Current Event #2

Jovana Curcic

Mrs. Medenica

ESS 11

9/29/2014

U.N. Women Chief: Climate Change impacts fall hardest on women

http://newsdaily.com/2014/09/24/u-n-women-chief-climate-change-impacts-fall-hardest-on-women/

This article describes the role of women in climate change facts consideration. It also states that the climate change has a more negative impact on female than on male individuals. Did you ever think about that? It’s an interesting and a new point of view for me, definitely.  Climate change threatens to destroy the freedoms that humans have and tends to limit choice, and gender difference results in climate risks. Global warming, as we all know, is the mainspring of many environmental disasters; starting with climate change, glaciers melting, and the effect on weather patterns (floods, droughts, etc.). This is primarily vulnerable to women and children who cannot cope with these changes, mostly because they cannot access to the resources they need, and therefore are more negatively impacted by climate change, as mentioned above. The article says that women represent 43% of the global workforce and 65% of those involved in livestock. When women have less rights and less power in their society, more of them are affected by climate change. Women have less voice and influence than men in making policies. Women in developing countries have limited access to resources; restricted rights, lower social status in most countries, and not having a voice in shaping decisions which makes them highly vulnerable to climate change. Vulnerability varies widely, but climate change will enhance the gender inequality, especially in developing countries where women play an important role in supporting households and communities. In the developing world, women's leadership in natural resource management is often poor and limited. Although, for a long time, women have learned a lot about water, land and food management, their knowledge and experience is often neglected. Through those experiences that they’ve had, women have gained knowledge that might allow them to devote positively to the adaptation techniques… But this is only if they are given the opportunity. In general, the survival of many women  (especially in the developed world) depend only on the natural environment, so the inclusion of them should be much stronger. 

This article has surprised me because I never thought that climate change might have stronger influence on different gender. I always thought that climate change affects everyone equally and there is nobody who is less vulnerable to it than the other. But this article convinced me to think otherwise.  Did you know that men and women have different carbon footprints? Did you know that 62% of women are willing to pay extra for climate-friendly products compared to 54% of men? This tells me that women are more eco-friendly and should have more rights that what they have now. As we know, the results of climate changes are by the things we do in our everyday lives. And since the women are generally more involved in everyday resource management, it gives me the inclination that if women have the same rights as men or maybe more in environment policies and decisions,  maybe the environment would be much healthier than it is.

How ISIS Uses Oil To Fund Terror

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/27/isis-oil_n_5877008.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

September 27, 2014

It is now well known that ISIS (the Islamic State) is one of the richest terrorist groups in the world. People wonder how it is possible for them to have that amount of money and where that money comes from. Recent estimates say that their revenue (about $3 million a day) comes from illegal oil trade. Luay al-Khatteeb, director of the Iraq Energy Institute, explains some of the details concerning this issue. Most people wonder how did ISIS get so far as to make such an amount of money on a daily basis. Al-Khatteeb explains that oil assets in certain territories change owners many times. When a terrorist group takes over, it uses the experience it gained in previously owned assets and builds on that.  It is important to say that ISIS greatly rely on the help of professional organizations that are willing to co-operate with them and that have the technical knowledge to operate oil fields. It is easy for them to establish and that is why the price of oil is much lower than in other countries. There are around 8 million people living in the territories controlled by ISIS, and they need oil as the main energy resource so the people are the main buyers. However, it is the refined oil products that everyone needs, and for that ISIS relies on black market trade, mostly through Turkey. The Turkish government is trying to stop this but it is very difficult because these areas have a long history of illegal trade.

I have chosen this article because I have never been completely sure about what the cause of conflict in Middle East is and what really goes on there. Although now I understand a certain part of how terrorist organizations work, I can’t help but wonder what the ultimate goal of their actions is. To say that they want “to rule the world”  sounds too simple and since I hear the word oil mentioned  so many times, it seems to me that those who say that it is the main reason for all that is happening might be right. The viewpoint of the

ISIS is technocentric, they are greedy and they don't think about the environment at all. They are not thinking about the future and that if they use all the resources now there will be no left. I researched how this oil was used by the ISIS and it has a negative impact on the environment, their use of the oil is not beneficial either.

