Agriculture is putting SA in deep water

Agriculture is putting SA in deep water

http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/agriculture/2013/04/17/agriculture-is-putting-sa-in-deep-water 
From Business Day BDLive South Africa
April 17th, 2013
PICTURE: This picture, courtesy of THINKSTOCK, shows the agriculture in South Africa and how there is a lack of fresh water in the area. This image clearly describes the article from my perspective because it shows how water availability is one of the major limiting factors in South Africa regarding agricultural production, yet when it comes to water management, it's impossible to figure out who is to blame for poor water managing.

SUMMARY: The article basically explains that there is an extremely low supply of water in South Africa, and due to poor water management, farmers in South Africa are blaming themselves for not managing the water supply very well. The article explains that by 2025, the water supply in South Africa would most likely deplete entirely, with Gauteng, Africa, and South Africa running out of fresh water by 2015. This shortage of water is dramatically affecting the climate change, with the country having half of the average global rainfall per year and 98% of its water supply in crisis, as well as food security, mostly because since the population is growing and growing, there is a higher demand for animal & fish protein, and fresh fruits and vegetables. New laws regarding unlawful water usage becomes another problem as well because a new law was passed in South Africa by the Department of Water Affairs, and under this law, entitled the National Water Act, farmers and civilians in South Africa MUST HAVE permission to divert a body of water, a dam, or otherwise adapt to a body of water. This becomes a problem because now there are more ways that people have been using water that are now unlawful, and now there is not a lot of legal alternatives to get fresh water without facing criminal charges. In fact, in 2010, based on statistics from the Department of Water Affairs, 32 "pre-directives" and 16 directives were issued in the mining sector of South Africa, which faced three criminal charges, while 127 "pre-directives" and 48 directives were issued in the agricultural sector, which faced 13 criminal charges, in an effort to cease any illegal activity regarding water. Fortunately, there is awareness spreading throughout the world, and everyone is pitching in to help South Africa replenish their water supply but the question is, is this enough to replenish South Africa of fresh water?

OPINION/REFLECTION: I believe from my honest opinion that South Africa needs to manage their water supply better and I believe that they need to watch how they are using their water because with a new law in action, chances are that people who continue to use water unlawfully could face criminal charges, and also, I feel that they need to manage their water supply better because the farmers are blaming themselves for the fact as to why their water supply is running low. I mean, I don't know how many other countries have this same kind of problem, but odds are there could be countries with the exact same problem as South Africa is having. I know that South Africa is not a terrible country, but in regards to water supply, they need to manage it more often so that an issue like this doesn't happen again. I don't know if this issue has been resolved at the time of writing this blog post, but hopefully South Africa and many other countries facing this problem will recover their water supply soon, before it's no more. And I mean really soon when I say "soon," because so far, 90% of the water capacity of dams have been lost in South Africa, and I hate to see their water supply completely diminish before 2025.

QUESTIONS:
1. Do you believe that the people in South Africa should manage their water supply more often? If so, use what we have learned from the hydrosphere to explain why.
2. What do you think could have been the cause of the low supply of fresh water in South Africa, and why?
3. If a situation like this occurred in the East Coast, how would you react to this problem? Use what we have learned from the water labs and from the drinking water tests to explain your reaction.
4. What are some of the ways that people are trying to do to bring awareness to this situation, to help South Africa replenish their water supply, or to help South Africa with better agricultural production methods to prevent a situation like this from occurring again.
5. Do you think that South Africa will be able to recover their water supply before 2025? Using knowledge from reservoirs, aquifers, and wells, explain why or why not.

Water System Asks Exon to Move Oil Pipes Away From Drinking Water

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/04/12/water-system-asks-exxon-to-move-pipeline-away-from-drinking-supply/

Picture: This picture well describes the article because of what happened in the article. It shows an oil spill and what it would look like if it reached a water supply. Even though the oil company declined that the water supply was affected the people working at the water system want the oil pipe away from the water supply.

Summary: Basically, A major water supplier in Arkansas asked Exxon Mobil Corp. to move its pipeline away from a drinking water source after oil spilled from the pipeline last month into a neighborhood. After this happened the people in the neighbor hood got upset and complained to the oil company. So the water company then asked the oil company, Exxon to move the oil pipe away from the drinking water supply. Then Exxon replied with a response saying that the oil spill from the pipe did not affect the water supply at all. After all of this happened the water company then asked the oil company, Exxon to better monitor the oil pipeline and to have more people on duty.So in response the oil company replaced the broken part of the pipe and started testing it just recently.

