Bankrupt Zoo

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-27055311

This article talks about the financial difficulties of a zoo in England. This is a zoo that has basically gone bankrupt and its up for sale. People are volunteering to work in this zoo just to help the animals out, they are willing to help the environment and make a change. The zoo has over 200 species of birds, and 90% of the total species are owned by people which put the species in the zoo because they also want to make a difference in the world. Contrary to this, there are people who are doing opposite of this, poaching and not preserving our environment. The reason why the zoo went bankrupt is because of lack of visitors, and lack of donations. People need to take another step, and donate different and strange animals so that it would attract people therefore creating publicity, therefore creating money. It's a chain that can be easily started with the willpower of people. Now that the zoo is bankrupt, it is advertised for sale, and currently its waiting for the highest bidder. The price they are expecting is from £300,000-£350,000.

Alternative approach in fighting poaching

The article talks about a drastic approach to fight poaching. In this case a town council has decided that in order to stop illegal fishing the entire fish population will simply be removed. After complaints were received by the council, an action had to follow. Due to there though not being enough resources such as patrol units or funds it was simply decided to hire a contractor in order to remove the fish population. More than 1t of fish were removed which took around 3 days, species affected were; carp, perch, roach, and rudd. Poaching is a general problem being faced by many countries around the world as food becomes more scare. As signs did not help in this case, a drastic choice was made, this though could have an impact on the ecosystem.

I think that this approach to fight poaching is a bit over the top. Poaching may be a problem but to remove the fish rather than fighting poaching is very drastic. As we learned so far every species plays a specific role in an ecosystem such as the Grey Wolf in Yellow stone. The effect which the removal of fish can have on the canal are unknown. Fish often have the role of controlling the plant population, with them being gone it could come to an increase in water plants which could result in the canal being blocked. Through this positive feedback even higher costs then setting up a patrol will be the result.

Link to article http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-27021354

GoPro: Lions-The New Endangered Species?

http://thehigherlearning.com/2014/01/05/wow-the-man-who-hugs-wild-lions-brought-a-go-pro-this-time-video/

I saw this video online and thought you might be interested in it, its not only an awesome video but also talks about how species, such as lions, will die out in 20 years if we don't talk action now! --Thanks Antonia!

Mihajlo Drajer
16/12/13
IB DP ESS SL
Mrs. Medenica

Current Event #3:

New Material to Enhance Crop Yield

The article was published on 'sciencedaily.com' which was written by A. Mendez. The article was published on the 16th of December, 2013.

In a couple of words, the article is talking about the newly created 'lab material' called "Biochar". By 'lab-material' it's implied that the material was forged in a laboratory environment, meaning it's artificial and not a product of nature/natural causes and occurrences. The article mentions how this new material can and does improve soil quality by making the soil more prone to become moisturized to the extent where it doesn't harm the health/quality of the soil. BY enhancing the soil quality, Biochar also enhances crop yield - which makes crops more available to humans for our needs. Biochar is the ideal material since it can turn a field with bad crops and poor soil quality, into an area which is flourishing with 'green' and is overall healthy. As more and more artificial fertilizers are used , the soil quality is slowly but steadily dropping on a global scale. Due to abusive treatments of farmers and those who grows large quantities of grain/vegetables/plant the soil's physique, texture and quality are being altered over time. Excess amount of water makes the soil more prone to becoming like sand, where it's not thick and composed by is similar to sand grains. This new characteristic is negative for farming since it'll make the water seep right through the soil and into groundwater - whilst dodging the seeds planted for growth. Biochar, of course, will make the soils quality and durability more effective over time. It's still in the process of being perfected, prior to being applied to larger amounts of soil. 

I find this substance to be quite beneficial to mankind, and that it should be bought/purchased and supported by governments. Soil is essential to life on Earth, since it serves multiple purposes such as; being a water filter, being a medium for raising plants, and so on forth. Without soil, or with soil of a really poor quality, the consequences would be severe. People would be affected by the scarcity in crops which are caused by unhealthy soil, which would cause starvation. Crops are essential to the diet of the majority of humans on Earth, and without it turmoil would be evoked. Therefore, biochar plays in perfectly since it will assure that the health of soil is positive - therefore making growing and harvesting crops more reliable to us. 

Link to article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131216080318.htm

“Global water scarcity to increase by 40%”

Mihajlo Drajer

IB DP ESS SL

Mrs. Medenica

19/12/13

                “Global water scarcity to increase by 40%” is the title of the article found on eco-business website (but originally came from “The Sydney Morning Herald”); a page that’s dedicated to informing people on the news between the relationship with ecology and business. The article was chosen because it is strongly tied with what we’ve studied recently in our ESS class. Water and soil pollutions were two major topics that were covered in November/December – therefore this article is very applicable to the Current Event – as a topic.