No sign of health or nutrition problems from GMO livestock feed, study finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140926101023.htm 
University of California - Davis 
(Alison L. Van Eenennaam & Amy. E. Young)
September 26, 2014

At the University of California - Davis, a study has been conducted an animal scientist, Alison Van Eenennaam, along with the study's co-author, Amy E. Young, proving their hypothesis that Genetically Modified Organism do not impact the health of food-producing animals, such as pigs, cows, chickens or goats. 

In the study, they examined a trend in more than 100 billion livestock-feeding for approximately 30 years. This provides us with a couple of generations of livestock, in which no change was found throughout the study, whether fed GMO or not. Compared to groups of non-GMO fed animals as their constant variable, the other have been fed genetically modified foods. This means that the astounding 95% of the 9 billion food-producing animals are fed by genetically modified diets (in the United States).

The meat, milk and even eggs of animals which were fed with Genetically Engineered products have shown to be "indistinguishable" to those which have been fed a non-genetically modified diet. This means that majority of the foods in stores now cannot be distinguished, whether or not they include traces of GMO or not. If the meat is the same, and the milk and eggs, the genetically modified food has no health effects whatsoever on the health of the animals. 

They also concluded that in order to enforce labelling on products which contain livestock products, which have been fed genetically engineered diets, "would require supply-chain segregation and traceability, as the products themselves would not differ in any way that could be detected," claims Van Eenennaam. This is considered to be a breakthrough within the livestock market, as companies can now easily produce in great mass products of the same quality as the organic ones. This may, however, bring controversy within those, who do not believe that GMO is a good movement, therefore demanding labelling, which as mentioned above, is a trouble to many. Also, if it was to be brought on an international trading level, initially the counties which are importing would have to regulate & approve this within their Agricultural Departments. 

Therefore, if animals fed with products which include GMO, are not any different from the ones which are raised organically, we have a healthy and positive move towards a more sustainable planet. The only thing which I honestly disagree with, is the labelling process. "Therefore, proposed labeling of animal products from livestock and poultry that have eaten GE feed would require supply-chain segregation and traceability, as the products themselves would not differ in any way that could be detected.” This is pretty huge, as there are menu eco-movements and groups right now which are trying to prevent the use of GMOs, and demand labelling, as no products in America currently require labelling. But this would cause many, many troubles, as suppliers simply give away to the producers which mix everything together, therefore a whole process of separation should be occurring. We know it has no effect on animals, or at least not a detectable one, but we don't know any long-term effects on human health, as GMOs have only been introduced 18 years ago, and not that long ago - incorporated into feeding animals as well as humans. 

I noticed a connection here, towards our unit currently - on scientific literacy - as corporations are only now starting to put knowledge into effect on our health, rather than form the very beginning, therefore it is on us be knowledgable and decide whether studies are necessary and whether or not it is healthy to eat GMO fed animal products. Also, it is on the government to start labelling the foods, and go to their possible best on satisfying the public with a healthy living. 

How Dust Might Make Drought Worse (or a Bit Better) in California

September 26, 2014

Michelle Nijhus for National Geographic

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140925-california-drought-dust-snowpack-snowmelt-climate-science-environment/

In the moment, there is a big problem in California. There are large droughts in the moment there, which blows dust up into the air, as this is not held into the ground anymore. In California, the Water resource relies onto to snow in Sierra Nevada. When the snow then melts, the reservoirs in California fill, and so there is water for all the people. But scientists in the moment have concerns about the snow. Due to the Dust blown into the air, the Snow will also be affected by the dust as it will mix. Then due to the Snow being darker, it can warm up a lot faster than normal. This means that there are already full reservoirs from the winter snow, but then the spring melt comes too, and so the reservoirs lose a lot of Water as their capacity is already reached before the melt. This could then mean that the Summer is even drier than before. Also it states that the Global Warming already speeds up the Snow melt a lot.

The Article states that there is such a problem already in the Rocky Mountains.  The dust from California has caused the snow to melt 50 Days earlier than normal which means that the River in the end gets less Water than it has to have. Already the warming of 4°C could boost the melting process by 18 days. This could mean that the river will have up to 5% less water than it normally has when these caused are not present. Yet on the other hand the Scientists think that the Dust will not have these catastrophic effects on Sierra Nevada as to the Rocky Mountains.

