Research Draft Workshop: Polar Bears: Melting Away From Under Their Paws – Audrey Palacios

1) The amount of information that was presented in your essay was laudable.  Having read your essay, I can say that I now know more about polar bears than I ever did.

2) Do you have any concerns with regard to your draft?

3) Yes, you put forth your opinion that polar bears are at risk from several factors.

4) Yes, tis in the correct format.

5) 1548 words

6) I found this paper to be a five on the rating scale; I really am not that interested in polar bears.

7) It would be beneficial to add numbers related to the amount of poison in the ocean.

8) Someone might object that the levels of poison is not a concern.  They might also say that global warming is a hoax.  You haven’t put forth any defense against this, so you may want to.

9) You have not dealt with the objections, I would suggest that in the fourth or fifth paragraph you do so.

10) The relationship between each paragraph and the thesis is clear.  Good job!

11) The transition from each paragraph is good, but an extra sentence in each leading up to the next one would be great.

12) The title of your essay is good, it gives the reader a general idea of what to expect.  I would however try another form of capturing the reader’s attention, because most readers already assume harsh living conditions for polar bears.  You could perhaps draw the reader in with an appeal to aid the polar bears.

13) Your conclusion starts with a restatement of your conclusion.  Also, in that sentence, the wording “…is major causes…” would read better as “…are major causes…”, because the causes are plural.  Additionally, the concluding paragraph’s second to last sentence needs more scope and definition; more specifically, how would you educate the people and what are the concerns/issues that people are ignorant of.  The word also is not the best way to start that sentence, as the final sentence starts with although and results in a halting conclusion.

14) Yes, the minimum ten sources are in the referendum.

15) Audrey equally uses all of her sources.

16) She only has one in text citation, and it is correctly sourced.

17) I believe that you use all your sources, but it would help if you could put a line between each separate source so that they can be easily distinguished.

18) No, the essay is your own.  The use of sources is balanced by your own words and opinions.

19) No, no quotations are longer than two lines.

20) You only have one quotation, the rest is paraphrase.  So no, you do not need to paraphrase.

21) The author interjects her own opinion after her quote.

Akariss Workshop Draft 2

Overall: The essay is written with passion, and it shows in your writing. You have made it clear that you are for organic farming compared to factory farming. I did however notice that you did not use any in-text citations and I was wondering if that was due to time, or if you were not sure how to do them (page 427 in the Hacker handbook can help walk you through them). These are important for many reasons, and not just to avoid plagiarism. I wasn’t sure how old the information you listed was, and I wasn’t sure which source was used for the pesticide drift section to research it further myself, as I found that part to be quite interesting.

Thesis: You clearly state your position in your thesis; it is bolded, and you use the required format. Although I wasn’t clear on your statement; “…it actually costs the environment less in the long run…” to mean an economical or environmental cost.

Content: You meet the required word limit of 1200 words not including your resource list, and you listed over ten required references with at least 5 of them being from Ebsco host. I found the paper in general to be 7 out of 10 for interest as; I have read most of this before. However, the section on pesticide drifts to be 10 out of 10 as that was new to me. I would have liked to see more data supporting soil erosion. Additionally, concerns about water table contamination can also happen with the methods used buy organic farmers. Unless they use their fertilizers on a smaller scale than the industry, in which they do, however it’s not listed in your paper, and might cause some to dismiss your claim. Ultimately, your paragraphs did relate, and help support your thesis statement.

Style: I didn’t feel that you used many transition statements that would have helped me follow you from one topic to the next. For instance, after talking about pesticides and switching to fossil fuels a sentence similar to: In addition to pesticides causing harm to the environment, their use requires more fossil fuels to be used, compounding the environmental problem would have made the topic change smoother. The opening statement is not bad, but I wouldn’t call it an attention grabber either. I would try to find a strong quote that captures how you feel about the issue, or a statistic that relates to it. Although your conclusion seemed somewhat short, I felt you did a good job reviewing the topics you discussed, and this is where more of your passion about the topic was evident. However, you did present you information out of order, which did not match the order listed in your thesis statement. Additionally, you used the word “lastly “to introduce topic two and it would be better if it was saved for the last topic.

Research: Your draft does contain more than the minimum number of required sources, including 5 peer-reviewed. However, I cannot tell if you relied heavily on one source or not as you didn’t use any in text citations. Nor can I tell if any of your sources were not used in your paper, as they were not cited, though I imagine you did get your information from them. You did not use any quotations, so I cannot answer any questions relating to them for this draft.

Other: I like your topic, and look forward to reading your final draft. I would recommend working on using your in-text citations as soon as possible, as I found it the most difficult part of drafting my essay.

Response #15: Video – “Planet Earth: Caves & Ice Worlds”

Our world is filled with interesting and remarkable places that are hidden beneath the earth’s surface and where the weather is unsuitable for humans.  I had the opportunity to watch the BBC series “Planet Earth Vol. 2: Caves/Deserts/Ice Worlds” and I was pretty intrigued by what I seen.  Although I only watched caves and ice worlds, I was fascinated by the previously unknown facts and information that I learned through these episodes.  I think everyone should take their time to watch them.
Caves are the least explored places on earth and they contain the strangest and unknown animals.  They are made out of limestone and lie beneath mountains of limestone.   When the mountains were first formed, it was underwater but now they stand tall above sea levels.  The caves are created from constant falling rain.  When heavy rain falls it breaks down the limestone, creating holes (caves) in the mountains and it can also expand a caves size.  Sifflers are birds that reside in caves.  They make their nest along the walls of the cave out of their own saliva.  Humans risk their lives gathering these nests because they are the main ingredient for bird’s nest soup.  The most beautiful of caves resides in the United States because it is lined with crystals.
The ice world is the largest and demanding wilderness and is known for their extreme seasons.  Antarctica holds 90% of the worlds ice.  Many animals roam here such as various species of penguins, seals, whales, birds, and polar bears.  Many of them travel long distances just to harvest food.  But because winter is getting shorter and summers are longer, the ice land decreases, forcing many of these animals to starve to death.

