China is Going Green???

While china has the largerst population in the world, it also produces the most pollution in the world. Right now they are not very happy with themselves, and want to help the world that we all must share. That is why most people are putting solar water heaters on their roof, and some are even getting their electricity from only solar pannels. Although their usage on fossil fuel will increase by 3% in the next decade, they still hope to be able to contribute as much as they can. That is why recent news reporters have confirmed that the chinese government just signed with The company, First Solar, to buy enough solar pannels to make a huge solar farm. And when i say huge i mean huge!!!! China plans to set aside unused land in inner mongolia. So much land in fact that they are making a solar farm larger than the city of manhatan. The largest in the world. It wil dwarf any other solar farm and is expected to supply over 3,000,000 homes in china. Now i know you may think, whats the big deal? On the day of this announcement, First Solar's stock price rose 23%. It went from $12 per share to $19 per share. One man even had 5000 shares that he had bought at $4 each for $20000, they are now worth almost $100000.
I think that it is great that china is going through with this project. I also completely agree with the fact that they are the biggest populated countries which means they also are the most polluting country. I am glad that they are finnaly stepping up and taking reponsibility. Not only that, now that they have taken responsibility, they are working as hard as they can to fix their mistakes.
Here are some questions:
1. What is your take on this situation is it a good idea? Why or why not?
2. How do you think they will build this solar pannel? How much do you think it will cost? How long do you think it will take them to build it?
3. How much energy do you think that pannel can produce yearly?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1931616,00.html

In Global Forecast, China Looms Large as Energy User and Maker of Green Power

By: Clifford Krauss

China is the single country that can influence the rest of the world to use various renewable energies. China accounts for 17% of the world's energy consumption toady and by 2035 they will be accountable for 22%. China has surpassed the US and has become the largest energy user. The growing need for energy that China has is producing not only coal plants, but also wind and hydroelectric power that is good for our environment. China is investing in renewable energies around the globe. Beijing will be able to lift many people into the middle class if they keep on pushing to produce more energy. China is going to produce electric cars and their prices of oil are substantially higher than those in the United States. China's decisions will affect everyone in the world and they might create the revolution to cleaner energies like solar, wind, nuclear, and advanced coal. Oil prices will rise in the future and oil, natural gas, and coal will still be the main sources of energy over renewable resources. However, the need for renewable energy will only increase. Global energy demand growth revolves around developing countries like China and India.

I think that China has the potential to really make an impact on not only the health of our environment, but the whole world's way of life. Today, we use energy constantly and if China chooses to become a nation where they use mostly renewable energies, most likely every other nation will do the same. China is the biggest contributor to the production and use of energy. They have the power to change the way we live into a better way that will help future generations.

3 Questions:

1. Do you think that by 2035 we will still be as dependent on oil, natural gas, and coal as we are now? Why?

2. What renewable resource mentioned in the text do you think is going to be the most efficient? Which do you think will be the most popular?

3. Do you think China will work hard to continue making big strides to become an energy efficient nation and to influence other nations to follow their lead?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/business/global/10oil.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

British Airways' to Create Jet Fuel from Landfill Waste

02.24.10

By: Sam Grover

publication: Cars and Transportation(Aviation)

Link:http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/british-airways-jet-fuel-landfill-waste.php?campaign=th_rss

Will it actually work?

Summary: This article talks about that while the US air force announced that algae jet fuel may be just months away from being available everywhere, greener scientists are looking for even more cleaner alternative to Diesel gas which airplanes use. British Airways has been pushing ahead with its own plans and sustainable jet fuel,

their current plan is to create gas or jet fuel from landfill waste.

According to Renewable energy world magazine, British airways plans waste to energy fuel plants in east London and it should be converting 500,000 tons of organic waste per year into 16 million gallons of  jet fuels.

British airways hopes to be using this green kind of fuel by 2014 and by 2050 their goal is to reduce by 50% their emissions. This kind of fuel will be produced by feeding waste into a patented high temperature gasifier, producing BioSynGas which is then converted into jet fuel using the Fischer Tropsch process. An addition for those good news is  that the project will also reduce methane emissions from landfill to create a further by-product of 20 MW electricity per year. British Airways also currently committing to only 10% use of such bio-fuels by 2050.

