Deforestation

In todays world, the physical demand on this earth has become a potential environmental hazard. Deforestation, one of these physical demands, has been a growing problem for over the last several decades, especially in the Amazon rainforest. In the Amazon, trees are being cleared for numerous reasons: some get turned into toilet paper, timber for houses, as a fuel supply, the list of what we use wood for goes on and on. But although wood is essential for many of our human needs in todays world, it serves a far greater purpose than to be used as means to an anthropogenic end. The Amazon sequesters, or traps, 2 billions tons of carbon each year. All trees are important in this absorption process, most notably the temperate and tropical rain forests around the world.

Because of deforestation there are less trees to absorb man made and naturally occurring carbon. What exacerbates deforestation is when the slash and burn technique is implemented. This not only means less trees for absorbing CO2, but when trees die and/or burned they too release carbon dioxide in the air. So there is more CO2 being created and less being absorbed at the same time.

As i mentioned above, the biggest concern that comes with deforestation is that of balancing CO2 levels. But a plethora of other problems arise with deforestation. Without trees to protect the soil from erosional processes like wind and rain, the soil has been depleting. The end result of this erosional process is desertification; where the soil gets to the point that it is no longer fertile. Another problem arises in the form of the loss of natural habitats for the animals that live in these areas. The Amazon rainforest is home to one of the most diversified places on earth in terms of the number of different species living there. There may seem to be plenty of land still left in the Amazon covered by forests, but with less forest means less food for the animals.

Why is deforestation happening? Places like the Amazon are being deforested so the land can be turned into large scale agriculture and also cattle raising. The soil of the rainforest is very rich and fertile, thus very ideal for crops, but only for a short time before the soil dries up. These crops don't compare at all in terms of carbon absorption. This large scale exploitation, if you will, of natural resources is done by more economically developed countries who, like the United States, are supplying the demands of an over consuming population. Small tribal groups in areas like central Africa who live in and around these forests, whose livelihoods depend on these forests, are at the mercy of those clearing the forests. In summation, the more developed countries are in demand of the resources in these forests, which comes at the expense of the less developed countries who cannot protect their natural resources.


Article found at: http://www.earthtimes.org/encyclopaedia/environmental-issues/deforestation/
Picture of Amazon time lapse:  http://www.rainforestsos.org/about-rainforests/whats-happening-to-them/

Eutrophication & Hypoxia

Eutrophication is the over enrichment of water by increasing amounts of nutrients, largely consisting of nitrogen and phosphorus, being put into it. The main contributor is industrial size agriculture, which uses large amounts of fertilizer. When it rains, the water washes fertilizer away with it, back into a river most likely headed for the ocean. Urban runoff is also a factor contributing to over enrichment of our water. The phosphorus and nitrogen from industrial farming going through a river ecosystem can cause other environmental problems such as freshwater quality impairments, acid rain, changes in local food webs, and a decrease in biodiversity. The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) found that human activities have resulted in the near doubling of nitrogen and tripling of phosphorus flows to the environment when compared to natural values. 

Once reaching the coast, the initial reaction of nutrient rich water is the excessive growth of phytoplankton, and both micro and macro algae. There are a range of problems that arise with this increase of phytoplankton, such as damage to coral reefs and a decrease in sub aquatic vegetation. The most severe consequence from eutrophication comes in the form of hypoxia. The algae and phytoplankton cause the dissolved oxygen levels to decrease to a point in which aquatic life cannot survive. Creatures that are stationary or are to slow to get out of the dead zone will suffocate. Hypoxia does occur naturally at times due to less dense fresh water failing to mix with more saline ocean water, therefore not sufficiently circulating the oxygen from higher to lower depths. Pictured left: This body of water shows the difference between moderately enriched (top) and eutrophic water (bottom).

This is a problem caused by more developed, industrialized countries like the US and China but the problem affects multiple countries. Under developed coastal countries whose economy as well as ones own livelihood may depend on the abundance of sea life is becoming at risk at no fault of their own. A loss and potentially collapse of aquatic ecosystems is the main concern in this bloggers mind. So what can we do to reverse the effects? Restoring natural environments like marshes and bogs is a way to reduce the amount of nutrients reaching the ocean. One of the most obvious way would be to decrease the amount of fertilizer we use on our farms, and also to use better drainage systems to reduce urban runoff. Technological advancements can play a huge role, as seen in 2001 at the Manchester Ship Canal in England, when a compressed air injection system was able to raise oxygen levels by up to 300%. 

Article found at: http://www.wri.org/project/eutrophication/about

Arsenic found in rice

Recently in the news there has been a lot of hoopla about rice containing higher levels than normal of arsenic. When I think about environmental hazards, even hazards in general, I wouldn’t really think of this story as being relevant to that category. But a hazard like this has the potential to be one of the biggest in our future. Over the last several decades we have been using chemicals like pesticides and the like to rid ourselves of the unwanted insects that prey on our crops. The downfall to this, as we are being reminded of with this news report of arsenic being found in rice, is that we could very perceivably kill ourselves with the poison we commercially use. This goes beyond just rice, but in all our foods as well as our water. When it rains, the water collects the various pesticides we use and carries it into the ground water aquifers, or eventually ends up in the ocean. This type of hazard is most likely going to happen in more developed countries that are industrial enough to need commercial amounts of pesticides. But less developed countries than receive foreign aid in the form of food, most commonly rice, are also at risk.