On the other hand it could be possible that there could be even more snow than normal, as the dust from the Middle East is carried to the USA, and so more clouds will form there which then means that there will be more precipitation. Yet, this is not said to solve the problem, due to that the snow could contain salt and bacteria causing the drought not to go away as easily. So in the end there will only be more and more dust in the air causing Global Warming, and also even harsher droughts.

I think that this is a really important topic, as many million lives depend on something like snow. I think this is really a bad decision to set onto snow due to that it slowly goes away now due to Global Warming. Also I think the problem is really Man-made due to that the people should never settle in a desert and hope for Rain to come. Also the Erosion there for cities will be a problem, due to that the Dust problem was probably caused by farmland Erosion there, which failed as there wasn’t enough Water there for anything to Grow. Yet the scientists hope for more rain by; “We refer to it as Mother Nature's perfect cloud-seeding system”. This means that there was 40% more rain over California, but the rivers barely get anything back from this water as the Water enters the ground and never comes up again as a lot more water will be needed there. It is really a bad idea to depend onto Nature now, although there is all this global warming really affecting the Nature now and so it could mean that there will be a lot less rain there. Also I think it is just not right for the people in California to think it is fine, due to that the people near the Sahara desert and in the middle east really need the water that the people in California now get. I think that this was really a bad decision done hundreds of years ago, to settle there and then cause problems by blocking off Rivers which lead to a drought and now these problems.

Images:

http://www.decodedscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/California-quake-23-may.png               

http://www.snow-forecast.com/system/images/11557/large/Sierra-Nevada.jpg?1319041770

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/837/cache/dust-snowfall-ngm-essick_83709_990x742.jpg

Gulf Oil Spill "Not Over": Dolphins, Turtles Dying in Record Numbers

Link: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/140408-gulf-oil-spill-animals-anniversary-science-deepwater-horizon-science/

By Christine Dell'Amore

Written for: National Geographic

The Image above shows the initial efforts to extinguish the fire, and contain the
spill. 

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred four years ago, and still today the consequences are present. Several wildlife species are failing to adapt and recover. The most affected species are sea turtles and the Bottlenose dolphins which are dying in great numbers. The spill occurred in april 2010, and killed 11 workers, and spilling 750 million liters of oil into the Gulf. After the event, various agencies attempted to clean up the gulf, and succeeded to a certain extent, but what was more important was the effort they made to track the impacts the spill had on wildlife, and investigate the various ways that the effects could be minimized.  

It is estimated that 14 species are still failing to recover. Since the oil spill 900 bottlenose dolphins have been found either dead or stranded in the area affected. If the dolphins were placed in a line that would equal 2.4 kilometers, of dead dolphins. Along with the deaths of dolphins, many of them are ill, suffering from anemia, liver and lung diseases and a lack of weight. “When a predator like a dolphin is falling ill it is a sign that species further down the food chain are also having trouble” (Douglas Inkley, author of the report and a member of the national wildlife federation). Along with the dolphins the sea turtles are also endangered, there are 5 species of sea turtles that are found in the gulf. All of them are either threatened or endangered by the Endangered species act. On an annual basis, 500 dead sea turtles were found since the spill occurred. These numbers are based only on the turtles and dolphins that were found, there are many more which haven’t been found by scientists. Other species such as Bluefin and Yellowfin tuna, Sperm Whales, And loons (Birds that spend their summer in the Gulf) have all suffered some type of consequences, most relating to the concentration of toxic oil found in their blood.

Though the WWF and other organizations are still trying to clean up the ocean as much as possible, it is hard to remove oil from the ocean. But its impossible to make up for the species that were put into danger, as they are being put into more danger everyday, as they are still living in the polluted water. The best way to fix these problems is to prevent them from happening in the first place, the gulf will most likely never be as clean as it was prior to the spill, and this will cause further problems for wildlife. This relates to the current topic we are studying and the environmental viewpoints. It is interesting to note that the WWF, which should be a mostly ecocentric group, in the dark green region, are now resorting to a solution that a technocentric person would use. Once the problem is created they are trying to solve it with technology, as opposed to taking the proper steps towards prevention. An ecocentric person would have campaigned against the creation of the oil rig in the first place and wouldn't have allowed the accident to occur.

