scrapESbook Quater 3

scrapESbook Quarter 3

Joey Lynch



           To start off, the article talks about the affects on the climate that happens with the deforestation in the Amazon. Total deforestation in the Amazon could lead the major droughts in the western area of the United States. A study done found that total deforestation in the Amazon will significantly reduce rain and snowfall in the western area of the United States. This will result in water and food shortages and a greater risk of forest fires. Deforestation will produce dry air all over the Amazon, which would later end up moving to the western area of the United States from December to February. Also, deforestation is a concern for regions outside of South America as well. The rainforest influences various aspects of the surrounding climate in the world, including cloud coverage, heat absorption and rainfall. The major point of the article is to show that deforestation will affect more than the Amazon because it will not be contained. The deforestation will go to the atmosphere and will carry its affects there too. One thing that would change is the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, which so happens to be where most of the irrigation for California’s Central Valley comes from. This will cause serious consequences for the food supply in the U.S. The disappearance in the Amazon will not only affect the country, but the entire world.

           I really liked this article because I never fully understood the affects of deforestation until I read this article. It is very informative by telling us all that would happen if the Amazon were to be total deforestation. I always wondered why I should want to save the rainforest when I am in a country with no rainforests like the Amazon. The pros of deforestation in the article are the wood we would get from total deforestation. People would be able to build homes and shelter or any other necessities for everyday life. Wood is used everywhere for dinner table and building just about anything. With the population growing, more people are going to need to build houses and the more wood would be a perfect use for that. The cons of deforestation are that animals will lose their homes. The Amazon is home to so many different kinds of animals and if all that wood is gone all the animals will die off because they will have no food or homes. Another con is that total deforestation will affect the U.S. all over. Total deforestation will bring dry air into the western area of the United States, which will cause a food shortage for Americans. This will cause the world to change as well. The United States in a major country and if it has a food shortage it will not be able to trade with other countries and will bring down the economy. Total deforestation in the Amazon should be stopped or any deforestation because the world needs the Amazon to survive.

Joey Lynch


Non-Native species

           This article starts off talking about how almost 100 species that are not native to Britain have invaded the River Thames, which makes it the highest invaded freshwater systems in the world. There have been efforts to stop the invasive species. Researches in London have said that the legislative efforts to prevent more non-native species into the freshwater system across Britain have been unsuccessful. The efforts are so high that scientists are spending 2.7 billion dollars every year on non-native species. There are 96 non-native species in the River and new modern invasion rates show that every 50 weeks there is one more new non-native species in the freshwater system. Research shows that globalization has facilitated species invasions because of the shipping activity in the world and the population size in the catching of fish. The catching of fish has a positive connection to discovering the non-native species. Non-native species are the starts of biodiversity and ecosystem service loss and invaders have the potential to help another invaders impact on the ecosystem.

           This article started to scare me when it said that a new non-native species is found every 50 weeks. To me, that seems like a lot of new non-native fish coming into the fresh water systems. I really enjoyed reading about how non-native species can affect the freshwater systems and the fish already living in the waters. I thought it was terrible that the British government has to spend all that money each year and there strategy does not work. There are pros and cons to the non-native fish though. The pro is that the fishermen are able to help discover the new non-native fish as they go out and fish. Also, this can be a learning experience for around the world. Britain show the world what works and what will not work to slowing or stopping non-native species from coming into the freshwater systems around them. The cons in the article definitely out weigh the cons. First a con is that the Britain economy takes a toll by having to spend 2.7 billion dollars each year to try to stop the invasive species. Also, none of the efforts have worked for Britain yet so invasive species can keep coming into the waters with no obstacle. Another con is that the ecosystem takes a loss in the service due to the invasive species. All this can lead to the fish that are native to the area to die and the fishing waters in Britain will not be able to be used anymore, because the fish they usually fish for will be non-existent in the area.

Joey Lynch



           In the article it talks about the rhinos in Africa. The populations of African rhinos are facing the worst threat to poaching for their horns ever. The horns are sold on the black market for a very high price. A report by the international Union for Conservation of Nature, have said that there are gangs who go out and kill for the horns. These gangs have killed more than 800 rhinos during the past three years for the valuable horns. Each horn can go for around 16,000 dollars per pound. The IUCN has been calling law enforcement agencies and conservationists to stop the poaching of rhino’s horns. There has been improve in the rhino population due to anti-poaching efforts and biological management, but it is only a very little gain. Scientists are still very concerned about the rhinos. The main threat to the rhinos is the increase of involvement of organization of criminal poaching networks. If the acceleration in poaching in the recent years can be stopped the rhino numbers in Africa will start to decline again. The illegally poaching rhino horns go to the black market in Southeast Asia, and they are in growing demand with a very high selling price. All this leads to a huge increase in poaching.