Research 4: 2nd draft

 The modern age is unique to those who will live to see it, and for the same reason is identical to every age that has come before it. That reason is the requirement for the people of any age to tackle the problems that come with it. For thousands of years those problems were of the most basic kind. The need to eat and sleep safely. Enter five thousand years ago the state level society. Though in large part humanity is no longer slave to the basic requirements of survival, life’s new complexities bring with it problems of equal complication. The list includes such staples as terrorism, disease prevention and treatment, and perhaps what most people would consider to be the king of monsters, global climate change. Any such list of problems must be prioritized in order to handle them effectively. While climate change may seem as though it should take the head of any such list, it has been argued by some, including the Copenhagen Consensus, that the benefit of dealing directly with climate change is not sufficient to account for its cost. Looking instead to rising costs associated with declining biodiversity, as well as the direct short term benefits of protecting it, prioritization seems clear. Although climate change is a serious issue biodiversity poses a more immediate concern because it is more cost effective, it creates sustainability, and it produces practical technological and economical benefits.

To demonstrate clearly the most important point of this paper, that biodiversity can be divorced from and prioritized above climate change, it is necessary to give examples of how the two issues overlap and why biodiversity problems are more than just a symptom of climate change. First this paper will examine maritime issues and then take a look at grassland microcosms. In a 2010 article written by Alice McKeown, she states that “Climate change is arguably the most important factor the for the future of coral reefs …. [which are] particularly susceptible to warming sea-surface temperatures”(Mckeown, 2010). The article notes that bleaching associated with the rising temperatures have killed 16% of the world’s corals. It also states that climate change has resulted in a 30% increase in ocean acidity, which weakens coral and slows its reproductivity. However the same article also notes other human activities such as overfishing as well as destructive fishing.

According to a fact sheet published by the World Resources Institute in February 2011, coral reefs in southeast Asia are the most diverse in the world. These reefs account for 28% of the world’s total reef terrain, and by the reckoning of the same report, 95% are at risk from local threats (WRI, 2011). Chief amongst these threats are over fishing, destructive fishing, and maritime pollution. Overfishing results largely from the high density of human populations adapted to coastal life from Japan all the way south to New Guinea. Historical and contemporary net and line fishing practices quickly outpaced the carrying capacity of the region. The destructive practices listed by the WRI report are blast (or explosive) fishing and poison fishing. The pollution is a bi-product of the coastal settlements, mainly sewage water which flows into the ocean. The report places much of the blame for the continued threat to mismanagement within the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), citing that of the 600 MPAs, which only cover 17% of the region’s reefs, only 3% were listed as effectively managed (WRI, 2011). An excellent example of the problems associated with human activities in maritime communities is the ethnography of two such communities written by Cynthia Neri Zayas. In her work, The Ethnographies of Two Japanese Maritime Communities, Zayas looks into the role played by rural japanese fishing villages as they make strides to adapt to a changing environment. It should be noted that her work is not strictly concerned with biodiversity and yet throughout her writing the effects of the humans on the environment is clear. Zayas’ specific example speaks to the history of a shelter port named Habuminato. The town is founded in 1800 with a clear aim towards being a shelter port for passing trade ships, however forest clearing practices quickly make for good farming land, in addition net fishing practices come in from the north of japan. The popularity of net fishing as a means for gaining wealth in merchant fishing quickly leads to losses as the seas in the area are overfished. Meanwhile, the farm land becomes some what unsustainable due to soil degradation. (Zayas, 1989) Thankfully, in the case of Habuminato the people were resourceful enough to continue to exist despite the anthropogenic changes to the region. What Zayas manages to show without expressly mentioning it, are the adverse effects on humans of diminishing biodiversity. Of equal subtext in her writing is ability of humans to fix the problem at a local level. In the case of Habuminato a regional branch of the Fishing Association was able to enact policies to ensure that fish returned to the area and responsible fishing practices would be sustainable into the future. (Zayas, 1989)

This line of thought is corroborated more concretely by Rebecca Clausen’s 2008 paper, Economic Growth and Marine Biodiversity: Influence of Human Social Structures on Decline of Marine Trophic Levels. In the body of the paper Clausen identifies the environmental kuznets curve (EKC) hypothesis which had essentially stated that a nation’s environmental impact existed on a bell curve and that eventually as the nation developed that curve would diminish. Based on this hypothesis a nation needed only to develop past a certain level of industrialization to minimize it’s impact on the environment. However, Clausen’s findings refute that hypothesis by noting that there is a 1:1 proportional ratio of economic growth to marine use. (Clausen, 2008) This translates to a net loss of biodiversity without some sort of human intervention.

What is important to note about the reports listed above is the distinct difference between the problems caused by climate change, and more localized forms of human activity. Intertwined with this difference in scope is the difference in the human capacity for immediate actionable change. While it may take the combined efforts of globalized nation states to make a difference on the impact of climate change, local communities can decrease their impact on biodiversity with local measures. In the case of threatened coral reefs in southeast Asia the answer could be as simple as more strictly adhering to the standards of their MPAs. The associated changes that adherence would force in environmental protection and fishing practices would produce a much quicker turn than changes in global policy on Co2 emissions. The lesson of this example is that from a cost benefit analysis of problems it makes more sense to focus on biodiversity issues than climate change. The next section of the paper will focus on the scientific benefits of having microcosms to study.