Death tool climbs in flood-hit India and Pakistan

Viktor Zivojinovic
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/13/world/asia/india-pakistan-monsoon-flooding/
21/9/2014

"I woke up and suddenly i felt some thing was wrong." Najeeb told the CNN."Soon there was a thud and our main gate had been open by the water which were rising alarmingly."Within no time our first floor was flooded, we rushed upstairs to the third floor as we watched dreadfully the waters covered the second floor in no time as well. In the end Najeeb and here husband were rescued the rescuers, and taken somewhere safe.

We all know what happened to Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Macedonia, there were hit by very big amounts of rain, last recorded 120 years ago, The river had burst into towns and villages, cutting of the whole communities,

We all can do something about these flood, Donate money, help the people, But now the whole world had to help, We need to stop global warring, because soon we will use up our whole plant, and we won't have a place where to live.

We all know what can floods do to our community. In this Flood that is happening now in India and Pakistan nearly 500 people lost heir lives in both counties, At least 280 people have been killed in Pakistan and more the 500 people were injured, 200 people have died form the flooding in India, that's what said the administered kashmir. Now the whole world can pray for India and Pakistan. The people form Serbia, Bosnia and other countries  know what is the feeling of being flooded. And we will pray for them,

Bye bye birdies...?

"Shrinking and shifting ranges could imperil nearly half of U.S. birds within this century."

Baltimore Orioles

The National Audubon Society is a group conducting a study which "is a comprehensive, first-of-its kind study that predicts how climate change could affect the ranges of 588 North American birds" (audubon.org).  This group reported that in the several upcoming decades, as the climate becomes warmer, many different species of birds will have to move on from their current locations... endangering a reported 588 species of birds. The report by Gary Langham, the chief scientist of the NAS, talks about this effect in North America.

Baird's Sparrow

The report talks of 126 species of North American birds that will have much less space and areas to live in due to the specifications of their organisms and the changes in the climate in the areas they currently reside in -- therefore potentially making them endangered. Another 188 species were said to lose more than half of their range, and will have to face different soil and foods. All of this is said to be in full effect by the year 2080.

Turkey vulture     American crow

On the other hand, birds like the turkey vulture and American crow, which are known as birds that are disliked, are said to tremendously expand their ranges. The American robin and blue jay are also said to be seen a lot more in additional other areas.

"Bye, Bye, Birdies? Species Will Shift with Warming Climate." NBC Science. NBC News, Sept. 2014. Web. 21 Sept. 2014.

100,000 Elephants Killed by Poachers in Just Three Years

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140818-elephants-africa-poaching-cites-census/
Brad Scriber
August 18,2014

“During 2011 alone, roughly one of every twelve African elephants was killed by a poacher.” The most endangered area is central Africa where most of the killings take place. It is happening mainly because of the search for ivory although there has been a ban on the trade in this precious material. The main problem is that the survival of elephants is in danger, since there has been a 64% decline in elephant population in recent years. However, it is very difficult to know the exact number of killings since there is no precise information on the total number of elephants in Africa. There is some data but it is over a decade old. In 2002 a program called MIKE (Monitoring the Illegal killing of Elephants) was created to try to establish the number of elephants killed. There will also be the Great Elephant Census in 2015 which will try to determine the total elephant population. However, it is very difficult to make aerial estimates since it is difficult to spot forest elephants from the air. The latest analysis claims that the elephant population is seriously declining and that even without the killings it is getting lower by 3% every year. Besides the obvious, the disappearance of elephants could have serious negatives effects on Africa’s animals and plants. It will reduce genetic diversity and the distribution of this species and its ecological role. Also, elephants are considered “megagardeners of the forest” because their lifestyle benefits their habitat.

Personally I feel sorry for the elephants because they are one of my favorite animals and they are beautiful, majestic creatures. Obviously, killing animals for profit is bad and everyone knows that. If we take a deeper look, we have to wonder what we are doing to our planet. Besides things such as wars and pollution, killing innocent animals is the worst thing to do. If we continue like this there will be no animals left on this planet. Not only it will disturb the natural balance that we have, it will also make the Earth a very sad, deserted place. Without the animals, the plants will disappear too and there will be nothing left.  