Opinion: I think that British airways are onto something very interesting, if this idea would grow and spread around the world we could expect much more cleaner skies than what we have right now, i think it is much better to have airplane that runs at least 10% on landfill waste than an airplane which uses 100% fossil fuels, which is much more necessary for the people in the world. I also think that every change would be better for the would than what it is right now, i hope this idea would spread and will be use as a jet fuel all around the world.

3 questions about the passage:

1. Do you think that a jet fuel produced by landfill waste would really work? explain your opinion

2. Do you think we should protect our fossil fuels by trying other alternative ways to create energy?

3.How do you explain the rush of some companies to find an alternative energy source? Do you think the fossil fuels would run out faster that the government actually tells us?

Breaking Away From Coal

Breaking Away From Coal

New regulations have come into effect from Washington saying that 11 generators at four plants and that would have cost 2 million dollars and that would have gone over the limit of cost of 1.5 million. The company has been coal generated for decades but then heard about carbon regulation and knew they had to change. Many companies across the USA are reliazing this. At least ten companies over a year and half are planning to close their oldest and least efficent coal burning generators before 2019. Gas burning is a lot cleaner than burning coal in factories. Dan Eggers says that this has the potential to reshape energy consumption in the US significantly and permanently. Coal is also getting beat by nuclear and renewable energy but scientists think that gas will still win. There is one worry though that drilling for gas maybe hurt or endanger the groundwater.

I personally think that it is great that people are finding a way to make the air cleaner but still having factories that make things. Gas is so much clener than coal. I agree with Eggers when he says that this may change the US. Just changing a couple companies will make a different. Imangine if every factory changed. It wouldn't complelty take away air pollution but it would certainly help.

4 Questions...
1. Do you think it's a good idea to change all the factories all at once to gas?
2. How many factories do you think will have changed to gas by 2020?
3. Do you think this could change the US energy consumption?
4. Should they still drill for gas even if it could endanger our groundwater?

Electricity Collected from the Air Could Become the Newest Alternative Energy Source

Scientists have discovered a potential new energy source that could have a major impact in the way we get electricity in the future. In the past, scientists believed that moisture in the air was electricly neutral and that there was no electricity harnessed within them. New studies however, have proven this wrong and have showed that there is in fact electricity harnessed within water droplets in the air and that we can actually use it for electricity. This form of collecting energy has become known as "hygroelectricity" and scientists hope that in the future they will be able to create conductors similar to the cells used to harness solar power. Creating these conductors will not only allow us to use the electricity in our homes but it should also lessen the number of lightening related deaths and property damage since a vast majority of the electricity in the air would come from electricity conducted in the air through lightening.

Although I do think that this is a great possibility for the future, at the rate that scientists have been moving on gaining information on this energy source, it may take many more years before they actually have enough information to create these conductors to use for major home and business usage. But I do hope that they take large strides in making this energy source more availible for us.

Questions:

1.) Do you think that this energy source could become a major source of electricity ?

2.) How long do you think it will take for scientists to come up with these conductors and why ?

3.) What other energy source can you think of that is similar to this one ?

Fertilizer overuse destroying Chinese soil - study

Source: Reuters
Date: Nov. 18, 2010
Date Published: Feb. 11, 2010
Summary:


In southern China, citizens have been using too much nitrogen fertilizer. This is causing the soil to be completely unusable for agriculture. The pH levels are at 3 and 4 in some areas! This will not just last few days, it is a long term effect. Since most plants grow best in more neutral soil, like from 6-8, less varieties of plants will be able to grow. Soil acidification happens naturally, but in China's case, this is from the overuse of nitrogen fertilizer and the intense working of the soil. In 2007, China was producing 32.6 tonnes of nitrogen fertilizer and has been increasing since 1981. Soil surveys showed that the soil became more acidic after the country started to use nitrogen, or ammonium and bicarbonate and urea, fertilizers. Over all, the pH level in China has gone down 0.5 of a unit, which is significant. Lime can reverse this bad case of soil acidification, but it would be expensive. Other options for China are to reduce the amount of fertilizer they they use or to insert straw or crop residuals back into the soil to decrease its acidity.