Opinion/Reflection: I think that the oil company should move the oil pipe more away from the water supply. If the oil pipeline is anywhere near affecting my drinking water I would be furious because I would not want my water to be contaminated just because of another oil spill. Even though the oil company is trying to fix the pipeline I personally think that they should move the pipeline. The oil company should agree with this proposal by the water company because just in case the oil pipeline has another spill.   

Questions:

1) What is your opinion on this event that happened just recently? 

2) Do you think that the oil company should agree to this proposal by the water company? Explain.

3) How would you feel like if your neighborhood got flooded with oil? Explain.

4) Do you think this will ever happen to this area again? Explain. 

Hawaii's Threatened Coral Reefs

http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Environment_380/Hawaii-s-Threatened-Coral-Reefs.shtml

Picture: This is a picture of a healthy coral reef. Invasive algae species, fungus, and global warming are all killing off coral reefs  around the globe just like this one.

Summary: All across Hawaii, coral reefs are dying due to many causes. An undocumented  fungi which grows through photosynthesis, spreads through coral reefs as much as three inches per week. 50-100 year old corals are dying within eight weeks because this fungus spreads so fast. An invasive algae species which was introduced for aquaculture is spreading quickly. Scientists are concerned because the algae forms thick, tangled matts and soaks up all of the oxygen in the water that the animals, plants, and corals need. Biologists are doing their best to figure out ways to take the algae out of the water, without disturbing the coral themselves. One way includes sucking and pumping out the algae with a vacuum-like machine. Once the scientists clear the reef of the algae, they place native sea urchins in its place to help keep he area clean. Decades of overfishing in these areas has also greatly reduced the biodiversity of coral reefs, making them more vulnerable to climate change. High water temperatures and increasing carbon dioxide in the water are also contributing to extreme coral bleaching, which kills valuable coral reefs.

Opinion/Reflection: Coral reefs are extremely important to underwater life, and I think that it is extremely important that we protect them from as much damage as possible. It's wonderful that scientists are starting to realize this problem and that they are starting to take actions to protect our coral reefs. I feel that they are on the right track to fixing this problem, and with a little bit more research, they will hopefully find a solution. The world needs to understand how big of a problem this actually is and to start taking action towards protecting coral reefs. Reducing, Reusing, Recycling, and not polluting the environment are all ways that we can help reduce global warming which will in turn, help save coral reefs.

Questions:
1- Do you feel that it is important to save coral reefs? Why or why not?
2- What do you think are some solutions to this problem?
3- Out of all of the issues stated, which one do you feel is the biggest problem hat is contributing to the dying of coral reefs? Why?
4- Do you think that it is possible to completely fix this problem? Why or why not?

Wildfires Contaminating Fresh Water

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/07/120703/colorado-wildfires-waldo-high-park-hayman-threaten-water-supplies/

Picture: This picture is of a helicopter attempting to put out the flames from a wildfire in Los Angeles. It seems like once these emergency vehicles get the fire under control, the problems will be solved, but that is not the case. Before this blaze is controlled, it burns through miles of land, creating ash and debris. This causes big issues for the surrounding fresh water, also known as drinking water.

Summary: This article is about Wildfires in Colorado that are contaminating fresh drinking water. These effects occur for multiple reasons. The most apparent is that when trees, soil, and other parts of land are burning, they are creating lots of ash and debris that get into water and clog reservoirs and rivers. Also, so many plants and so much soil is being destroyed that it is much harder for rain to be absorbed into the ground to get back into the water supply. In addition, burnt plants can give off water-resistant chemicals, making the land more prone to erosion. These factors decrease the quantity of fresh water. Of course, all of the dirt and ash can be removed from the water, but it takes a much longer time, more resources, and money for these areas. To avoid these issues, various organizations have taken action by replanting trees destroyed by fire. This prevents the possibility of contamination. Other organizations have been altering the setups of forests to make them less vulnerable to wildfires. Both of these methods are helpful, but this problem is still not completely resolved.