Where the Smog Ends Up: The Giant Sequoia Forest

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140910-sequoia-national-park-smog-ozone-california-science/

Figure 1: The largest treeing the world;
General Sherman.

By Jeff Wheelwright

for National Geographic

SEPTEMBER 10, 2014

The concern is now focused on the Sequoia National Park, which is home to some other largest trees on Earth, including the "General Sherman" which is the largest tree on Earth [Figure 1]. The national park, unfortunately, is situated near the San Joaquin Valley, which is an industrial and agricultural region. Because of the pollution emitted from nearby sources, Sequoia National Park has the worst air quality in the United States. 

Origin of problem

The main reason for this occurrence are the west winds, which bring pollution from the San Francisco Bay, Fresno, nearby highways, farmlands and summer wild fires. Typically, the polluted air would keep flowing west, if not for the Tehachapi Mountains, which ricochet it back, and it slowly rises. That mix of different harmful chemicals includes ozone, nitrogen oxide, evaporative organic compounds, and residue from pesticides. However, ozone doesn't just simply arrive, it is formed from nitrogen oxide and different hydrocarbons with reaction to sunlight. Being considered as a very unstable compound, it is difficult to fight, and quite harmful to the tissue of the flora in the park.

Figure 2: View from the Sequoia National Park Mountain

Effect on National Park

The smog supposedly "creeps in" in the morning along the river, and as seen in Figure 2, gives a misty coat to the national park. This however, has been controlled over years, and noticed as a pattern, to occur mostly during the summer, when the temperature is very warm, and no clouds are there to cover the ozone from developing. The largest harm was seen on not the mature and tall trees, but the smaller and young generation of trees, especially pines. We can see that this is a problem, mainly because 

Improvements & Concerns

In comparison to 1982, the air quality in Sequoia National Park improved, however at its best year (2013), it was still the worst in history of all national parks in America. Initially, the San Joaquin Air Control District has been promoting electric-powered technology instead of those which emit polluting gasses, as well as educated drivers on carpooling and unnecessary idling. However, scientists predict, that the National Park's air quality will be resorted to natural state by approximately 2096.

I believe that this is a major thing that we don't necessarily pay attention to as much. Most people say that we should stop pollution for ourselves, to improve OUR health and our lives, rather than also notice that there are animals and plants suffering from our doings. As mentioned in the article, "California has told federal regulators that 'natural conditions' won't be restored until 2096.", which is somewhat a long term effect which we notice now, not before, and it's not like we change our lifestyles so much to adjust them just to this one park in particular. Majority of the people probably don't even realise that their grass mowing is so harmful to the growth of pine trees. All of this however, has a action-reaction into an exponential growth of ozone. In theory, pollution has an effect of climate change, whether it's extreme droughts or extreme floods. There is a possibility, that over the next year, if the ozone emission continues, and droughts overcome California, more wildfires will be created, more sunlight will be there to allow ozone to form, and it will all double, triple etc. Therefore, when we consider helping in creating a solution to this problem, we have to remember that there are other factors which have a miraculous impact on this, such as the pollution in Los Angeles or river pollution, which comes along into the park. 

In my opinion, this is a very important thing to look into and care about, especially that this park is home to many species of animals as well as plants. The unique things about it are the largest trees, and with the ozone damaging younger generation trees, we won't be able to maintain the habitat they have now, just destroy it and cause deforestation and desertification in the upcoming centuries. Considering the fact that people nowadays are so dependent on technologies which pollute the environment, the government and the people should come up with better solutions to those long term problems, starting with raising awareness, because no one knows much about it. 

Water Footprint

How big is your water footprint? You may be surprised
http://www.eco-business.com/news/how-big-your-water-footprint-you-may-be-surprised/

Ruth Matthews

25 August 2014

Jovana Curcic

This article talks about one of the most important themes concerning all the living parts of our planet-water deficiency problems. To be honest, this was the first time I read about water footprints. A few years ago, I heard of the ecological footprint, or more precisely the carbon footprint, meaning the negative impact of people's activities and energy use on the Earth, but I don’t quite remember much about it. (This is why I think that this course is really necessary for many of us). Anyways, the water  footprint was something I read about for the first time, and it made me think about a variety of aspects concerning our everyday lives.