Opinion:


I think out of the three choices China should save up the money over time and the government should reverse the soil acidification with lime. I would also want the government of China to set a limit to the amount of nitrogen fertilizers China is allowed to use. This would keep the acidity level down. If the reversed the acidity, but then kept using the fertilizers so much, the soil would just go back to its original, acidic state.





3 Questions:





1. Out of the three choices which would you do if you were the Chinese government? Would you reverse soil acidification with lime, reduce fertilizer use, or insert straw and residuals back into the soil?


2. If you were part of the Chinese population, what would you do to decrease the amount of nitrogen fertilizer use?


3. Why do you think the Chinese farmers are using so much fertilizer?





Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/TOE61805G.htm

Malaysia Messes With Mosquito Genes to Fight Dengue Fever

By: Jami Heimbuch

Published: 10.12.2010

Travel and Nature Magazine

Link: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/malaysia-messes-with-mosquito-genes-to-fight-dengue-fever.php?campaign=th_rss

The deadly mosquitoes

Summary: This article is telling us about the mosquitoes, they are the primary way of spreading diseases in humans, the spread nowadays malaria or the evil dengue fever.

 Malaysia has been fighting a frustrated battle with dengue fever, and might become the first Asian country to use genetically engineered insects, rather than pesticides or managed water ways, to fight against the spread of the disease.  

Malaysia has started a test for genetically engineering male mosquitoes -- when they are released from the lab, they will breed with females mosquitoes to produce offspring with shorter lifespans. 

The Malaysian hope is that the population of mosquitoes will be reduced, and along with it cases of disease among humans. 

The disease the test is primarily focused on is the dangerous dengue fever, because it has no cure of treatment to avoid and destroy the virus.

 Researchers seem to feel genetically changing the lifespan of mosquitoes is the best course of action since the Malaysians water is not clean and the chances that it would get clean are very low chances .

 However, local environmental scientists are worried that the genetic change could have consequences beyond reducing disease in the far future -- after all, there are many species that feed off mosquitoes, and reducing the number of mosquitoes also means reducing food sources from birds to fish to other insects. The project plans to release between 2,000 and 3,000 of the newly modified mosquitoes -- a fairly small number to start, but enough to see whether or not mosquito numbers begin to drop. I guess we would see in the next couple months if the results are good or bad.

My opinion: I think that by modifying the genes of mosquitoes, it will surly hurt other  species that are being fed of mosquitoes, this is a very risky step that might cause the world major changes in population and biodiversity,i hope it will not intervene too much with other species. The idea of the scientists is good and i think it will reduce completely the number of human infected by the dangerous disease, but yet i hope that no other species would be damaged completely by humans.

3 Questions-

1. In what ways would you try to remove the mosquitoes which spread difficult diseases?

2. What do you think might happen to species that are being fed of mosquitoes? Explain about their food chain?

3. Do you think this experiment could work? why or why not?

New Monkey Species Discovered In Columbia

This Article is about how a new Amazon Monkey species has been discovered in Columbia and researchers said that thursday that they believe the small, isolated population is at risk due to the cutting of the forest that is its home. This find was announced by Conversation International a group that helped finance the research in remote rain forests that until recently were considerd too dangerous for scientific work. The researchers believe that the species may be critically endangered. They estimate that there are less than 250 of the monkeys living in the forest.

I think that it is horrible that there is a possibility that these monkeys can die and or go extinct. I think that people should help save these monkeys. Even though we just discovered them we have probably been cutting down their homes and killing them without even noticing it. And if we did know this was happening i think that comeone should step in and tell the people cutting down the forests that they cant do this. Think about these questions.