Opinion/Reaction: I found this article to be very surprising because I didn't know wildfires had any effect on drinking water. It is always interesting to find out that there are huge associations dedicated to fixing these kinds of issues, and some people are just unaware of them. Wildfires contaminating water is a real problem, and there should be more awareness about it.

Questions:

1) Do you think awareness needs to be raised for this issue? Why or why not?

2) What are some ways wildfires affect drinking water (quality or supply)?

3) What are some ways people are trying to fix this issue?

4) Continued from number 3; Do you think these methods will help resolve the issue? Explain.

5) Think of an additional way to help resolve this issue, and explain why it may not be in use already.

Hydroelectric Power

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng4431

Picture: This diagram shows the process of water being turned into energy at a hydroelectric power plant. As shown above, the water comes from a natural source that flows through a man-made dam. Next, the water passes through a tunnel, causing the turbines to spin. The turbines connect to a generator that turns the water energy into electricity. Lastly, the electricity passes through transformers and transmission lines to places that need the electricity. The water then continues past the turbines, back into the original water sources, like a river.

Summary: Hydroelectric power is a great source of energy. When compared to other energy sources, it is better in so many ways. For one example, it is renewable. Some people may argue our water will run out one day, so we should not waste it on electricity, but we are not wasting it. As seen in the diagram above, a good percent of the water makes it back into the body of water after going through the turbines. Also, hydroelectric power is safe for the environment. Unlike fossil fuels, it does not release any pollutants into the atmosphere. These power plants are economically better, also. They need less operating costs then other types of plants and last a longer amount of time. Other electrical plants may only last 25 years, whereas a hydroelectric plant lasts 40-50 years. Although there are so many positive sides to hydroelectric power, there are some negatives. For example, to building a hydroelectric plant is more expensive than other plants. But, over time that money is regained when maintaining the plant is cheaper.

Opinion/Reflection: While there are some cons to a hydroelectric power plant, I believe the pros trump them all. It shocked me the most that this is so much better for the environment, yet we see more environmentally crippling electricity being used, like fossil fuels. Although I do realize it is not realistic to just complete a 180 degree switch, and start using a new energy source, I feel we should work toward this goal. For instance, if we start building just a few hydroelectric plants and close some other types of power plants, then the money we save over time from the hydroelectric plants could be invested in building even more hydroelectric power plants. This idea although to me sounds ideal, does have a few flaws. We would have to be careful not to use more water than we are getting. If we keep this and other factors in balance, then this could be a great energy source to supply most of our energy.

Questions:

1)      What is your opinion on hydroelectric power?

2)      What percentage of hydropower is capable of converting available energy into electricity? What percentage of fossil fuel plants?

3)      Name another con to hydroelectric power?

4)      Why would environmentalist be interested in the fact that hydroelectric power does not release pollutants into the air? Why would they think this is good?

 

Atmospheric Waves Trapped by Emissions Caused Extreme U.S. Heat

Atmospheric Waves Trapped by Emissions Caused Extreme U.S. Heat
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-25/atmospheric-waves-trapped-by-emissions-caused-extreme-u-s-heat.html

Picture: This is a picture of the sun. Green house gasses are trapping air waves in the atmosphere, causing major heat waves.


Summary: Green house gasses, caused by man, are trapping air waves in the atmosphere. This is causing extreme weather, such as heat waves, and flash floods. Man made climate changes disturb the way waves usually move cold and warm air. In recent weather, the waves have just stopped moving for weeks. Instead of bringing cold air in after warm air, warm air just stays, causing major heat waves. President Obama has now admitted that climate change is a top priority in his second term in office. He says that " heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and flood are now more frequent and intense." Scientists at the Potsdam Institutes discovered that global warming disrupts temperature changes, which are a driving force for air flow, trapping the waves in the atmosphere.  


Opinion/ Reflection:
I honestly wasn't surprised to hear that global warming is yet the cause of other extreme weather. It has been effecting the climate so much lately, and I am happy to hear that President Obama is making it a priority to fix this issue. The government of each country needs to step up and take this more seriously before the rest of the world will. They need to do something about global warming before it is too late, and the climate, many ecosystems, and many habitats are destroyed.

