Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Essay:
water in your area? ("Your perspective on water differs whether you live near the Great Lakes, in the arid west, or by the coast."(McCarthy, 2009)
Outline a brief water conservation plan for your own daily use. How will these changes affect your personal life? What impact will it have on your local water supply?
There is plentiful water in my region (I live in the Great Lakes region). Nonetheless, a brief water conservation plan is the following:
To use water for just its needs and to ensure that tap water is not left running in between those needs.
To double used bathwater as water that can be used for washing the floor.
To, as much as possible, use rainwater for gardening
In order to supply water to humans certain technologies must be utilized.
Desalination is one of the methods that are used for promoting pure water supply. It literally means separating slat form water and thereby increasing the water supply that way, but it is a controversial solution since, although it works, it is also costly.
Australia's Sydney was recently torn over desalination plans. They planned to build a desalination plant that would extract a reasonable amount of seawater from his water, pump the rest back to sea, whilst the purified water would be pumped into houses, businesses and so forth.
One of the advantages of desalination is that it can act as backup if dam levels are low, or if there is a drought.
The disadvantage, however, is that construction of this plant is costly and can consume too much energy such as heat and electricity. It also consumes too much oxygen levels and results in an increase of the density of waste water. None of this is good for the environment.
Further detrimental for the environment is the fact that there will be an increase in production of greenhouse gas emissions.
These are the advantages and disadvantages of desalination, and it is for these reasons that Sydney was torn over the idea. (H20. Not worth one's salt.)
global climate change.
Part I. Questions:
Do you agree with President Obama's proposed commitments during the Copenhagen Climate Conference?
Obama called the conference a 'meaningful agreement', but it seems as though Obama's trip to the Copenhagen Climate Conference was a farce. He proposed that the world regulate their temperature rises to no more than 2C and that the UN assist developing nations in economically helping poor countries fight global warming.
On the one hand, the UN talks were symbolically important showing the need for global change. On the other hand, the talks were unrealistic and even counterproductive since media focus (e.g. Groves, 2009 ) was turned on Greenpeace activists who were turned away and the event was contrived to block out protestors.
Rather than focus on the lack of a binding UN treaty, the administration would do better to focus on the real problem which is the concentration of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
As reality, the world's two top greenhouse gas emitters -- China and the United States -- are reluctant to make drops in greenhouse emissions due to economic reasons rather than lack of concern for the climate. No UN treaty will change this. The best way to change this, in fact, is through developing cheap new energy technology rather than through a UN treaty.
Another more practical strategy would have been to promote existing low-carbon technologies, such as nuclear power and creating greater incentives for creating and globally disseminating new energy technologies. The UN could have massed to discuss more practical aspects such as cooperating in international research and development investment fund that would share intellectual property rights as well as creating policies that would guide and structure these endeavors. Domestic policies for limiting emissions that would differ from country to country would have been another reasonable issue.
In short, the climate conference -- and Obama's talks in it -- was symbolic, but practical and realistic measures are needed (U.S. News, 2009)
Farmers, animal breeders, and scientists have been making genetic selections for desirable characteristics in farm plants and animals for centuries using traditional breeding methods. Genetic engineering has the potential to accomplish this in a fraction of the time. However, the production of genetically modified plants and farm animals using the new techniques in molecular biology is controversial. Furthermore, the development of genetic engineering technology opens possibility of cloning human body parts or even individuals.
What is your opinion on creating, growing, and consuming genetically modified plants (GMOs)?
Proponents of GMOs see these as the benefits:
-GM crops can be made resistant to viruses, fungi and bacterial growth.
-GM crops can be engineered to grow faster.
-GM crops can be engineered to be naturally pest-resistant, undermining the need for pesticide chemicals.
-GM crops can be engineered to tolerate extreme weather conditions, such as cold fronts or droughts, allowing for a geographically diverse range of growth sites.
-GM crops can be engineered with added vitamins and minerals, which is especially beneficial in third world countries dealing with malnutrition.
On the other hand, critics are worried about the following:
The possible long-term environmental effects of GM crops
The possible health risks to humans
Cross breeding may create new food allergens
This may be a downward loop to genetically modifying animals too simply for consumption
These are valid concerns, particularly the concern on health (The possible health risks to humans). This is especially so given the comparative short amount of time that GM has been on the market and the FDA itself cannot guarantee the safety of GM food:
"FDA recognizes the desirability of establishing consensus within the industry, the scientific community, and the public on the agency's scientific assessment approach to food safety presented in this guidance section"
For this reason, caution should be taken and acceptance of GMO should proceed slowly. (Forbes.com (11/03/2012)
Can genetic technology offer a solution to world food shortages (an environmental problem)?