Several studies have been conducted using the grassland microcosm as an out door laboratory. Generally these studies seek to demonstrate how the community deals with invasion of foreign plants, and how such invasions can effect biodiversity. Andy Hector who conducted a 2001 study using the model describes the theory going into his study by mentioning Charles Elton saying: “the initial idea [is] that diverse communities better resist invasions.” (Hector, 2001). For his study Hector cleared a plot in Silwood Park in England and separated it into 80 segments, each 2x2m. Varying amounts and numbers of different plant species were planted in each segment randomly. The study lasted for four years as members watched the 80 segments for encroachment of plants from other plots. In the first three years of the study the segments were regularly weeded after allowing the plants to grow enough to determine how much encroachment had occurred. In the fourth year the plants were allowed to grow fully to replicate natural events. Over the course of the four years there was a negative relationship between initial diversity and the amount of foreign invasion.(Hector, 2001) That is to say with more species diversity in the first place, the plants were less susceptible to being over run by invading plants from adjacent segments. While this may seem to be common sense the study verifies facts which have real benefits to industries such as agriculture. While this is a clear cut case of how maintaining diversity can make life ways more sustainable, what follows are technologies developed by observing nature which could be lost if biodiversity declines.

A 2008 paper by Nico Eisenhauer plays up the animal role in the same ecosystem by looking at the interplay not only of indigenous and invading plants, but of the earthworms who feed on both. The study revealed an interesting correlation between the worms and invading plants in particular. It seemed that invading plants with large seeds were particularly well suited to being deposited by earthworms as they ate and burrowed through plots of land. Thus a particular type of invasion would be favored in the environment. This invasion was controlled by the diet of the earthworm. (Eisenhauer, 2008) This study points to the likely co evolution of the plants and worms, thus bringing to the foreground the important balance inherent to maintaining biodiversity.

The nitrogen cycle is a key component to life on earth. It makes up 78% of the atmosphere and is essential in creating amino acids, the basic building blocks of life. However recent human activities, namely C02 emission and waste water management have upset the balance. These problems have compounded to reduce the diversity of the grassland microcosm, but a study by Marcel Van Der Heijdan examines how these effects can be mitigated. Nitrogen saturation lends its self to creating a grass rich environment to the detriment of other plant types. However Van Der Heijdan learned that by introducing Mycorrhizal fungi into an ecosystem, this effect can be negated. This is because the fungi live symbiotically with various plant types and allow them to survive the strain of a nitrogen rich environment. ( Van Der Heijdan, 2008) This example completes the circle by introducing not just plants and animals, but also the atmosphere into the discussion of biodiversity.

The website http://www.globalissues.com contains a page dedicated to biodiversity. A short list of the natural benefits it provides are food, shelter, and air. (Shah, 2011) From the science of evolutionary biology humans have gained several discoveries with innumerable applications to every day life. At the top of the list are the several diseases for which there now exist cures or treatments. By studying the evolution of bacteria scientists can understand how best to fight these infections. By studying various plants medical applications can be found and disseminated. From these examples alone it seems obvious why biodiversity is important. If the plants and bacteria die, their direct benefit to humanity dies with it. However it isn’t only life saving measures we have biodiversity to thank for. Some more mundane comforts are also thanks to the wide variety of fauna and flora on the planet. For instance the silk worm which has clothed fahsion-ites for centuries. Scientists have also examined the spider web, pound for pound stronger than steel, to find a better way to create metal alloys. (Boutry, 2009) Aviators in recent years have enjoyed wing redesigns inspired by following the evolutionary model of bird wings. And of course, as would be suggested by the first part of this paper, the sea is a heavy contributor to human life ways in several capacities, as highlighted by Ressurreição‘s 2011 piece on the economic value of species loss in the open sea.

Over the course of this paper three main points have been observed. The first of those points being the fact that climate change and biodiversity indeed overlap, but biodiversity is a distinct problem with a more efficient, cost effective solution than climate change. Second, by highlighting Andy Hector’s study on grass microcosms the capacity of biodiversity to maintain a sustainable habitat for all the life within it has been demonstrated. Finally a short list of the benefits which flow from maintaining biodiversity, both luxuries and necessities, demonstrates how intertwined humanity really is in the web of diversity. It seems common sense to recognize that action at the local level is capable of creating great change in biodiversity, whereas it will require the efforts of nations to contain the problem of climate change. For this reason concerned individuals should prioritize biodiversity as a more realistic problem to overcome, if not in the grand scheme of things, than certainly in the short term.

Anup Shah, A.P. (2011, April 6th). Why is biodiversity important? who cares?. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity- important-who-cares#SoilbacteriaplantstheNitrogenCycle

Boutry, C., & Blackledge, T. A. (2009). Biomechanical variation of silk links spinning plasticity to spider web function. Zoology, 112(6), 451-460.

CLAUSEN, R., & YORK, R. (2008). Economic Growth and Marine Biodiversity: Influence of Human Social Structure on Decline of Marine Trophic Levels. Conservation Biology, 22(2), 458-466.

Eisenhauer, N., & Scheu, S. (2008). Invasibility of experimental grassland communities: the role of earthworms, plant functional group identity and seed size. Oikos, 117(7), 1026-1036.

