has been caused to our planet’s atmosphere and obvious changes have begun occurring to our weather patterns and to the Earth’s geographical structure. However, even with all the information that is available, there are still opposing sides and viewpoints addressing the pros and cons of “going Green”.
There has been great debate over the rise in corn prices due to the use of the vegetable in making fuels such as ethanol. Research has now discovered that we can use the scraps or straw from corn that is left over after cultivation and harvesting instead of using the crop itself (Axia College, 2007). This particular resource has the opportunity to create jobs in the agricultural industry (an industry that has nearly become a-thing-of-the-past) and also brings forth the need for farmland (something we keep destroying). The opposition claims that this is not fool-proof and that the price of popcorn has risen an estimated 40 percent since 2006 and the price of milk has skyrocketed as well (Patterson, 2007).
If the use of corn is not our answer, there are other alternatives to using nonrenewable resources available for the world to choose form. Resources such as solar and wind energies are avenues that have been studied for years and are becoming serious possibilities for future alternatives. We can heat and coal our homes with either of these renewable energies; they can even be used simultaneously. Bigger named car companies have also designed cars that run on power created by solar electricity, organic fuels, and a combination of hydrogen and fuel to name only a few. Homeowners who have chosen to “go green” by designing solar powered homes have actually been able to sell energy back to the power companies.
Solar energy is radiation produced by nuclear fusion reactions deep in the Sun’s core. The sun provides almost all the heat and light that Earth receives and therefore sustains every living being (Microsoft, 2007). According to MSN Encarta (2007), “People can make indirect use of solar energy that has been naturally collected just as the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and plant life collect energy that people later extract to power technology” (¶ 3). Plants store solar energy through a process called photosynthesis, where solar energy is turned into chemical energy, which fuels plant growth (Microsoft, 2007). MSN Encarta (2007), states that “Fossil fuels such as oil and coal are derived from geologically ancient plant life” (¶ 7).
Many factors are involved in the decline of our Earth’s atmosphere and much speculation has been made as to whether or not humans have had the greatest impact on this decline. We have evolved into a society of over-consumption and wastefulness. Other steps must also be taken to help restore what we have extracted from the Earth and what we have put back into our atmosphere and environments. Going green and living clean may be harder to get used to than what we think. However, by simply cutting out the use of plastic bags when shopping and replacing those bags with reusable canvas bags instead; we could possibly make a substantial difference in some of this harmful pollution. We also need to make sure that our communities have an efficient recycling program for our recyclable goods. On top of that, we can get our friends and families together a couple weekends a month and clean up the garbage and debris that is found alongside our roadways and neighborhood streets.
Although adjusting to this more positive and beneficial lifestyle may be difficult, studies prove that it is quite necessary for not only the Earth’s survival but for ours as well. Drastic measures need to be taken immediately in order to insure our quality of life for generations to come. This is a change that will only work if it is taken on a global level. I believe that this is what the majority of people do not understand. People may feel that since they do not live near the arctic icecaps that they do not need to be concerned with the fact that they are melting at a dangerously high rate of speed. What people do not seem to realize is that the disappearance of these icecaps alone will change the fate of the world. Polar bears will quickly become extinct due to drowning if they are unable to find solid ground to stand on, causing the circle of life to become distorted not to mention the flooding that may occur worldwide.
What we must realize is that we are all in this life together and depend on each other for survival whether we are human, animal, or plant life. If we do not take gentle care of our beautiful planet, we will ultimately become extinct ourselves because we will have destroyed our only home. Positive change and action must be done on all levels be it government, globally, or with in our own communities. Make today the day that you and your family begin living green and clean.
Reference(s)
Axia College Week Seven Reading (2007) Chapter 17 Nonrenewable Energy Resources. (p. 406-427).
Axia College Week Seven Reading (2007) Chapter 18 Renewable Energy Resources. (p.428-452).
