Global warming's environmental impacts on disease migration and weather patterns

Global Environmental & Ecological Issues

Global Ecology Assignments

Climate and Air Pollution - Climate change is an environmental issue in the news almost daily, and air pollution impacts us on a global level. What are the implications of global warming? Do you think the efforts to improve air quality are worth the economic costs? (One page).

The implications of global warming is a bit of a misnomer since the effects of global warming are already being felt -- already having dire impacts on the environment. Global warming is impacting the environmental niches by changing the climates and weather patterns. These are not simple issues and include very complex problems. One such problem is that as the countries in the north grow warmer, the diseases that are normally found in southern countries migrate north through insect migration. Diseases such as malaria and plague can move back into environments in which they were eradicated eons ago. Some scientists argue that the reason malaria has not been fully eradicated in some countries is due to global warming at its present levels.

The weather patterns changing as a result of global warming include destructive weather effects such as hurricanes, the occurrence of which is tied to the temperature of the oceans. In 2004 and 2005, hurricanes occurred more frequently and they were stronger than what would be considered typical. Many parts of the earth will experience flooding -- directly from the warmer temperatures that bring storms like those in tropical areas and indirectly from the melting polar ice caps. Not all areas of the earth become wetter and warmer with global warming. Some parts of the earth will suffer droughts and intense heat waves. Africa and Europe are expected to experience the most severe droughts. The dire conditions surrounding drought and famine are likely to increase wars and conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. These changes would cause very disastrous economic consequences. Just dealing with the effects of destructive storms is sufficiently daunting, but bringing about a resurgence of deadly diseases coupled with drought, famine, and pestilence could overwhelm the resources available to address the problems.

There is no question that the cost of improving air quality to lessen global warming is "worth it." To do otherwise is to commit to costs that are unfathomable.

20 deadliest environmental effects of global warming. Environmental Graffiti. Retrieved http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/5-deadliest-effects-of-global-warming/276?image=6

Energy - If you had to argue the benefits of wind energy, what would they be? What are the risks? Support your claims with at least two references in addition to your text in support of your position. Cite your sources in APA format. (One page).

The World Wind Energy Association reported in 2010 that wind power can generate 430 TWh annually, or approximately 2.5% of worldwide electricity usage (World Wind Energy Association, 2010). The average annual growth in new wind power installations over the past five years has been 27.6% (World Wind Energy Association, 2010). By 2013, wind power market penetration is anticipated to reach 3.35% by 213 and 8% by 2018 (World Wind Energy Association, 2010). Several European countries and other countries have achieved relatively high levels of wind power penetration (World Wind Energy Association, 2010). As of 2011, Denmark has reached 28% of their stationary or grid electricity production; Portugal has reached 19%, Spain has reached 16%, Ireland has reached 14% and Germany has reached 8% (World Wind Energy Association, 2010). A total of 83 countries around the globe were using wind power on a commercial basis in 2011 (World Wind Energy Association, 2010).

Wind power is a very positive alternative to fossil fuels ("Wind & the UK," 2005). The benefits of wind power are generally apparent and include the following attributes: clean, plentiful, renewable, widely distributed, produces no greenhouse gas emissions during operation, and has a small footprint ("Wind & the UK," 2005)

The cost per unit of wind power for the energy it produces is roughly equivalent to the cost of establishing new natural gas or coal plant installations ("Wind & the UK," 2005) Even when people object to the installation of wind power installations, they are hard pressed to compare any drawbacks they may have with other sources of energy, on a point-by-point basis ("Wind & the UK," 2005) As wind power moves to larger installations, issues regarding some of these complaints solidify ("Wind & the UK," 2005) For instance, siting, land availability in optimal resourcing locations, aesthetic issues, and environmental concerns gains some legitimacy ("Wind & the UK," 2005)

World Wind Energy Association (2010). Retrieved http://www.wwindea.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=43

Wind and the UK's 10% Target, The British Wind Energy Association Briefing Sheet. The Energy White Paper - The Green Light for Renewable. Retrieved http://www.bwea.com/pdf/briefings/target-2005-small.pdf

Greenhouse Gases - Visit Greenhouse Gases Lab (accessible through the Labs section of Contemporary Environmental Issues) and complete the virtual lab. In this lab you will use a computer model to explore how human activities are creating a blanket of heat-trapping pollution in Earth's atmosphere. The model illustrates sources of top heat-trapping pollutants and their general impacts on Earth's temperature. In order to complete this lab, download the Greenhouse Gases Lab Instructions. Answer the Lab Questions at the end of the document. To answer the Lab Questions, you will reflect upon how destabilizing Earth's climate not only impacts ecosystems and biodiversity, but also critical elements of human well-being, such as fresh water supplies and agricultural production. Save it as a Word document and submit it. (Three pages)