Questions:

1- Why is it so important to help stop the production of green house gasses?
2- Why are the waves in the atmosphere so important to the climate?
3- Why are temperature changes so important to the climate?
4- What do you think President Obama needs to do to raise the awareness about man made green house gasses, and hopefully stop the production of them?
5- What are man made green house gasses doing to the atmosphere?

Rock Hyrax Urine Offers Clues About Climate Change

Rock Hyrax Urine Offers Clues About Climate Change             

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/20/rock-hyrax-urine-offers-clues-about-climate-change/

Picture: This image shows a Rock Hyrax and its urine. The climate change can be shown through the traces of this animals urine. The worse the climate gets, it can be traced through this animals urine.

Summary: The Rock Hyrax is a furry little mammal that is located in Africa and Asia in rock fissures. But recently scientists have found out that in a Rock Hyrax's urine they can find traces of climate change. A Rock Hyrax's habitat is where they found this information because these specific mammals stay close to there home. In there home or burrow they live,eat, and urinate in the same exact spot for centuries. So with this information scientists could find the climate change for the past decades or centuries. The Rock Hyrax urine has been building up in their burrow for approximately 55,000 years. A quote by Brian M. Chase says that Rock Hyrax's pee in the same exact are every single time. You might be wondering how they can find this information with just urine? Well since the Hyrax urinates in the same exact spot for many years the pee starts to thicken and dry and that contains pollen, grass, leaves, and gas bubbles. With this information scientists can get very valuable, useful information.    

Opinion/Reflection: This article was very interesting in my opinion. It was also pretty gross to, I could just imagine like 6 inches of dried gooey urine in their house. The things scientists can find from the strangest things are just truly amazing. In my opinion we should further look into animals for climate change and environmental changes in the ecosystem. I personally think that we can find more useful information in those areas. Also I wondered how this specific could be around for this long, are they from prehistoric times?   

Questions(3-5)

1. Do you think this study will lead to many more studies involving this subject?
2. What do you think about this ground-breaking discovery?
3. How will this information affect your overall life?
4. Do you think there is any other information that can be found about the Rock Hyrax, if so give examples?

Report suggests feeding polar bears to save the species

Report suggests feeding polar bears to save the species
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/report-suggests-feeding-polar-bears-save-species

Picture: This image shows how climate change is effecting polar bears. Because of global warming the ice, which is the polar bears home, is melting. As the ice melts, it makes it harder for the polar bears to hunt and find food. This is causing many problems for the polar bears located all over the north.

Summary: Polar bear experts feel polar bears are in a crisis with starvation. Because of global warming and climate change, obtaining food for themselves has grown to be a harder task than it used to be. Experts brainstormed ideas to try to help them. One of their more favorable ideas is to feed the polar bears. They have done this before with other species and think it could benefit the bears. Experts calculated the cost to be approximately one million dollars a month, and think it would be worth the cost if it helped them. This idea has caused debates because another side feels this idea would not work. The other side argues that polar bears are predators and need to hunt on their own. They also feel that if we did supply food to the bears it could possibly cause more harm to humans.

Opinion/Reflection: I think feeding the bears is not a good idea. Although I believe we are contributing to their suffering and we should help, this does not seem like a reasonable way. I understand I am not an expert in this subject, but it seems to me that it would be impossible to feed enough bears, daily, to make an impact on the starvation problem. Also, the price seems extreme to me. One million dollars a month seems like a lot, and to have to pay that money towards a cause that might fail seems unreasonable. What if in five years we realize feeding the bears is not helping, then all that money would have been wasted. I believe their is a more logical and less economically crippling way to help save the polar bear species.

Questions:
1- What are some negative effects of feeding the polar bears?
2- Why should humans feel responsible to help the polar bears?
3- What are some other ideas we could use to help the polar bears?
4- If we decided not to do anything to help the polar bears, what effect might this have on them?

Wildflowers at risk from ’safe’ levels of pollution

By Lauren Eskin

Article By Dr Richard Payne & Professor Nancy Dise

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/45580            

Picture: This is a picture of a harebell, one of the flowers mentioned in the article that was found to be much less common in areas with high nitrogen levels. This is one of many species of flowers facing this crisis, in addition to the creeping buttercup and the yarrow. Regions with very low levels of pollution are also lacking these species, and the issue is not yet recognized by most people.