Hector, A., Dobson, K., Minns, A., Bazeley-White, E., & Hartleylawton, J. (2001). Community diversity and invasion resistance: An experimental test in a grassland ecosystem and a review of studies. Ecological Research, 16(5), 819-831.

McKeown, A. (2010). Coral Reefs under Threat. World Watch, 23(1), 15. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

van der HEIJDEN, M. A., VERKADE, S., & de BRUIN, S. J. (2008). Mycorrhizal fungi reduce the negative effects of nitrogen enrichment on plant community structure in dune grassland. Global Change Biology, 14(11), 2626-2635.

Ressurreição, A., Gibbons, J., Dentinho, T., Kaiser, M., Santos, R. S., & Edwards-Jones, G. (2011). Economic valuation of species loss in the open sea. Ecological Economics, 70(4), 729-739.

World Resource Institute, W.R.I. (2011, february 02). Coral reefs revisited. Retrieved from http://pdf.wri.org/factsheets/factsheets_reef_main.pdf

Zayas, C. N. (1999). The ethnographies of two japanese maritime communities. Third World Studies Cntr.

Response # 14: Website – “The Green Guide”

“The Green Guide” is a website (http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/)
a part of the National Geogrpahic.  The site has very useful information about living green and healthy.  It gives information on being green in home and garden, travel and transportation, food, and home purchases to conserve energy and save the environment.  Within the website, there are many newsworthy articles about eco-friendly living and updates on worldly environmental news.  It is very interesting and gives a broad perspective on sustainability.  The audience for this website is anyone who is interested in green living.  The main point of this site is to teach people how to live green and why living green is important, especially for those who are just starting.  It is very effective because it promotes how  living green is important for our environment for the future of our families and our planet.  This website propose to fill a niche by posting interesting topics, pictures, and articles that may attract a large audience.  The pros of this website is it is appealing, very easy to browse through, and provides amusing information.  It is hard to find cons for this site other than the fact that it may be difficult to find if someone is browsing through the National Geographic home-page.  I’m positive that anyone who stumbles across this site would be very entertained and fascinated with what it has to offer.

Response # 13: “City of the Future”

What is more green than having a whole city conserve energy?  Carolyn Fry’s article, “City of the Future,”  gives insight on an development in Sweden that incorporates renewable energy.  West Harbour in Malmo was previously a wasteland.  Now it is a city development that uses renewable energy from its natural resources for example the sun, ocean, and wind.  This eco-friendly city has 600 apartments with a mix houses.  Instead of using boilers to heat up homes, they use a local cogeneration plants.  Developers were strict on using only green materials for buildings and transportation for this development.  This development was created in hopes for more greener cities to stop environmental problems.  The main point of this article is to promote biodiversity, use of sources for energy, and give hope for building cities that don’t spread emissions.  The counter-arguments in this article is there are difficulties with maintaining a green city because of its limited resources.  Although the development receives its energy from the sun and wind, they are hard to rely on because the sun and wind are not constant throughout the year.  Another counter-argument in creating a full-fledged renewable energy city is its high price.  It is good to use renewable energy to reduce emissions from being released into the atmosphere but the economy can’t afford it.  The audience is anyone who is interested in living green and wants to save our planet from greenhouse emissions that non eco-friendly cities cause.  If I were to pursue this project, I would research locations where natural resources (sun, wind and ocean) are constant throughout the year so that it may be a  possible place to have a successful green city.

Research Draft 2: Alaska is the Energy Frontier

Research Draft:  Alaska is the Energy Frontier

The current use of unsustainable resources to supply a growing energy demand will lead to an energy collapse unless better methods are developed to power our world.  According to Energy and the Environment by Robert Ristinen, in 2005 86% of the energy used in the U.S. came from nonrenewable resources including petroleum, coal, and natural gas (Ristinen, & Kraushaar, 2006)).  Energy must come from sources other than fossil fuels if humans are to survive but the only way demand can be met is if local communities utilize the strongest sources of clean energy in their area.  Renewable sources must become the backbone of our energy economy, not the decoration.  The only way to achieve this is to build large scale industrial facilities that can replace existing coal or gas turbine plants.  Although renewable energy is often viewed on a small scale, the best use of sustainable resources is to redistribute load onto a few large scale sources because it will reduce the impact of existing fossil fuel power plants, give communities energy independence and create a more stable energy system.

Humans are destroying the world.  One of the biggest ways we do this is by how we produce electricity.  Unfortunately for us and the Earth, the biggest and most abundant source for energy, the sun, remains relatively untapped compared to coal, oil and natural gas reserves.  The reason why this is still the case is because existing infrastructure is built around these fossil fuel technologies and the industries providing power via these sources have considerable inertia.  Fortunately the winds of change are blowing as America is starting to realize the size of the grave that is being dug.  Unfortunately, it will require a massive reinvestment into new technologies and infrastructure.

Alaska is the energy frontier for America and has a fantastic opportunity to lead the charge towards an electric economy because of its many sustainable energy sources.  Although Alaska’s high latitude makes it less suitable for large solar plants, because of its large size it is privileged to have more coastline than the rest of the United States combined (Benson, 1998).  Where the land meets the sea, there is wind, where there is wind there is energy potential waiting to be tapped, and traced back far enough, all wind is generated by the sun unequally heating the Earth.  On top of fantastic wind resources, Alaska’s size and latitude again give the benefit of large glaciers and ice fields which provide long term supplies for hydroelectric projects.