The industrial revolution marks the time in which man started to greatly affect the environment in which we live. Today, it is impossible to get “fresh” water in terms of it having no trace of pollutants in it. The same goes for air we breath and the food we eat, everything is compromised to some degree. With that being said. I’m surprised to see that this is covered as much as it was in the media. Yes, arsenic is deadly to humans (typically in the form of increasing the risk cancer) but so is breathing in ground level ozone. 

Article found at: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-19/business/ct-nw-rice-arsenic-20120919_1_inorganic-arsenic-outer-bran-rice

Potential Threats of Nuclear Disasters

Nuclear power has been a great scientific breakthrough that has changed our world, for better and worse. That is to say that there are benefits of nuclear energy plants, but do those benefits outweigh the risks? In a typical case I would say yes, the benefits outweigh the risks. But when we use poor planning and/or lack of research for a given site when deciding where to build these wonderful, but potential life threatening structures, it becomes problematic. A recent study published in the Natural Hazards journal was conducted to assess potentially hazardous areas that will, or already do have nuclear power plants established. The study found that 23 nuclear power plants with 74 reactors have been identified in high risk areas of tsunamis. It's bad enough to have potential tsunami threats, but when these tsunamis are in range to do damage to nuclear reactors this severely raises the hazard level. As an example we can look at the tsunami that struck Japan in March 2011.Japan is one of the most technologically advanced states in the world along with having solid infrastructure. Even with these two qualities japan was still devastated. Imagine now that this tsunami had struck a far less developed country (in terms of infrastructure) with just as many, if not more people living there who also have nuclear energy. The death toll would be far greater than what happened in Japan. The tsunami itself caused billions of dollars in damage but add to that the aftermath of a nuclear reactor meltdown, adding harmful radiation into the water and air, and you got yourself a much larger disaster.
 
There are 64 nuclear power plants currently being constructed worldwide. Of those 64, 27 are found in China, and 19 of those 27, According to this study, are in a “dangerous” area. China has a very large population with heavy concentrations along the coast. Solid infrastructure will help in mitigating the physical damage done by a tsunami, but a nuclear reactor meltdown could potentially do far more damage than a tsunami.

There’s nothing we can do to prevent tsunamis, but what we are in control of is where we decide to build potentially hazardous energy facilities.

 

Picture from: http://totallycoolpix.com/2011/03/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-nuclear-disaster-looms-large/


http://lesjoyeusesboucanieres.net/tag/fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

 

News Article found at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120921083202.htm
 

Costa Rica Earthquake

An earthquake with a magnitude of 7.6 shook the country of Costa Rica on September 5th 2012. Only two people were reported dead, which may surprise some people considering the magnitude of this quake. Now a 7.6 is by far not the deadliest earthquake to have ever happened, but when we compare this earthquake with the 7.0 magnitude quake that happened in Haiti in 2010 one thing sticks out to me. The death toll as mentioned for this earthquake was two so far. But in Haiti, the 7.0 magnitude quake killed 50-100,000 people. Why was the Haitian earthquake more devastating than the one in Costa Rica? Costa Rica mitigated the natural disaster quite substantially by having a strong infrastructure to stand up to the shaking earth. There is much to be said about the comparison between these two events. Compare to Haiti, Costa Rica is a more developed country, most notably in infrastructure. This lead to more damage in terms of financial loss in Costa Rica but less loss in terms of lives. In Haiti the opposite occurred, the most severe damage was in terms of loss of lives. This is the trend that we see when looking at most natural disasters compared between more developed countries (MDC's) and less developed countries (LCD's).

Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/costa-rica-earthquake-2012_n_1857743.html

Picture: http://www.examiner.com/article/powerful-quake-reported-costa-rica-tsunami-warning-mexico-to-peru-to-hawaii

Mustang Complex Wildfires Continue

Since this fire began, the Mustang Complex wildfire on the Idaho/Montana border has burned more than 1,106,545 acres in Idaho alone. The cause of the fire was a lightning strike back in late July. The fire has been difficult to fight due to steep terrain and thick smoke (pictured below). The fire has been exacerbated by the plentiful supply of dead and downed lodge pole pine trees found at higher altitudes. Idaho is no stranger to wildfires, having sizeable fires at least every other year. In 2007 the East Zone Complex burned approximately 315,000 acres alone, not including the other fires that occurred that year.

 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=79021

Artic Fox Migration

Iceland today

200-500 years ago a "little" ice age had occurred which created a bridge of sea ice that connected Iceland with other artic regions, such as Greenland and Russia. This allowed the spreading and increase of the artic fox population. In recent years with rising temperatures, researchers fear that without the sea ice the artic fox population in Iceland will become separated and isolated from the other artic regions. This isolation could cause the foxes in Iceland to differentiate from those in other regions over years of evolution. Scientists at Durham University, UK, found that this has happened before by analyzing DNA from 9th century fossil remains of ancient artic foxes with those of the foxes today.

Arctic fox. (Credit: © visceralimage / Fotolia)

Article at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120911200522.htm
Iceland Picture from:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=north+atlantic+satelite+image&view=detail&id=AB89AB9EB5558D8793FC0A5AF841641947345195