1 If you had power, control, or money, how would you try to change this situation?

2 Why do you think that we have been so neglegent about the species that keep dieng because of us?

3 what are some ways that we can make living and homes more efficient and stop, or drastically slow down the rate that we cut down our forests, and hurt wildlife?

www.foxnews.com/world2010/08/12/new-monkey-species-discovered-columbias-amazon

Old Foes Square Off Over Issue of Puppies

Old Foes Square Off Over Issue of Puppies

This article is about how Montana and Missouri is the biggest states for bredders for dogs. Some people were agruing over the fact that you should have a certain amount of puppies you can breed. These people have agrued before about farm animals and now there going at it again. Animal rights have been protected and the people that have livestock for a living are complaining that it's not fair. There is now a proposition, Proposition B, have limited the amount of breeders in one state. 2 million dollars have been put to supporting this proposition. One person said this is the first step to complelety destorying the industry in US. These groups of people are also trying to debate the hunting games and make sure there are enclosures where you can't hunt for the animals. It is said that breeding dogs without a license can cause problems. Dogs can get sick and could die without proper care. For people who breeding puppies is their lives work and profession will be in a battle over this time.

I think is a good article to debate about. I'm on the side of the non-breeders. Only people who have a license to breed should be able to or it could cause major problems. And even if you have a license there should be a limit of puppies one person can breed or all of them could get sick. It sounds like these two groups of people fight an awful lot about a lot of topics. I do feel bad though for the people who make money off of breeding puppies because they will lose a lot of money after they get cut back from the limit of puppies they can breed.

Question:

1. Who do you think will win the agruement? The people who want to non-breeders or people who want breeders?

2. Why is people breeding puppies without a license cause a problem?

3. Why do you think this is one step for destorying the industry?

India's Tata group unveils two new variants of low-cost water purifiers

One of India's largest industrial groups recently released a more effiecient, and cheaper water filter for people to use to get their water clean. The new filter is priced at $16.60 as a opposed to the last cheapest - $20 - or other more expensive brands. The new filter also doesn't use electricy. A major problem with past water filters was that they required some kind of power source to run. THe majority of people that are in need of these filters barely have enough money to pay for clean water none the less electricity. People that didn't have electricity to use with these filters were forced to use the pollucted, unclean water that causes so many illnesses in this region.

I think that this is a great thing for the Tata Group to be focusing on. With water shortage and clean water scarcity being such a problem in that region, this company is making an extremely wise choice to give people a cheaper, better way to clean their water. When a life nessicity such as water comes into play, you really have to think about what it's going to take to get everyone the clean, unpolluted water that they need and I'm personally really glad that the Tata group is doing just that.

1.) If you could do something else to get people in India more clean water, what would it be ?
2.) Do you think that as making things becomes cheaper, we will be able to produce cheaper goods like this to poorer parts of the world ?
3.) Do you think that such a small object is going to have that large an effect on the slums of India ?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/332787,indias-tata-group-unveils-two-new-variants-of-low-cost-water-purifiers.html

China Report Shows More Population In Waterways

This article is about how in 2007 in China there is now twice as much pollution in waterways. The most disturbing report in the census is most of the discharge is from chemical oxygen demand. The discharge totaled up to 30.3 million tons in 2007. The vice minster of environmental protection said that the census had counted 13.2 million tons from agriculture effluents and 342600 tons of discharge from landfills. It is estimated that the lakes and rivers can only handle 7.4 million tons a year on chemical oxygen demand. A lot of farmers are just dumping there wastes into the lakes and rivers around them. A lot of people knew that China was in bad shape when it came to pollution but now there are numbers to prove it. The China government is trying to figure out a way to solve this problem.

Opinion: I think China better figure this out fast. You can't live like that. China has a lot of problems but I think this should be at the top of the list. People could start to die if they start drinking that water. It's on the side of the road like you see in the picture. It looks gross and is bad for the earth and your health.

3 questions:

1. Where else would farmers put there waste if the government made them stop?

2. We always read about how China has lots of problems right now, should this be at the top of the list to fix?

3. How would you stop this if you were in the Chinese government?

Chinas Population Growing faster Than Need for Water

The article i read was about how the supply of water in china could not keep up with the large population of china. China is not able to dam or divret water fast enough to keep up with its very large, and very thirsty population. In northern china this year there have been recordings of 10 meter deep ( or about 33 feet deep) in peoples, dry dead farms. Many farmers are losing a lot of money on their crops because they cannot harvest in time for fear of bieng injured in the holes, and also for the lack of water. Either they water the farms or drink it to stay alive. 62% of chinas 51 reseviors have run completely dry. Reports say that over 2500000 people are short on drinking water. In south china over 600000 people were affected by their drought and more than 200000 animals died, including animals for food and animals that help on farms. Chinas government has many things to worry about but this may jump right up to number one on their fix list.