Wind:  Nearly every Alaskan city and village has a grid-tied wind turbine and many have one or more large utility scale turbines that supply a substantial portion of its energy needs.  A short list includes:  Shaktoolik, Kotzebue, Wales, St. Paul, Port Heiden, Selawik, Toksook Bay, Kasigluk and Kodiak (Alaska Center for Energy and Power).  The reason why all these communities are opting for expensive wind turbines is because diesel fuel is even more expensive.  For small communities that exist far from the main grid, the standby technology to produce electricity is diesel.  Large generators run continuously to provide these small outcroppings of civilization with usable power, and are also costing then massive amounts of money.  In the village of Toksook Bay three 100 kilo-Watt (kW) wind turbines will keep 52,000 gallons of fuel a year from being burned, saving approximately $200,000 a year depending on fuel prices (Alaska Energy Authority).  These systems pay for themselves quickly.  Unfortunately the downside is that the wind does not always blow at the exact speed to maximally produce AC electricity at 120 volts and 60 Hz.  This problem is termed “penetration”, describing the ability of a wind system to offset the amount of diesel being burned.  To overcome this hurdle, considerable research is being done to store excess wind energy to keep penetration high even while the wind is not blowing.  One way this is achieved is by storing the surplus energy in large batteries.  The Alaska Center for Energy and Power is one entity currently conducting research in this field.  Another problem connected with wind power comes when a power outage occurs when the main source of electricity goes down.  During a power outage, although the main source is down, the turbine is still operating and pumping electricity into the grid, leaving the power lines charged.  If the power from the wind turbine is not switched off immediately when the grid loses main power, it is possible for line men to enter a dangerous environment if they are working on or near energized lines that they think are dead.  This problem is successfully avoided with advanced switchgear that cuts power from the wind turbine once main power is lost.

Hydro: With our world carefully balanced on the precipice between self-destruction and self-salvation, the 49^th state is poised to show what can be done.  Hydropower is not new to the state.  Juneau’s Annex Creek plant has been operating since 1915.  Many other hydro projects in Alaska provide clean energy for nearby communities.  Bradley Lake near Homer is tapped via a 18,610 foot tunnel that funnels water from the lake at 1,080 ft to a powerhouse at sea level, producing the cheapest energy along the railbelt in Alaska and spreading its coverage to 72% of the state’s population (citation).  Eklutna Lake supplies 10-15% of Anchorage’s power and the city of Gustavus now receives all of its power from the new Falls Creek hydro project that opened in July of 2009, bringing electric costs down from 39 cents a kilo-watt-hour (kWh) to under 20 cents per kWh (Forgey, 2010).  Alaska is extremely active in the movement towards cheaper sustainable power.   Much deliberation has occurred over the development of a Susitna River dam by 2022.

Geothermal:  Alaska has more geothermal energy potential than any other state.  In interior Alaska, a few geothermal features exist which may be tapped for energy.  The only hot spring which has been tapped is Chena Hot Springs, and all of the resort’s power comes from the hot springs.  The greatest challenge for geothermal power lies in the temperature of the hot springs.  With a moderate to low temperature of water seeping from the hot springs, it is more difficult to extract energy.  Chena Hot Springs Resort operates at the lowest temperature of any geothermal plant in the world (Chena Hot Springs).

Home systems will also play an important role in providing energy for specific communities.  While a community may perhaps be inadequate for a utility scale wind system, a single home perched high on a ridge line may have perfect access to high winds ripping across the ridge which could spin a small 5 or 10 ft turbine.  If every home had some kind of renewable system either tied into the grid or just dumping heat into the home, large utilities would have to produce less.

Economic feasibility is the issue that looms over every energy project.  Coal is cheap to mine and there is a large infrastructure built around it, which is why the technology has not been immediately replaced.  However, as coal-fired power plants age and replacement is in sight, renewable sources are primed to step in and fill the space.  The solution is not composed of a single technology.  The solution to the energy demand of now and the future will be a gracefully connected system of hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar.  Because of its size and unique environment, Alaska and its communities are a perfect proving ground for renewable energy technologies.

Sources

Alaska Center for Energy and Power, Wind Working Group.  [Web].  Retrieved from http://www.uaf.edu/acep/alaska-wind-diesel-applic/Spring-update-2011.pdf,  Retrieved 4-20-2011.

Alaska Energy Authority, Wind Systems Operating in Alaska.  [Web].  Retrieved from http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programwindsystem.html,  Retrieved 4-20-2011.

Benson, Carl (1998-09-02).  “Alaska’s Size in Perspective”.  Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Retrieved 4-20-2011.

Chena Hot Springs, Geothermal Power.  [Web].  Retrieved from http://www.chenahotsprings.com/geothermal-power/,  Retrieved 4-210-2011.

Forgey, Pat.  (2010).  Southeast Alaska City Celebrates Diesel Free Power.  Fairbanks Daily News Miner, Retrieved from http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/814222/article-Southest-Alaska-city-celebrates-diesel-free-power-,  Retrieved 4-20-2011.

Ristinen, Robert, and Kraushaar, Jack.  (2006).  Energy and the Environment.  Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Part 4 – Research Draft #2: Polar Bears: Melting Away from Under their Paws

Polar Bears (Ursus Maritimus) are one the few animals that can survive in the one of world’s harshest environments.  This significant animal is a vital source to understanding what is occurring in the arctic.  The intensive research of polar bears offered awareness to earth’s major problems that we are concerned about today.  These problems are putting polar bears at risk and their population is slowly decreasing (Courtland, 2008).  Although they are not at high risk, environmental problems and humans put polar bears on the endangered species list because of the effects of global warming, pollution, and human activities.