MSN Encarta. Solar Energy. Microsoft Corporation (2007). Retrieved Feb. 02, 2008.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=renewable+energy+resources
Patterson, Gary W. How Will You Cope in a Clean-Energy World. Financial Executive (2007) Vol. 23 Issue 9, p.56-59. Retrieved Feb. 02, 2008.
Research has indicated that humans are depleting the Earth of the necessary natural resources that it needs for survival. For many years we have been mining for fossil fuels, metals, and minerals for transportation purposes, heating and cooling our homes, and for other various forms of consumption. Such things as surface mining for coal has been said to have caused extreme pollution to our land, water, and air. Scientists are now trying to educate the general public on these dangers and the long-term effects that we may endure if we do not change our way of living.
According to the Nonrenewable Energy Resources (2007), “Coal mining, especially surface mining; has substantial effects on the environment” (p. 410). Before the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) was passed in 1977, most surface mines were left abandoned once their resources were depleted. These large open pits of land that were once a functioning mine were left exposed and vulnerable to the elements. This led to such things as acid and toxic mineral drainage, land erosion, water pollution, and the lack of vegetation to hold the ground together. In some cases the unstable terrain would turn into landslides causing even greater damage to the towns that surrounded these areas.
The Axia College Week Seven reading (2007), also states that “One of the most land destructive types of surface mining is mountaintop removal” (p. 410). These studies go on to say that mountaintop removal is responsible for an estimated 15 to 25 percent of the leveling of mountains in West Virginia. According to reports, the valleys and surrounding streams have been destroyed as well and are now filled with debris and toxic wastes that were left behind from the mines.
The United States alone relies heavily on the mining of coal and coal produced fuels. According to the Nonrenewable Energy Resources (2007), “In the United States, coal-burning electric power plants currently produce one-third of all airborne mercury emissions” (p. 410). Much of the coal that is being burned contains dangerous minerals like sulfur and nitrogen. When these harmful oxides are released into our atmosphere, they create different kinds of acid reactions when coming into contact with water. This creates a reaction that is commonly known as acid deposition or “acid rain”. This form of precipitation has significant harmful effects on the environment and is associated with forest decline and greenhouse gases that are causing global warming.
Acid deposition unfortunately is not the only harmful side effect caused by the burning of coal. Burning any form of fossil fuel in general can be harmful to our atmosphere because this releases carbon dioxides into the air; burning coal however, is even more harmful. Coal is said to release more carbon dioxides per unit of heat energy manufactured into the air than any other fossil fuel being used today. As stated by the Nonrenewable Energy Resources (2007), “Currently we are releasing so much CO² into the atmosphere that global temperature may be affected (because the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases prevents heat from escaping from the planet)” (p. 411). Coal resources are not our only concern according to scientific research; oil and natural gas also play a major roll in environmental pollution as well as in our current economic issues. Approximately 63 percent of the energy resources used in the United States is that of oil and natural gas which we purchase from foreign countries (Axia College, 2007). The remaining resources used in the U.S. are nuclear power, hydropower, and coal.
The United States does not seem to be using very many of the renewable resources that are available to us. In fact, if you go by the chart, you will see that “other” represents renewable resources such as wind, solar, and agricultural products which ranks at approximately only one percent. Knowing what we already have learned about the harmful effects of nonrenewable resources, why is it that we are not following in the footsteps of many European countries who are utilizing these wonderfully clean and readily available fundamentals?
It is detrimental to our survival and to the future of our children that we educate ourselves on topics such as renewable and nonrenewable energies and resources. I also feel that it is way past decision time on whether we will or will not convert to a cleaner way of living. At this point, much is known about the damage that has been caused to our planet’s atmosphere and obvious changes have begun occurring to our weather patterns and to the Earth’s geographical structure. However, even with all the information that is available, there are still opposing sides and viewpoints addressing the pros and cons of “going Green”.
