scrapESbook Second Quarter
This article is talking about an endangered wild horse species in China and in Mongolia. This wild horse species is not closely related to the domestic horse species, but the pervious thought was that the two were related. This horse is called Przewalski’s horse, which is a stocky, short-maned species. The horse species is named after a Russian explorer whom first discovered this horse. The population now is only at 2,000 with the help of wildlife reserves in California and Ukraine. The species first became endangered in the middle of the last century when it experienced a “bottleneck”. The “bottleneck: happened due to human activity. The horses were hunted down for food and their natural habitat. Their habitat was converted into farmlands for the humans leaving the horses with nowhere to live or have offspring. There was only 12 horses in the late 1950s. Many researchers believe that the horses split with the domestic horses to create this separate species. They shared a common ancestor as far back as 160,000 years ago.
I really enjoyed this article for many reasons. It shows how humans mostly think of themselves while making decisions and not thinking of the animals as well as themselves. I think people need to really start thinking about the environment and how their actions affect the world no matter how big or little. Another reason I liked this article was because it talks about the splitting of a species, which we just recently learn about in class. The pros of this article are that people did get food and land for what they did. It did not help the animals, but gave homes for humans. People have to take land even if it does not the animals. If we did not we would not have the homes for the people and food on the table. Another pro is that it shows how the people in the world can save animals after they make their mistake. People were able to reverse the decreasing of the animals and started to save them, which shows no matter what animals are endangered people have the capability of saving them.
The cons of this topic of the endangered horses are that this could happen to any animal. Many people hunt for animals and take land for their homes whenever they want and they never think of the animals. This shows how people could of wiped out an entire species just for food and farmland. People need to start taking care of the environment or we might not get lucky and save the species from going endangered before it is too late. Also, another con is that the horse is still not living in its natural habitat. The horses are in California and the Ukraine, not in China or Mongolia. The animals are still not able to go back to the wildlife because they will just get hunted down again. This shows how the people need to change there ways and learn to care for the environment around them for the later generations to come.
This article starts off by saying that we need to cut back on the fishing. It talks how if we let the overfished stocks recover, over time the fishing industry would earn more and more money while also creating jobs for the people. The fishing industry is already making a bunch of money, but the poor management of the fishing industry is costing the fishing business a potential income in the billions. If all the species were able to recover until their population was greater than ever the fishers can then harvest at maximum yield. This would make the fishers an additional 3.89 millions of fish than before. The outcome of doing this would bring more than 4 billion dollars of income with more than 100,000 jobs. This also talks about how in other nations other than Europe, when the stock starts to decline the people stop fishing immediately.
This article to me was very interesting. I liked to read and learn more about how the fish in the sea affect the stock market. I never knew that letting the fish repopulate would mean that the fishers would be able to go out and harvest more fish than they can now. Its not an article that you would see on a day to day basic, but I now feel more informed about the world and the fishing business that goes on. The pros to this article are that it would create more jobs, bringing more money, and the fish are able to repopulate. With the world how it is today many people do not have jobs or do not make much money, but this potentially could bring all that in. People need the jobs to support the money and letting the fish repopulate would give people that income for the family. This would bring in more and more money for the companies. It is good in two ways, it brings up the stock market making the economy better and makes the companies happy with what they are making. There are cons to this too as well. One con is that fishing would have to be cut back for a while. This would mean that the companies would be making less money for a short amount of time as they wait for the fish to repopulate. The companies will not be able to sell and get as much fish as they were able to before and they might lose business for the time being. No company is going to want to take the chance of losing money for a maybe 4 billion in income. Lastly another con to this is regarding the people. People will not be able to get this fish as they were able to before and also the price of fish might go up as well. The people will not be happy towards the fish companies for not fishing as they were before. The cutting back on the fish has its pros and cons, but I feel like the pros out way the cons in this instance for creating more jobs for the people and making the companies more money
Everyone always wants to dig up fossil fuels either to make money or to make peoples lives easier. In this article it starts off talking about how the government must leave fossil fuels in the ground. The government will not let the people dig up the fossil fuels because they must stay unburned and unexploited to protect the planet we care for so much. Mary Robinson who is a former Irish president is starting to lead a international push with the goal of breaking the climate’s stalemate and the countering climate change. World government must get used to the idea of not digging up the fossil fuels and instead leaving them in the ground untouched by humans. Robinson wants this because it will stop the threat of the climate change. Robinson always talks about how the major fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground, which has significance in social and economic development. Countries need to start thinking about using alternative energy sources to use instead of using the fossil fuels. It does not matter what country, developing or developed, they all much turn to alternatives. Skeptics will not believe this, but with a strong political leadership they can turn them in the right direction.