Nuclear Power- All energy sources have drawbacks. Even the clean hydropower option has negative ramifications. Weigh those against the possible consequences of developing nuclear power, a controversial alternative to fossil fuels. Discuss the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster as well as the 20th century Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in drawing conclusions about risk vs. reward of nuclear energy use. The paper must be two to three pages in length and formatted according to APA style. You must use at least one scholarly resource other than the textbook to support your claims and subclaims. Cite your resources in text and on the reference page. (Three pages)

Possible Consequences of Nuclear Power

Fukushima Daiichi. The Fukushima Daiichi (number one) is a currently disabled nuclear power plant that is located on the seaward side of the island of Japan, in an 860-acre site in the towns of Futaba and Okuma ("Dirty inheritance," 2012). The plant was put into operation in 1971 ("Dirty inheritance," 2012). Six boiling water reactors (BWR) in the plant were used to drive electrical generators that produced 4.7 GWe ("Dirty inheritance," 2012). (A GWe or gigwatt equals one billion (109) watts or 1000 megawatts, and is used to designate electric power generating capacity of power grids or large power plants ("Dirty inheritance," 2012). This capacity put the nuclear power plant in the category of the world's 15 largest nuclear power stations ("Dirty inheritance," 2012). On March 11, 2001, an earthquake of the magnitude of 9.0 struck Japan ("Dirty inheritance," 2012). The earthquake and the tsunami that followed caused irreparable damage to the nuclear power plant ("Dirty inheritance," 2012). Reactor cooling systems in the plant were disabled which enabled nuclear radiation to leak into the environment. A 30-kilometer evacuation zone was established around the nuclear power plant as concerns about contamination of food and water supplies and harm to nuclear workers were addressed ("Dirty inheritance," 2012). In the years prior to the major earthquake, four incidents were recorded which indicated that some systems had failed ("Dirty inheritance," 2012). Importantly, three of the reactor towers had been shut down for planned maintenance prior to March 11, 2011 ("Dirty inheritance," 2012).

Chernobyl. The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located in Belarus, and construction was begun in the 1970s. The plant consisted of four nuclear reactors and the fourth reactor was completed in 1983, with the fifth reactor and the sixth reactor under construction on April 26, 1986 (Hatch, et al., 2005). The plant produced 10% of the electricity used in the Ukraine (Hatch, et al., 2005). A test of the backup power supply was conducted in reactor four, but the power fell too low which let the xenon-135 concentration rise (Hatch, et al., 2005). Since the disaster, it is estimated that 8,000 to 20,000 people have died, 20% of whom committed suicide (Hatch, et al., 2005). A full 70% of the total fallout was on Belarus, 20% of the Belarus land had to be evacuated within days causing 130,000 people to be immediately displaced, with approximately 2.5 million Belarusians impacted by the disaster (Hatch, et al., 2005). As the contamination spread over the years between 1990 and 1995, 210,000 more Belarusians were relocated (Hatch, et al., 2005). Today, people are unable to relocate out of the contamination zone because of housing shortages -- the recommended practices for reducing additional contamination are not feasible for residents in the contamination zone (Hatch, et al., 2005). Winds on the Black Sea spread the contamination widely across Europe, Scandinavia, and Great Britain (Hatch, et al., 2005). Forest fires continue to spread the contamination (Hatch, et al., 2005). The impact on human beings, livestock, and native animals, plants, food chains, and water supplies have been devastating (Hatch, et al., 2005). Plutonium's half-life is 24, 400 years (Hatch, et al., 2005).

Conclusions

Nuclear power is considered to be relatively safe -- and it is, as long as something does no go wrong. The margin for error is very small, and natural disasters pose risks that are not only unpredictable but are of a scope and magnitude that makes mediation impossible. The Fukushima Daiichi disaster is a case-in-point as the earthquake did damage that would have been challenging enough, but the tsunami tipped the balance by disabling the backup generators designed to cool the reactors. In Chernobyl, the problem stemmed from cost-cutting measures (the reactors were only partially contained in order to save money) and from the ignorance of workers (Hatch, et al., 2005). In addition, the people who had been exposed to the disaster in Chernobyl were not provided potassium iodine by their government which could have prevented the staggering number of cases of thyroid cancer from the radiation (Hatch, et al., 2005). The cement sarcophagus that was hastily constructed over the reactor containment area is deteriorating (Hatch, et al., 2005). Clearly the costs to humans and the environment have to be weighed against the demand for electricity provided by nuclear power plants. Even one disaster the size of Chernobyl is unconscionable (Hatch, et al., 2005). With the new alternative energy sources, such as wind, tidal, and solar energy, it may well be that no new nuclear plants will be constructed and that the old ones will gradually be decommissioned before they deteriorate to the point where disasters occur. Germany has already begun the process of shutting down all of its nuclear plants by 2020 (Dempsey & Ewing, 2011).