Opinion- I think that it is horrible that all these people are so short on water. i could not imagine having no water to drink let alone using it to wash dishes clean clothes and do more. I hope that the crisis in China is solved as quickly as possible. I am really worried that people may die from this drought. If i had a say in this i would solve the problem as quickly as possible.

Questions

1- If you had a say in this what would you do about this problem?

2- How are some ways that you would try to get yourself and your faimly through a drought?

3-How are some ways that you can help reduce the use of water in china? Do you think that the population has the biggest effect on the drought?

The BP- Spill Baby- Turtle Brigade

Summary:

The Loggerhead turtles' nesting season is in May and when the oil spill occured, there was a problem. On the northeastern coast of the Gulf of Mexico, female sea turtles began to lay their eggs. When these eggs hatch, the turtles come out of the ground and try their hardest to make it to the ocean. If they make it, they find their way onto mats of seaweed called sargassum and float around on the sargassum for several years. By June, all the sargassum had been contaminated with oil. Then the state and federal wildlife agencies came up with a plan to take the eggs before they hatch and send them to Florida, where they will hatch and be let into the oil-free Atlantic. Loads of volunteers were needed to help out and people helped basically just because they loved turtles! 5 species of turtle that nest on American beaches are threatened or endangered and the Loggerhead turtles are one of those species. Now the volunteers and wildlife agencies try to find the turtles' nests and they protect them. This isn't easy because they have to wake up very early, before anyone gets on the beach, to see the tracks of the female turtles, which are called turtle crawls, and find the nests.


Opinion:

I think what the wildlife agencies and the volunteers are doing is very important. The Loggerhead turtles are already endangered and it would be horrible if they became extinct. It would lower the biodiversity of the area and it would disrupt the food web. I like that the volunteers love these turtles enough to help them survive. I think that since humans made this problem, they should have to fix it. I also hope the oil spill gets cleaned up soon so it stops negatively affecting marine animals.


1. Do you think transporting the turtles to be hatched on the coast of florida was a good idea?

2. If you were a person that lives in an area where the turtles hatch, would you volunteer to help?

3. Why do you think the turtles float around on the sargassum for a few years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/magazine/03turtles-t.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Population 4x More Important Than Climate Change on Water Shortage

Title-Population 4x More Important Than Climate Change on Water Shortage.

Author:  Jaymi Heimbuch

Date: 10/1/2010

publication: Treehugger.com

Link:http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/population-4x-more-important-than-climate-change-on-water-shortage.php?campaign=th_rss

The population of the World is almost 7 billion humans!!!

Summary: 

We're well aware of the fact that humans have a significant impact on water supplies -- from groundwater pumping to altering the course and flow of the world's rivers, we are no small player in how much fresh water exists on the planet. However, would we ever have guessed that we were four times more significant than climate change on water supplies? A new report shows that we really need to focus far more on humans than warming temperatures if we want to avoid major water conflicts in the near future.

Researchers in Finland and The Netherlands have analyzed the mix of population growth, climate data and water resources and have found that despite the fact that our global climate is shifting at a dizzying rate, our population boom as a species has a far greater impact on water sources.

Environmental researchers reports that according to the study, about 2% of the world's population experienced water shortages in 1900, but it shot up to 9% in 1960 and skyrocketed to 35% in 2005. The water shortages fall in line with our population rise -- but it also seems to fall in line with our heightened consumption of goods and services on a global level.
"In Eastern Asia and North Africa, over 20% of the population has been under some level of water shortage since the year 1900," Matti Kummu of Aalto University, Finland told the Environmental Research Web. "In the Middle East, this point was not reached until 1960, and in South Asia slightly later. In South Asia the trend has been particular sharp as today over 90% of the population are under some level of water shortage."
The researchers feel that the study highlights that in some areas there simply isn't enough water to support the population.
"Consequently, there will be an increasing need for non-structural measures, focusing on increasing the efficiency of water use, lowering water use intensity, reforming the economic structure of countries or entire regions, and optimising virtual water flows from regions without shortage to regions with shortage."