Whilst Bill Gates believes that it can produce new valuable crops, scientists such as Peter Rosset, director of Institute for Food and Development Policy in California, and organizations such as the FAO (FAO report reveals GM crops not needed to feed the world), believe, for different reasons that this is a myth. The FAO believes that this is a myth due to the complications of genetic technology and the 'iffiness' of the technology that make such hopes unrealistic.
Rossett, on the other hand, believes that this is a myth since the real problem with world food shortages is not food but poverty. These starving countries have an excess of food growing on their soil. The real problem is destruction of the wealth, and hunger can only be eliminated when purchasing power is widely dispersed. Poverty makes the rural poor become increasingly pushed form the land and, therefore, they are less able to demand the available food. The available food is, thereof, disproportionally allocated. Most developing countries see wastage of food or booming of exports whilst their own people have starved. New methods of genetic engineering of foods will not reduce world starvation (It is a myth that world hunger is due to scarcity of food)
Choose a success story related to the environment utilizing at least one reference source. Background to the success story
Summary of the success
Application of the success to other environmental issues or problems
The Clean Water Act of the 1970s made more of the nation's rivers and lake waters clean so that one can swim in them, drink form them, and fish in them. Salmon, for instance, have returned to the Penobscot River in New England; there was none in that River in the 1970's. The Lake Erie beaches, too, are open for swimming again and the lake has once again attracted all types of fish, including walleye that had deserted it. The fish population too has expanded. Furthermore -- due to hat Act - the Willamette River in Oregon, that was once called a "biological cesspool" (in 1967), thrives with migratory salmon and native trout.
The greatest achievements of the Act are the introducing of international, clean drinking water and treated wastewater leading to dramatic increase in and enhanced quality of longevity and quality of life.
The next task -- and one that activists and government is working on -- is focus on protecting watershed, water systems and aquifers, and chemicals and pathogens in the water supply. (Greenopolis.)
F#3 Constitution Day
Part I: Questions
The preamble of the U.S. Constitution directs the Federal Government to "promote the general welfare"...."secure the blessings of liberty" ..and protect "ourselves and our posterity." When thinking about our obligation to protect the environment, can a case be made that we are constitutionally bound to do so based on the quotes I gave you? What do you think? If so, how does that play into our responsibility to conserve and lessen our ecological footprint? If not, why not?
Promoting the general welfare…[continue]
"Water In Your Area Your Perspective On" (2012, November 18) Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/water-in-your-area-perspective-on-107060
"Water In Your Area Your Perspective On" 18 November 2012. Web.21 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/water-in-your-area-perspective-on-107060>
"Water In Your Area Your Perspective On", 18 November 2012, Accessed.21 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/water-in-your-area-perspective-on-107060
The case of the World Commission on Dams is a good example of how this tendency to centralize water resource management can be mitigated, if not completely eliminated. The political reality of the world is that government represents more than just laws and policies, just as management and governance has to be about more than just enacting laws and edicts, but should reflect the values of the community and the
Water Privatization in Bolivia: Assessment Bolivia is one of the poorest countries on the continent of South America. Under pressure from the World Bank, the water systems of several of Bolivia's poorest areas were put up for purchase by private investors. The privatization of water in Bolivia began in the latter 1990s, just a few years before the turn of the 21st century. The problem, the controversy, and the resistance continue
Water Privatization How Privatization of Water is Bad for the World Water is a scarce resource, a fact that is becoming more evident as time goes on and pollution becomes more evident. There are many instances where privatization has been beneficial; bureaucratic red tape often makes policy making a headache for consumers, and some eagerly advocate for privatization of certain resources. Privatization often has advantages, but in many instances it also realizes
Water Supply by Water Health International to Honduras This is the section that gives a brief summary of the entire project or paper, citing the particular areas of emphasis that will be expounded upon in the body of the paper. It enables one to highlight the used methods and the hypothesis being tested (Literacy Education Online, 1998). In this particular case, the abstract will briefly indicate the prompt to the research,
Water Awareness and Education for Sustainable Watershed Management Today, the human society continuously deals with the issue of limited resources, as compared to an extensively growing amount of needs. Among these limited resources, water is vital, not only because mankind cannot survive without it, but also because it is essential to producing so many other secondary items, including food and clothing. At the same time, water and watersheds are an essential
Water in Sub-Saharan Africa is of special interest because of my background but water is a fascinating issue in general, one that I think will play an increasingly large role in the 21st century, as the effects of population growth and climate change bring about significant changes to our water usage and availability. A lack of water in particular has a substantial destabilizing effect. Water as a social issue combines a
Geology Water is an important resource of earth and an inevitable requirement of life. There is no life without water; regardless it is human life, animal life or plant life. Water is mandatory for all kinds of life and it is no exaggeration to mention that if life ends, no activity is required on the face of earth. So it is a valid statement that water is life. The fundamental concepts of