What is the water footprint? According to Ruth Mathews, director of the Water Footprint Network, the water footprint is “the impact of our activities on freshwater resources”. In other words, everything that we do has some impact on freshwater. For example, a cup of morning coffee requires 140 l of fresh water (for beans to grow), or one pair of jeans which is approximately one kilogram of cotton requires even 10,000 l  fresh water!!! And the most endangered are the producers of resources, which are often the poor countries such as Columbia and India. According to the article, the average consumption of a person in the UK is about 150 l of water per day, but this number rises to more than 4,500 litres per day, when all the water hidden in the water footprint is calculated. Some other examples are seen in the picture below.

 So, why do we even need water and why bother about the water footprints that we leave behind? The demand for freshwater is growing rapidly around the world specifically because of all the species around, climate change and irresponsible resource use. If we know that almost 750 million people worldwide do not have access to clean water at all, we should be aware of our consumption, and introduce water footprint in our decisions and choices.

Since we depend so much on water, we overuse it with the things we do in our everyday lives; for example making coffee in the morning and buying a new pair of jeans. Not only are we wasting it, but we’re also causing harm to the environment. So, each of us should be aware about water consumption and be a responsible consumer. We pollute water all around the world, and this usually leaves the rivers running dry and the species being endangered because of the contaminated water. What can we do to reduce water pollution? We should minimize the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, and we should NOT dispose of these chemicals,motor oil, or other fluids into the sanitary sewer system. We should use a minimum amount of detergent/bleach when washing out clothes. We should avoid using garbage disposal, keep solid wastes solid, etc. We shouldn’t throw litter into rivers, lakes, or oceans (These were some ideas that I read from a different article).

It is incredible how unaware of the surroundings we really are, and the amount of attention we give to the environment is extremely limited! Reading this article, I found myself thinking about many different aspects of this topic, and the question that came up in my head made me worry about the future- what if we lose all the water that we have one day? What would be with the existence of many future generations and what should we do to do to fix this problem? I think that for the beginning, each of us should start from his/her own closet and ask himself: “Do I really need so many T shirts?”

Bibliography:

http://www.eco-business.com/news/how-big-your-water-footprint-you-may-be-surprised/

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAj6B33cE2DfWVBquUzkyHzEvuuqu7eujQxH5moFNSGJ2oYLxLWCa6x2EXnPbpfNO6hAPCGomUgKqe7lEHvUZukp7xFloFRYBGaXHhGRHL4ufiSn8RzbF63bv-JMFfKgIA0ufXRul1E7c/s1600/WaterFootprintPoster.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6p1csyGhZ18BhwLxB-GdvLT-U4TZ2KBZbPVENRSW02p0-pw2Yiw

SpaceX Rocket Base to Be Built Near Endangered Sea Turtle Nesting Beach

September 8. 2014

Melissa Gaskill for Scientific American

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacex-rocket-base-to-be-built-near-endangered-sea-turtle-nesting-beach/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_Red_List#mediaviewer/File:Status_iucn2.3.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemp's_ridley_sea_turtle#mediaviewer/File:Lepidochelys_kempii.jpg

Google Maps

“Can rockets and endangered species co-exist?” The private Space Rocket Company SpaceX wants to build a launch site right next to a place where many endangered live. This is in Boca Chica, in Texas right next to the border of Mexico. A large variety of Sea turtles live there including the Leatherback, Loggerhead and Kemp’s Ridley Turtles. These all are sea turtle types that are endangered from extinction. On the other Hand the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration gave SpaceX the approval to apply to licenses to build the Launch pad. In that wildlife Park although there is a Sea Turtle Restoration Project which could be endangered by the project of SpaceX. The Turtle Type Ridley is nesting in the Wildlife Area and the number of them increased until 2009, when the Nesting decreased by 25%, and then in 2014 to 45% less than 2009. The Decline is said to be caused by the oil spill of deep water horizon. Yet the number of loggerhead turtles had increased to 1100 nesting in 2014. On the other hand in Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Rockets and Animals already co-exist since 50 years. This was only made possible by Government watching closely to minimize effects. The company SpaceX has already started to speak with Biologists to make clear if turtles will be able to live there.