                Briefly, the article is focusing on a recent study which identified the fact that water scarcity will become more prominent in a short time due to factors such as overpopulation, etc. It’s important to define scarcity before delving into the articles summary. Scarcity can be simply described as a lack, the antonym of a surplus. Also, the title of the article can be misinterpreted. Once you read the article, the title makes a bit more sense. It’s not saying how the current lack of water will increase in certain areas, but that other parts of the world will become affected by water scarcity – those of whom weren’t affected before. Water scarcity is a serious and significant issue since humans, plants, and animals aren’t functional without fresh water. It’s a fact that a person can survive a week without food, but without water you’re lucky if you’re still alive after 3 days. This is not surprising, since around 70% of our bodies are made up for water (humans).  “The Sydney Morning Herald” is the newspaper that the article was published in (without having the name of the author) and in their article they claim that the reason why there will be this ‘boom’ of 40% increase in water scarcity is because of the ever-growing human population. This is no surprise, since the amount of children born every year is overwhelming for countries resources. The term overpopulation is used to define a countries state once their population over exceeds their resources such as; coil, oil, fresh water, and so on forth. Countries such as India and China are facing serious issues with overpopulation to the point where the countries governments have to take serious precautions and control the people more. China implemented laws on having a single child, and no more back in the 80’s. India is supposed to be working on educating women on contraceptives, and safe sex in order to prevent this tremendous growth in their population. Another factor that affects water scarcity would definitely be the Earth’s temperature and climate. As more gases are released into the atmosphere, and as our ozone layer is depleted the suns presence is becoming overwhelming for life on Earth. Heat that’s too high for certain places will cause water to evaporate at a rapid rate, a rate which it didn’t evaporate at before. Regions such as the Middle East, and continents like Europe and the Northern part of the US (the south is excluded since they are already heavily impacted by water scarcity) are all regions which have minimal water scarcity however they are prone to being exposed to water scarcity if water consumption is not controlled (due to overpopulation) and as pollution encourages and evokes global warming and enormous changes in temperature.

                To reflect on the article; I found this article to be quite disturbing. It made me feel really worried since I live in Europe and water scarcity could become prominent on my continent. This is pretty significant for me since I unfortunately live in a place where water is actually taken for granted: where people wash their cars once a week, leave the tap running when brushing their teeth, spend ages in the shower, you get the picture. I can’t imagine my life where only a small amount of water is available; therefore this article did leave a great impact on me. The article made me realize how no-one is safe when it comes down to water scarcity, and that a large number of areas will face this problem other countries have been dealing with for decades.

 

Link to article; http://www.eco-business.com/news/global-water-scarcity-predicted-rise-40/

The article was published on the 19^th on December, in the “The Sydney Morning Herald” and on eco-business.com

http://inserbia.info/news/2013/11/syrian-chemical-weapons-might-be-destroyed-at-sea/

Syrian Chemical Weapons Might Be Destroyed At Sea

I don't know what is worst to destroy chemical weapon on sea or on a land. In any way it will make big changes, on a land it will hurt people and contaminate the soil but if it will be destroyed on a sea it will kill fishes and other animals and pollute salt water which is our future to survive. 

“There are discussions about destroying it on a ship,” one US official told Reuters. is that going to save water? NO

The UN needs to find a new better solution for destroying Syrian chemical bombs. 

Any action will certainly need to be more intricate than when the Japanese government destroyed weapons leftover from World War II in 2004-2006. In doing so, the Japanese set up a disposal plant on a floating platform.

After this a lot of fishes died, just from vibration of explosion. 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-13/chinas-extreme-smog-forces-pilots-to-train-for-blind-landings

China's Extreme Smog Forces Pilots to Train for Blind Landings

Airports in china are dealing with extreme smog, it is so huge that pilots who are landing into china need to processed through training for “blinding landing” or also known as “Cat 1” or that it is impossible to see further than 50 meters. Chinese authorities have mandated that pilots of domestic airlines be qualified to land when visibility falls below 400 meters “Cat 3”.  Chinese officials are targeting to reduce flight delays at Beijing Capital and Shanghai Pudong airports, which are two world’s worst records for on-time flights. The rules apply only to China’s domestic pilots and won’t affect training for U.S. aviators.

The kind of low-visibility approach mandated in China has become common for many U.S. carriers, particularly Alaska Airlines which mastered such landings in Alaska, where fog and rain are frequent. The company says such equipment and pilot training save it about $15 million annually, because cancellations and diversions on flights to Alaskan airports have been reduced.