Global warming is the leading problem to polar bears’ extinction.  It is defined as trapped heat that increases temperatures in the earth’s atmosphere.  The increasing temperatures are caused by the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane.  These gases are emitted from things that we see and use in our environment such as cars and power plants.  Although they are a necessity in our daily lives, we are unaware of the problems they cause, especially to polar bears.  Because of global warming, polar bears are considered an endangered species (Deroacher, A.E., 2010).
According to U.S. Government studies, “two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could disappear by 2050 as global warming continues to melt the arctic’s sea ice” (Roach, 2007).  
Polar bears love the cold and the ice.  They simply cannot live without it.  The ice is their home and hunting ground, but because of the increasing temperatures caused by global warming, polar bears’ preferred habitat is being eliminated (Evans, T.J. et. al., 2008).  Their primary diet is the ringed seal and they also reside near ice caps.  When temperature increases and ice caps melt away, seals migrate to find a colder location, which leaves less food for polar bears to hunt (Rosing-Asvid, A., 2006).  The declining of food decreases reproduction of polar bear cubs. Mother polar bears rely on food in order to keep her cubs alive.  When ice breaks up before summer, seals disappear into the waters.  The mother leaves her cubs at their den, and she desperately races to the seal’s habitat before they leave so that she can feed on them.  In doing this, she is trying to store enough fat and nutrition that will last throughout summer and fall.  But if she is incapable of storing up enough fat in her body and returns back to her cubs too lean, her milk production will stop and her cubs will die from starvation (Morrison, 2004). Cannibalism is also another reason why there is a decrease of polar bears.  Biologists believe because of the lack of ice and food, polar bears consume inefficient amount of nutrients, which causes them to eat other polar bear or other bear species (Amstrup, S.C. et. al., 2006).  Polar bears use ice caps as a floating platform.  Ice caps float from one ice cap to another, giving polar bears a mode of transportation. In 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service discovered four dead polar bears in the Beaufort Sea.  Their cause of death was drowning.  Polar bears are usually known to be great swimmers and can amazingly swim long distances at a time.  However, researchers have discovered that the drowning polar bears was due to longer open water periods and tremendous long distance swimming that eventually made them too exhausted to reach solid ice (Monnet & Gleason, 2006).
Since ice caps are melting faster than previous years, their chance of finding solid ice to float on are very slim (Amstrup, S.C., Douglas, D.C., & Fischbach, A.S., 2007).  In 2003, Josefino Comiso, a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, reported that the sea ice is melting faster than they expected because of increasing temperatures and connections between ice, ocean and the atmosphere that speed up the melting process (Morrison, 2004).  Although polar bears love water as much as they love ice, the water they swim in affects them as well.

Water pollution poses another threat to polar bears by affecting their health and habitat in many ways.  Pollution derives from oil spills, toxic wastes, and dumping of other harmful materials.  Being at the top of the food chain, polar bears are exposed to various types of pollutants.  Persistent Organic Pollutants, POPs, is detected in many dangerous substances such as heat resistant chemicals, industrial by-products, and pesticides.  Even though these substances are rarely used, they still remain in our environment.  POPs have been found in many polar bears.  Polar bears with high levels of POPs have low levels of vitamin A, thyroid hormones, and a few antibodies (“Threats,” n.d).  There also have been reports of high concentration of Mercury in polar bears.  Mercury comes from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas.  When fuels are released into the air and drifts over the ocean, it eventually falls.  The mercury is then digested and contaminates marine life animals, especially those who are a part of the polar bear’s food chain (Cardona-Marek, T. et. al, 2009).  Oil Spills is also a type of pollution that harms polar bears.  If a polar bear contains a certain amount of oil on their fur, it can possibly poison and kill them through grooming.  When a polar bear’s fur comes in contact with oil, it reduces its insulation that keeps them warm.  Their loss of insulation causes them to use more energy to keep them warm.  To gain sufficient energy, they must increase their caloric intake.  But because of other environmental problems such as global warming, polar bears have limited resources for hunting food, leading them to starvation  (“Oil,” n.d).  Since the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, environmentalists are still facing the consequences of the spill.  Eleven million gallons of crude oil was spilled into the waters of Prince William Sound.  It stained 1,500 miles of Alaskan coastline, and killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds, otters, seals, and whales.  Although the spill was stopped a few days after, there is no effective end date to when it will fully recover (Yardley, 2010).  Polar bears are still experiencing the effects of the oil spill that happened 28 years ago by eating the oil-affected animals in their food chain. 
  Polar bears are primarily polluted through their food chain.  Chemicals are transported from the South, to the arctic by either wind or water, which affects the Polar bears’ food chain.  Their food chain begins with water, then through algae, shrimp, cod, and ringed seals.  Each time chemicals pass from one species to another, it increases five to tenfold.  Pollution harms polar bears’ reproductive and immune systems. When their hormones are affected by pollution, it may possibly obstruct their reproduction and growth.  It also weakens their immune systems, making polar bears vulnerable to diseases or parasites (Sonne, 2010).  Currently, there is no proven effective method for cleaning or maintaining an oil spill in arctic waters (“Oil,” n.d).  All of these environmental problems don’t just come out of nowhere; humans initiate them.