The article although says that it could be possible that it is much more complicated to secure the animals than in Florida due to that SpaceX is a private company and the Wildlife Parks are mostly owned by private holders. They although say that they will want to secure the animals by themselves, as they have talked to many agencies already. If the turtles won’t be protected, it could be possible that up to 91 Turtles nesting could be killed or harmed, as they breed up to 3 clutches in a season meaning a strong loss. Next, SpaceX wants to remove 6 Hectares of Land and 1 Hectare of Water Land, but they are cutting off another Hectare of wetland. It can so be expected that the turtles could move, which would be a big loss for the region. A true negative side is driven up by that they don’t want to say anything else than their statement, meaning there could be more damage. Furthermore, the Government will only allow the construction, if the environment is safe. Moreover the article says that there is a bad Formal oversight meaning that the environment could be endangered by the construction of the project.

I would really answer my question from the beginning as a strong No, in which endangered species can’t co-exist with rockets and Technology of this Kind. After my research, I found that the Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle and the Hawksbill sea Turtle are Critically Endangered. This is a level on the IUCN Red List that is just over “Extinct in Wild” and then comes Extinct. This is really sad, as the Nature should not lose these animals as they are almost extinct. Also the other Turtle types are endangered and no one of them has any concern. So I think that this is really the wrong place for something like a launch pad for rockets, as they can always explode or malfunction, which then means that the habitat of these animals could be lost forever, and then they could be extinct. Also the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration stated that “may affect, is likely to adversely affect”. This comes back to the species, so the administration already sees that there could very likely be a negative effect on the endangered species. Truly this will really be a wrong decision to build a launch pad at a place where it is expected that there will be damage to the wildlife around it. This means that another animal type could go extinct like over 800 others, which will show the Humans that we can’t always solve the problems with technology, but we must stop some things that will affect the nature negatively.

World’s Largest Dam Removal Unleashes U.S. River After Century of Electric Production

 August 26. 2014

Michelle Nijhuis for National Geographic 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140826-elwha-river-dam-removal-salmon-science-olympic/

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-content/photos/000/829/cache/82956_990x742-cb1409001825.jpg

The US was a leader in dam building in the 20^th century, using the electricity to power economic development, as well as a clean, and greenhouse gas free alternative energy source. However now Asia, Africa and South America are following their example and this could be a potential problem, as the US has come to see. Though it benefited greatly from dam building, the US has recognized that in some cases, these dams were causing damage to the environment, which was greater than their benefit to the whole country. The Elwha River is one of the rivers that was blocked off by a dam, and is one of the most affected.

The project started in the end of 2011, with the start of the removal of two dams. The Glines Canyon dam and the Elwha Dam. The most important aspect of the project is the fact that now after three years; species that once inhabited the area are migrating back. Salmon for example are migrating past the dam site, while trees and other vegetation are sprouting in the canals once filled with water. While the sediment that was previously trapped is now creating beaches in the connection of the river and 

the sea.

Figure 1, Shows where the dams were located, and how much of the river they blocked.

The two dams were widely regarded as a positive change, because they powered the growth of the whole peninsula. They powered the whole industry in the region, which was the timber industry. However the dams began doing more and more damage, endangering the fish and the well-being of the Elwha Klallam tribe. They protested for the protection of salmon runs, and in the 1980s they joint several environmental groups and started to lobby for the dam removal. The biggest step forward occurred in 1992 when the government purchased the dams from the timber companies, and explored the idea of removing them. After many years of lobbying and great effort in 2011, September the concrete removal process began. Senator Bill Bradley said "The reflection you see in Elwha is an image of what our country is capable of," he told the crowd”

I believe that this is a small step in the right direction, because it is providing, or re instating the natural habitat of several species, such as salmon. From the example of this dam removal project we can learn that if we have the will to work against pollution and climate change we can achieve results. The fact that such a small community is managing to cause change and to be a part of the largest dam removal project, only shows that no matter how small organization is, if they remain active and vocal they can achieve results. In this case it was the removal of a dam, actually 2. These dams were causing damage to the surrounding area, not only by flooding a region, but also by many animals who inhabited the area were forced to migrate, especially the fish , but also other animals on land, because dams produce great amounts of noise. Though dams are helpful