Opinion: I think that we should definitely watch out for our water supplies because according to this article it should be gone in a matter of 20-30 years. If we will lose all of our water supply not even one single human would survive in this world and the human population growth would go to extinction.

I think we should control the human population growth because if we won't start taking care of it today, it might hurt our kids and family in the near future. we should have laws that would control the human population from getting too big.

Questions:

1.What do you think would happen to the human population growth when there won't be any water supply left?

2. What do you think the government should do to stop this massive human population growth?

3.what do you think would happen to the cost of regular water in the next 10 to 50 years?

 

Draw up enadangered tiger species by 2022 ?

A meeting in Bali was held, with representitives from over 13 countries to come up with a plan to double the endangered tiger species by 2022. The meeting was held to come up with a program so that Indonesia could double the amount of tigers. The WWF said that there were about 2300 tigers in thw world today - 400 of which are the endangered Sumarian tigers. Indonesia has developed a system where they allow wealthy people to adopt tigers and they care for them and pay for their wellbeing. Although the country has been critized for this, anything is better than the tigers being killed by poachers.

I definitely think that this is the kind of thing that we need to be doing for endangered animals. Breeding and protecting them so that they can continue to thrive in their habitats. Even if this involves adopting out the species so that they can be better taken care of, if we help, these species will be able to thrive and live on. We need to help them though because otherwise they WILL die out.

1. How do you think they'll increase the tiger population?
2. Do you think it's right to adopt out the endangered tigers to other people?
3. Is there another specific species that you can think of taht's in this same postion ?

Link: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/333442,double-endangered-tiger-population.html

Invasive Species: Killer Shrimp Invades the UK

Killer Shrimp Invades the UK!

Travel and nature magazine on 09.15.2010

Written by: David DeFranza.

Wanted!! Better dead than alive! The killer Shrimp

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09/killer-shrimp-invades-the-uk.php?campaign=th_rss

Summary:When the eastern gray squirrel was introduced to the UK during the 19th and 20th centuries, it quickly found a niche— out-pacing the smaller, weaker, and generally less fit native red squirrel throughout England. Since then, conservations have struggled to preserve the  populations of red squirrel and the eastern gray has become a symbol of a dangers invasive species

Now, an alien shrimp has appeared in the coastal waters of the UK and experts fear the arrival may be the aquatic equivalent of the gray squirrel introduction. The shrimp, Dikerogammarus villosus, better known as "killer shrimp," is a predator native to freshwater habitats in Eastern Europe. However, it's ability to tolerate a wide range of temperatures, levels of salinity, and oxygen concentrations has allowed it to spread quickly throughout Western Europe. Once established, the killer shrimp hunts voraciously, often killing other crustaceans and small fish without even eating them. As a result, the shrimp has had a significant impact on freshwater ecosystems from Germany to France to the Netherlands and now, the coast of England.

Opinion:

When i first read the article, I was surprised to find out that shrimp can be danger to other species, I was sure that they are one of the only species that just wait to be eaten by others, but i was wrong about shrimp!

I think that these kind of shrimp is a danger to the world because it ruins that balance and biodiversity near the UK shores.

Scientists in the UK should find a way to get rid of these species as fast as they can before they make a great impact on the biodiversity in the area.

Question:

1.what do you think would happen if someone would catch the shrimp and eat it for dinner?

2.How do you think it will impact the UK sea biodiversity?

3.Do you think there are ways to stop the spreading of this shrimp?

 

IN SEARCH OF THE GRIZZLY( IF ANY ARE LEFT)

By: William Yardley

Published Sept 16, 2010

Grizzly bears have been called endangered since 1975. They have not been sighted in the North Cascadas since 1996. Explorers are going out and exploring weather grizzy bears still exsist in this area. Some people disagreeeon the fact that bringing grizzlies should come back into this area. They think it will bring more conflict than ever. Farmers think they are a danger to people and to animals. A bear in the wild is not the same as a loveable stuffed teddy bear at home. For thirty years the government has been working on this endangered species population in Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. One to two million dollars have been put aside for helping these bears in these states.