           The article really seemed to bring to my attention that the humans are really the ones making animals go extinct. People are just killing the rhinos for poaching the horns and selling them on the black market. I think people need to stop caring so much for money and care for the world we live in instead. If people start to care for money more than the world, we will start to destroy the world that gave us everything. This article does have its pros even though people keep poaching the rhinos. The pro to this article is that the numbers of rhinos are slowly increasing. It was said that the rhino population in Africa is having modest gains. This shows that we have a positive future for the rhinos and their population will comeback if we are able to stop the poachers. Another pro is that it tells us that conservationists and law enforcement agencies are able to work together to stop the poachers. This shows that people are able to work together to save the planet. The cons of this article is that, even though the numbers of rhinos are slowing raising if the poaching does not stop then the numbers will start to decrease again. It is not easy to stop criminal poaching networking and with the horns going for 16,000 dollars a pound of horn, the poaching will not stop. If the world can see that money will not save the planet when everything is used up and sold, we can start saving the planet from poachers and regain the populations of animals all over the world.

Joey Lynch


Toxic Chemicals

The article I read was about toxic chemicals that were found in falcon eggs. Researches from Spain and Canada stated that they are finding traces of toxic chemicals that are used for flame-retardants in the eggs of peregrine falcons. Flame-retardants are chemical compounds that are added to fabrics, textiles, electronic circuits and other products to resist the spread of fire. These flame-retardants can be toxic if they are released to the environment. The presence of “dechlorane plus” and other chlorinated compounds used as flame-retardants have been detected for the first time ever in the “European biota.” Once this chemical is released out into the environment the compounds are spread all along the food chain. The choosing of the peregrine falcon for the scientific studies was not by accident. This species is already endangered to the use of pesticides, mostly DDT. DDT was banned in the 1970s, which later restored the population. Also, falcons are at the top end of the food chain, which makes it easier to accumulate toxic substances from their prey. Researches do not known the affect of the flame-retardants, but detection is the first step.

           I really enjoyed this article because it makes you think and wonder. I would of never of guessed that the chemicals we used to stop fires from spreading would end up in animals across the globe. It also makes you wonder about what other chemical that we use are in animals. The pro of this article is that the scientists were able to detect the chemical. The scientists knew that it was a possibly because of how high up on the food chain the falcon was. Now the scientist can track down where the first animals on the food chain absorbed the chemical. Also, the scientists and figure out what the affect of the chemical will do by experimenting with the falcon and her eggs. The con to this article is that toxic chemicals are going into our animals. We do not know the affect, but it cannot be good. Some how the chemicals we use out entering the environment and that need to be stopped or put to a halt at once. If the flame-retardant is in the falcon it can also be in maybe other birds or animals.  It is good that the toxic chemical was detected, but now people need to realize that they are harming the environment with the chemicals they use to stay safe. Humans safety is important, but also is the safety of the environment.

Joey Lynch


Water Quality

           This article is about a plan to depollute the waters in the United States. It starts off by saying how the United States task force has created a plan that will include state and federal officials in reducing hypoxia in the northern part of the Gulf of Mexico. This plan includes ideas for improving the water quality in the Mississippi Rover “basin water”. This was released Monday by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force. This plan builds off the recommendations that were issued in 2001. This plan incorporates the latest findings and approaches. This plan unites governments and citizens across the country to think about the environment and to take action upstream and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. This will reduce river nutrient pollution and it will hopefully increase the health of the Gulf of Mexico. This plan will accelerate environmental progress throughout the 31-state watershed. Scientists have said that nutrients are important to the environment, but too much of nitrogen and phosphorus will harm the water quality. This will harm the water quality by feeding algae blooms and creating oxygen-deprived “dead zones.” In these dead zones marine life cannot survive.

           This article to me was very uninteresting. There was no actual plan it was just something the scientist hoped the people would do. I wish there was a plan so maybe I could help anyway possible. The cons to this article are the many nutrients going into the waters. This will start to kill of the off the fish in the waters, leaving no life. When there is no life in the waters, people will not be able to fish or enjoy the scenery anymore because it will be full of algae. More nutrients seem like a positive thing for the water, but in reality it is a curse to the water. The pro to the article is the plan to save the water. The plan will unite the government and the people to help save the water quality in America. The plan will reduce the nutrients in the river to increase the health of the Gulf of Mexico. This will save the water quality in America and will unite the government and the people to someday have them saving the environment all over the country.

Comment Stream

2 years ago

Interesting articles! Good reflections, Joey. 50/50