The foremost reason why polar bears are heading towards extinction is because of human activities.  Although polar bears are already endangered by environmental disasters, they are also faced with manmade disasters.  Transportation, power plants, oil drilling, and gas institutions are manmade establishments that contribute to the environmental problems mentioned before such as global warming and pollution.  These establishments may benefit human’s way of life, but it’s a disadvantage to polar bears and their habitats.  On top of all these problems, humans are adding to polar bear’s declining numbers by hunting them.  Hunting polar bears are illegal to non-natives in most countries.  Sixty percent of the world’s polar bear population reside in Canada, which is one of the five “range states” that allows non-natives to hunt them as a sport.  Native arctic populations in America, Greenland, and Russia are the only ones allowed to kill a quota of polar bears each year.  Norway has completely banned polar hunting for natives and non-natives. The ultimate treasure about hunting polar bears as a sport is earning $35,000.  That is why there is a growing amount of illegal poachers.  Poachers kill polar bears to sell their body parts for profit.  Although many countries banned importing of polar bear parts, poachers are still finding ways to sell their polar bear parts by smuggling them.  Sadly enough, there are situations where there is no choice but to kill a polar bear.  Although polar bears are magnificent creatures, they are known to be aggressive.  Killing a polar bear is not considered illegal if they are aggressive (Taylor, 2009).

Present environmental crisis and human related causes such as global warming, pollution, and human activities, is the major causes of why polar bears are on the endangered species list.  There are many ways to prevent polar bears from disappearing.  Reducing emissions would be the number one solution to decreasing polar bears (Amstrup, S.C. et. al., 2010). Also, addressing these issues and educating concerns for polar bears is another way to save them.  Although it will be a long time before polar bears are wiped off the face of the earth, it is critical to take current corrective action to save them from being extinct.

References

Amstrup, S.C., Bailey, D.A., Bitz, C.M., DeWeaver, E.T., Douglas, D.C., Durner, G.M., & Marcot, B.G.  (2010).  Greenhouse Gas Mitigation can Reduce Sea-Ice Loss and Increase Polar Bear Persistence.  Nature, 468(7326), 955.  doi:0.1038/nature09653

Amstrup, S.C., Douglas, D.C., & Fischbach, A.S.  (2007).  Landward and Eastward Shift of Alaskan Polar Bear Denning Associated with Recent Sea Ice Changes.  Polar Biology, 30(11), 1395.  doi:10.1007/s00300-007-0300-4

Amstrup, S.C., Perham, C., Smith, T.S., Stirling, I., & Thiemann, G.W.  (2006).  Recent Observations of Intraspecific Predation and Cannibalism among Polar Bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea.  Polar Biology, 29(11), 997.  doi:10.1007/s00300-006-0142-5

Courtland, R.  (2008).  Polar Bear Numbers Set to Fall.  Nature, 453(7194), 432.  doi:10.1038/453432a

Cardona-Marek, T., Knott, K.K., Meyer, B.E., & O’Hara, T.  (2009).  Mercury Concentrations in Southern Beaufort Sea Polar Bears, Variation Based on Stable Isotopes of Carbon and Nitrogen.  Environment Toxicology and Chemistry, 28(7), 1416-1424.  doi:10.1897/08-557.1

Deroacher, A.E.  (2010).  Climate Change: The Prospects for Polar Bears.  Nature,  468(7326), 905.  doi:10.1038/468905a

Evans, T.J., Gleason, J.S., Miller, S., Proffitt, K., Rode, K.D., Schliebe, S., & Wilder, J.  (2008).  Effects of Sea Ice Extent and Food Availability on Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Polar Bears during the Fall Open Water Period in the Southern Beaufort Sea.  Polar Biology, 31(8), 999.  doi:10.1007/s00300-008-0439-7

Monnett, C. & Gleason, J.S.  (2006).  Observations of Mortality associated with Extended Open-Water Swimming by Polar Bear in the Alaska Beaufort Sea.  Polar Biology, 29(8), 681-687.  doi:10.1007/s00300-005-0105-2

Morrison, J.  (2004, February 1).  The Incredible Shrinking Polar Bears. Retrieved from http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2004/The-Incredible-Shrinking-Polar-Bears.aspx

Roach, J.  (2007, September).  Most Polar Bears Gone By 2050, Studies Say.  NationalGeographic News. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/

Rosing-Asvid, A.  (2006).  The Influence of Climate Variability on Polar Bear (Ursus Maritimus) and Ringed Seal (Pusa Hispida) Population Dynamics.  Canadian Journal of Zoology, 84(3), 357.  doi:10.1139/Z06-001

Sonne, C. (2010).  Health Effects from Long Range Transported Contaminants in the Arctic TOp Predators: An Integrated Review based on Studies of Polar Bears and Relevant Species.  Environmental International, 36(5), 461.  doi:10.1016/j.envint.2010.03.002

Taylor, J.  (2009, March).  Bag a polar bear for $35,000: The New threat to the Species.  The Independent. Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/

World Wildlife Fund.  (n.d.).  Oil Activity in the North. Retreived from http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfap/polarbears/risk/oil.html

World Wildlife Fund.  (n.d.).  Threats to Polar Bears. Retrieved from http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/polarbear/threats.html

Yardley, W.  (2010, May).  Recovery Still Incomplete After Valdez Spill.  The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/

Short Essay 3: Book Report- Recreating “The Creation”.

Two completely different societies led by principles as different as night and day, uniting to stand up for one cause…existance.  As science and religion come together to fight the battle between life and death, the truely important principals vital to the success of humanity emerge.  “The Creation” written by author E. O. Wilson, is an intruiging book which adequately sheds light on both the substancial issues that exist today, as well as the ways in which those problems can be dealt with.  Eventually, whether in the near or distant future, today’s actions are going to provide consequences.  The question is, can we survive those consequences?  Although global warming is progressing quickly, “The Creation” by E. O. Wilson brings hope because he discusses the history of the earth’s collapses and relapses, human impact on nature, and how biodiversity can benefit our planet.