This article to me was not the most convincing article. It grabbed my attention saying we have to turn away from using fossil fuels and turn to alternatives, but it did not convince me. I wanted to be convincing to stop using the fossil fuels in the earth, but my mind set is still in the way of using fossil fuels to make our lives easier. This brings me to the cons of taking away the fossil fuels from use. Making countries switch to alternative energy sources will cost more money and make it less efficient in getting energy. Most countries get most of all their energy from fossil fuels and if they had to cut out that source it would be very difficult to find new ways to fill that whole of energy. Without the fossil fuels we might not have the warm homes that’s we have, the transportation we use, or even light that we use to see or read. Fossil fuels help the daily human’s routine so much that without them it would throw the whole world into chaos. Another con is the price of alternative energy sources. There is a reason why every country uses fossil fuels and that is because it is the cheapest source. If the countries switch it will cost more money, making the citizens pay more than they ever have before. This will cause the people to become angry with the government causing more problems than just saving the planet. There are also pros to taking away the fossil fuels. First and the most important it will save the planet. Robinson said that the use of fossil fuels is bringing a change to the climate. So, if we stop using fossil fuels the climate will not change making no living things adjust to the new environment. Lastly, creating new alternating ways of getting energy will create a better and less polluted environment.
The Gulf Oil Spill caused multiple of pollution problems either with the water and the ocean. It is said that the air pollution created from the gulf spill would be similar to the air pollution created by a whole city. Daniel Murphy said it is like have a large city’s worth of pollution and putting it in the middle of the Golf of Mexico. Researchers were able to figure this out by flying a chemical laboratory over the Golf of Mexico and testing the air for pollution. The research mainly focused on the ozone and two pollutants to the human health. About 8 percent of all the barrels of oil that was spilled went into the oceans surface and then was able to make itself into the air. The findings can help the air quality managers reverse the affect and make the air better for the people. It was a lucky but fortunate that the effect on the air quality was limited in scope.
This article scared me because I never knew the affects of the oil spill when that had happened. The affects are even worse than I ever could of imagined. I always thought that only the water was polluted and never knew that it went airborne. The pros and cons to this are mostly favored in the cons. The pros are only that the scientists were able to find the air pollution. The pollution did not go unnoticed. People were then able to be aware of the problem, which brings us to the next pro, which is reversing the problem. Since, the scientists were able to recognize the problem early on using their laboratory in the air they knew that had to come up with a solution. Somehow the scientists were able to create a solution to reverse the affects of the oil spill air pollution and make clean air again. This means that the people, animals, and environment would not be as affects by the air pollution as they would have been. The cons were harshly worse. The oil spills created a huge amount of air pollution that amounts to the size of an entire city’s worth of pollution. That amount of pollution really takes its toll on the environment and makes it very difficult to make the air clean again to make it healthy to breathe in. No one will be able to survive breathe in that kind of air all day. Also, that amount of air pollution makes it almost impossible to clear up, but it will over time. The question is though how long can it be there for even though the people will be having heath problems with it. This air pollution will cause health problems all around the area.
People would think that seven billion people on the planet would be enough, but the population never stops growing and this will cause a multitude of problems. The article starts off talking about how the human population growth is not creating the best future for the mammals and birds on the Earth. It is said that the population growth will increase the number of threatened species by 2050. Ohio State University reported that the growth of the human population with definitely out crowd the birds and mammals. The nations that are experiencing the average growth of human population will see more and more threats to animals going extinct in the near future. It is not just the mammals and birds that will be affected by the human population growth, but the birds and mammals will be affected the most. One thought that the humans must think to do is expand. Not many scientists like the idea, but it is one way to slow down the affects on the animals from human population growth. This estimate of the affects on the animals is only about the human population growth, so the numbers have a chance of speeding up due to climate change and the human activity. Everything that we do to save the animals will help, but it will not change unless the human population stays under control.
This article struck me by surprise on the subject of moving into new footsteps. I think it is really something we need to think about because one day the human population will not fit on Earth, so we might have to move to Mars or find a way to live in Antarctica. Also, it was a scary thought that 10.8 percent of species would be threatened with extinction by the year of 2050. The con to the human population growth is obviously the worries of the animals. The animals are an extremely important part of the world and therefore we must do every thing as humans to keep them safe from extinction. Without the animals we would not have the food sources we have and many other sources we use on a daily basis. Without the animals there would be no humans. Another con, which can also be a pro, is moving our footsteps. Many people to not have the money or don not want to move from where they are because they are comfortable. The way of life on earth is simple and already created. To move people to a different place, they would have to set up a whole new society and that will cause many problems. The pro from moving our footsteps is we get to expand and save the animals at the same time. Expanding will open our eyes to a new world, new way of living, and a new society. If we expand our footsteps we will be able to make room for the animals to live.