There has been great debate over the rise in corn prices due to the use of the vegetable in making fuels such as ethanol. Research has now discovered that we can use the scraps or straw from corn that is left over after cultivation and harvesting instead of using the crop itself (Axia College, 2007). This particular resource has the opportunity to create jobs in the agricultural industry (an industry that has nearly become a-thing-of-the-past) and also brings forth the need for farmland (something we keep destroying). The opposition claims that this is not fool-proof and that the price of popcorn has risen an estimated 40 percent since 2006 and the price of milk has skyrocketed as well (Patterson, 2007).
If the use of corn is not our answer, there are other alternatives to using nonrenewable resources available for the world to choose form. Resources such as solar and wind energies are avenues that have been studied for years and are becoming serious possibilities for future alternatives. We can heat and coal our homes with either of these renewable energies; they can even be used simultaneously. Bigger named car companies have also designed cars that run on power created by solar electricity, organic fuels, and a combination of hydrogen and fuel to name only a few. Homeowners who have chosen to “go green” by designing solar powered homes have actually been able to sell energy back to the power companies.
Solar energy is radiation produced by nuclear fusion reactions deep in the Sun’s core. The sun provides almost all the heat and light that Earth receives and therefore sustains every living being (Microsoft, 2007). According to MSN Encarta (2007), “People can make indirect use of solar energy that has been naturally collected just as the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and plant life collect energy that people later extract to power technology” (¶ 3). Plants store solar energy through a process called photosynthesis, where solar energy is turned into chemical energy, which fuels plant growth (Microsoft, 2007). MSN Encarta (2007), states that “Fossil fuels such as oil and coal are derived from geologically ancient plant life” (¶ 7).
Many factors are involved in the decline of our Earth’s atmosphere and much speculation has been made as to whether or not humans have had the greatest impact on this decline. We have evolved into a society of over-consumption and wastefulness. Other steps must also be taken to help restore what we have extracted from the Earth and what we have put back into our atmosphere and environments. Going green and living clean may be harder to get used to than what we think. However, by simply cutting out the use of plastic bags when shopping and replacing those bags with reusable canvas bags instead; we could possibly make a substantial difference in some of this harmful pollution. We also need to make sure that our communities have an efficient recycling program for our recyclable goods. On top of that, we can get our friends and families together a couple weekends a month and clean up the garbage and debris that is found alongside our roadways and neighborhood streets.
Although adjusting to this more positive and beneficial lifestyle may be difficult, studies prove that it is quite necessary for not only the Earth’s survival but for ours as well. Drastic measures need to be taken immediately in order to insure our quality of life for generations to come. This is a change that will only work if it is taken on a global level. I believe that this is what the majority of people do not understand. People may feel that since they do not live near the arctic icecaps that they do not need to be concerned with the fact that they are melting at a dangerously high rate of speed. What people do not seem to realize is that the disappearance of these icecaps alone will change the fate of the world. Polar bears will quickly become extinct due to drowning if they are unable to find solid ground to stand on, causing the circle of life to become distorted not to mention the flooding that may occur worldwide.
What we must realize is that we are all in this life together and depend on each other for survival whether we are human, animal, or plant life. If we do not take gentle care of our beautiful planet, we will ultimately become extinct ourselves because we will have destroyed our only home. Positive change and action must be done on all levels be it government, globally, or with in our own communities. Make today the day that you and your family begin living green and clean.
Reference(s)
Axia College Week Seven Reading (2007) Chapter 17 Nonrenewable Energy Resources. (p. 406-427).
Axia College Week Seven Reading (2007) Chapter 18 Renewable Energy Resources. (p.428-452).
MSN Encarta. Solar Energy. Microsoft Corporation (2007). Retrieved Feb. 02, 2008.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=renewable+energy+resources
Patterson, Gary W. How Will You Cope in a Clean-Energy World. Financial Executive (2007) Vol. 23 Issue 9, p.56-59. Retrieved Feb. 02, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