It has been said that the purpose of documenting history is to learn from the mistakes of the past and hopefully to avoid them in the future.  In his book, Wilson brings up the discussion of how “humanity lost its way,” and he also expresses his view that “Eden” was actually the world at a previous time period, quite specifically before an “environmental Armegeddon” occured, leaving the world in ruins.  According to “The Creation,” the disaster which ultimately ended the Mesozoic Era was caused by an immense volcanic eruption which altered the global climate.  This great act put into perspective the destruction that will emerge if these actions which threaten the atmosphere continue to occur.  Although climate change caused by global warming is currently advancing in what seems to be a gradual process, eventually the effects will lead up to a catastrophic event just like the one that occured sixty-five million years ago.  Earth eventually replenished and thus the Cenozoic Era (the Age of Mammals) came to pass.  Although the Earth is still in existance, the dinosours are not.  Such may be the fate of human kind at the rate of today’s neglectful carelessness.

In order to understand the pathway which leads backwards down the road of historical mistakes, one must understand the ways in which humans go about producing such destructive actions.  Approximately five percent of the Earth’s surface is burned every year whether it be in order to refurbish existing agricultural fields, or to create new ones.  As miniscule as five percent seems, all the greenhouse emissions that are being emitted from this one action alone are enough to destabilize the climate all around the planet.  Burning the environment itself destroys hundreds of habitats all around the world which in turn decreases the population of plant and animal species worldwide.  Without natural habitat to breed and feed on, the animal population has nothing to thrive on.  Over the past century, hundreds of species of both plants and animals have rendered extinct including the Puerto Rican tree frog, the Californian lotis blue butterfly, and the Bachman’s Warbler (a migratory bird species).

Also effected by the climatic changes is the tropical rainforest.  Between 1970 and the year 2000, rainforests have decreased by an outstanding seven percent, while grasslands have even more shocking results with a ten percent reduction. Tropical grasslands however have really taking the brutal bashing of climate change with a staggering eighty percent decrease.  Land masses everywhere are feeling the heat, literally!  But land is certainly not the only environment within reach of the peril. Freshwater ecosystems are in great danger!  The human population takes up roughly twenty five percent of the accessible water source by evaporation alone.  Along with aquifiers which are being implemented all over the world from China’s Yellow River Basin all the way to Saudi Arabia’s deserts,  according to Wilson, in the year 2025, up to forty percent of the entire world population could be living in countries effected by water scarcity.  While humans scrounge for water sources, marine animals will suffer from the evaporating water sources, both freshwater and saltwater.  The rise in temperature will only further evaporate the water sources, including glaciers and polar ice caps, destroying habitats all along the way.

Without marine life, many on land animals that rely on fish and other water inhabiting creatures will perish, and so begins biodiversity.  Websters dictionary defines biodiversity as “an environment as indicated by numbers of different species of plants and animals”.  Wilson makes an irrefutable point as to how biodiversity is truly the foundation of life.  All species of plants and animals thrive on each other, for example, humans need air in order to breathe, plants and trees provide the oxygen to sustain life.  Plants also serve as habitats and food sources for most species all over the world, without plants, there is no life.  In relation, all plants and animals need water.  Water is one of the necessities for life and without it, all would perish.  Biodiversity can be summed up as “the circle of life”.  All aspects of Earth’s inhabitants need each other in order to survive.  Biodiversity is often a topic hugely overlooked, but in all essence, it is one of the most important points at risk.  Protecting ALL species of both plants and animals will not only improve the world, but protect it.  Sustainability is not possible without a variety of all species in existance.

Biodiversity, an understanding of the world’s history, and knowing the mistakes that are in occurance right now are extremely important in the race against time to save the planet.  E. O. Wilson was inexplicably right, whether the root of creation exists upon religion or science, it doesn’t matter, what matters is working together to do what it takes to survive!  Sustainability is about so much more than just recycling or walking to work, although those factors are a big part in helping the Earth, actually gaining an understanding about what is really going on, what might happen, and how to prevent it will help ensure the existance of humanity for many decades to come.  The world is a beautiful place, lets keep it!

Reference:

Wilson, E. O. (2006). The Creation:  An Appeal to Save Life On Earth. New York: Norton.

Response #12: Captain Moore

Neil Greenman’s article, “Captain Charles Moore,” is an interview about an distubing event that Moore faced 1997.  In 1997, Moore set sail to the North Central Pacific and found something that shocked him.  He found what is called a Pacific Garbage Patch, which contained 100 million tons of trapped trashed that have been pushed around in that area by the North Pacific Gyre currents.  Moore, who loves the ocean, grew concern for the garbage patch explains that the trash have had to trace back to land, but the question is how did it get there?  In 1999, he set sail back to study the gyre and noticed the trash was accumulated by humans.  He took a bag of plastic chips from the gyre, got it tested and found out these chips were from a bigger industrial products that the gyre broke into pieces.  All these pieces are then distributed all over the ocean and beaches.  It makes a big impact on our environment especially for our environment.  There are many chemicals that create plastic and plastic is everywhere.  When plastic gets into the ocean, marine life  comes in contact with it and it ends up in their digestive system.  They soon start to lose their appetite and interrupts their reproduction system and migration, decreasing the marine population.  It impacts human as well.  When a fish for example contain plastic in them, it gets into our system when we eat them.  This problem definitely concerns everyone who eats seafood and anyone who spends their time in the ocean.  If I were to pursue this issue, I would definitely research which marine life that contain a high amount of chemicals in them and where there habitat is.  That way it can show where plastics are coming from.