Summary: A recent study conducted in various locations all over Europe has shown that high levels of nitrogen are greatly decreasing the quantity of many species of plants. This especially applies to wildflowers, such as the harebell shown above. Although this is not particularly common knowledge, it is even less likely for people to know about the discovery that in certain places, lower levels of air pollution are actually decreasing the amount of plants in some species. Even levels “below the legally-recognized 'safe' level,” as stated in the article. This is assumed to be because ecosystems have already been exposed to higher levels of pollution for so long that they are accustomed to it, therefore are being negatively affected by the drop in air pollution as people are taking action against it. This, along with the nitrogen issue are not widely recognized, but they still need to be dealt with. Nitrogen pollution had caused big problems for countries in Europe, costing them billions a year, although the amount has been reduced by the decrease in the burning of fossil fuels.

Opinion/Reflection: I thought it was strange to see a new side of the general air pollution problems I hear about often. I never thought that the decrease in pollution could actually be killing some species of plants and flowers. However I feel that the high nitrogen levels are even more important, and more action needs to be taken to bring them down. We can really try to limit our burning of fossil fuels, because it is a major contributor to this issue. Keeping these plants alive will do more than just make the world look prettier- it will keep the ecosystem in check. Every living thing has a place in the ecosystem, and these different pollution issues could really be upsetting the natural balance of things. It is so important to be environmentally conscious, and this is just one example why.

Questions:

1 – What are the two factors contributing to the decrease in plant species across Europe?

2 – What is one way to decrease the amount of nitrogen pollution in the air?

3 – Explain why losing these plants has an impact on the environment in general.

4 – Are there any other factors you think might be contributing to this problem?

5 – Explain why the decrease of air pollution may actually be killing species of plants and flowers.

Global worming: how worms are accelerating climate change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/feb/05/how-worms-accelerating-climate-change

Picture: This graphic depicts earthworms moving through soil carried by human hands. Last week, this article makes a shocking revelation about these earthworms that may have something to do with recent climate changes.

Summary: Everyone knows that earthworms are useful for soil fertility, but what if there is something more to these slimy creatures? Recently last week, this article reveals that these worms could have something to do with climate change that could affect life as we know it. We know that earthworms play a huge role in soil, but according to a news study posted on Nature Climate Change, researchers in Holland, the U.S., and Colombia compiled results from 237 separate experiments to explore the earthworm's roles in global greenhouse gas emissions. Believe it or not, 20% of global carbon dioxide comes from the soil, and the authors of this study believe that earthworms are the soil ecosystem engineers that could have been the cause of global warming. However, recently, scientists are facing a problem with these earthworms, given the fact that they can increase emissions from the soil. They found out that these worms can help the soil store carbon more efficiently, permanently locking that carbon away. The most shocking thing, however, is that earthworms, or worms of any kind, can increase the usage of one greenhouse gas while reducing usage of other greenhouse gases. According to the study, "although earthworms are largely beneficial to soil fertility, they increase net soil greenhouse-gas emissions." The study does mention a few things that could make some sense, such as the growth of organic fertilizers would provide more food for the earthworms, while changing environmental conditions could reduce worm population. However, despite these earthworms' efforts, there is still a possibility that these earthworms may have some involvement with global climate change that is still left a mystery.

Opinion/Reflection: I was extremely surprised as to the fact that earthworms are suddenly playing a role in global climate change. It's very strange that a study would suggest that earthworms played a role in global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, I have read in that article that the earthworms' influence on global climate change will increase rapidly. This study, however, while it shows that earthworms have a role in global greenhouse gas emission, concerns me that earthworms would have something to do with global climate change that we see recently. If we believe that earthworms are resulting in a net increase in greenhouse gases, I personally believe that more research should be discovered about these earthworms to determine how these earthworms can result in global climate change that can affect life as we know it today.

Questions:
1. Why would earthworms could be contributing to global climate change according to the study?
2. Why is "global worming" something that we should be concerned about?
3. How do earthworms result in a net increase in greenhouse gases?
4. According to the study, what are some possible conclusions that could make scientists believe that earthworms play a role in global climate change? 
5. Why do scientists believe that we should be concerned about earthworms increasing greenhouse gases in the soil?