I am so happy that someone is taking a notice to things like this. One or two million dollars is a lot of money but I honestly think its worth it! Endangered species argurments can go on forever but I am a strong believer that sometimes its humans fault for animals going extinct. These types of bears used to be hunted before they became endangered and protected by the state. They are a part of the food chain and the eco-system. We need to keep them around!

Do you think that grizzles should be brought back into these areas?

What do you think about all this money going to endangered species?

Do you think about the food chain? Are grizzles important?

In Nature’s Immigration Fight, Newcomers Battle Natives

By: Renwick McLean

Published August 29, 2006

The Canary Islands are mostly dry and hot, but they are home to over 4000 endemic species. There is an area called Cruz del Carmen in Tenerife, Canary Islands and it's a tropical forest that has very high biodiversity. On average, scientists discover a new species or subspecies every six days and any handful of soil can easily contain four or five native species of insects. Although Cruz del Carmen is teeming with life, other parts of the Canary Islands are under attack. Invasive species cut the percentage of indigenous plant species in half and now only one out of two plant species are native. Generally, a foreign species invades the Canary Islands every 17 days, and every six months one of those foreign species seriously threatens the native species and habitats. The regional government says about 20 indigenous species are endangered. The centeral government in Madrid isn't acting swiftly enough to correct the problem, so the director of the regional government's environmental protection agency thinks Madrid should give them more authority to monitor what comes into the area.

In my opinion, I think that the central government in Madrid should take the issue seriously and make it a priority to maintain the habitats and native species on the Canary Islands. I think the environmental protection agency should have more power to observe the borders and keep the foreign species out. The invasive species problem will rapidly become worse if we don't focus our attention on it. The consequeces of leaving the environment under attack will be disasterous! One out of four plant species used to be native. Now it's only one out of two. Soon the foreign species will completely take over!

Questions

1. If you were the central government in Madrid what would you decide to do?


2. How do you think the invaders made the percentage of native plant species decrease?


3. Do you think that low biodiversity is going to be a significant problem in the future? Explain your answer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/29/world/europe/29canary.html?ex=1314504000&en=9d18347a78a81c64&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rssc=rss

Nature's Biodiversity Falls Even Lower

"UN: Nature's diversity fast disappearing, harming life on Earth."

By: dpa

Date: Monday, May 10th, 2010

The third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook has made it official that nature's biodiversity is hitting critically low levels. Due to the sinking biodiversity levels of most environments, many human services and uses of these ecosystems are going to be nonexistent. Now that the biodiversity is so low, the ecosystems are becoming so nonproductive that we no longer have any use for them. Coral reefs have no fish and less life because of overfishing, pollution, and different temperature water flow. Rain forests are being destroyed because of fires, construction, and new rain patterns caused by pollution. We as humans are destroying and changing these ecosystems too fast and the species living within them can't adapt fast enough to survive.

In my opinion, if we don't do something to help build these ecosystems back up, we'll not only be harming them, but we'll be killing ourselves. By destroying one or two species we could be completely destroying the chain of the environment and some of these ecosystems are slipping into states where there's no guarantee that we can bring them back to their original state. We won't have the trees we need to build our homes, we won't have the plants and meat we need to survive, and we won't have any of the pluses like natural gases, valuable stones, or just good things from nature that we take for granted. If we don't stop polluting and destroying our environment, we're going to lose many of our essential resources and we won't be able to get them back.

Why do you think keeping the biodiversity levels up in ecosystems is important?

What do you think we can do to help fix the environments that we've destroyed?

Is there anyone particular ecosystem that you think is failing more than any other?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/322992,un-natures-diversity-fast-disappearing-harming-life-on-earth.html

China's population grows 420million

In china, in the last year there has been an increase of close to 36 million more people on the internet and on phones in china alone. China's population is over 1.6 billion people and is growing more and more every year. Out of this, surveys said that about 277million people get on the internet with their phones. The governmnet thinks that this will be a problem. Communist governments around china do not like this because they are used to a very tight hold over information and do not want it flying around so freely.

Do you think that the large increas of population is somthing to be worried about in the future?

Will the communist governments do somthing in order to gain control over information again?

If you had say in what would happen what are some of your thoughts and ideas on this topic?


www.foxnews.com/world



By: Shalin Amin