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.