Factory Farming and the Envionment
By No author listed, there is no publication written
http://www.gracelinks.org/265/environment

Picture: Shows how the industral farms do not care about the land or the enviornment.

Summary:
In this article i found it explains what a normal family owned farm is like. It says that they use normal methods to get the desired crop, they then tend and take care of the farm to make sure it is health. But with a factory or industrial farm they do not have a balance with the crops. They dont rotate the crops. they dont even let the soil regrow to become healthier. there are not as many rules as a family farm. The area is not taken care of as well, and with a factory farm they do not care for the land. Also in the article it talks about the animals and how safe it is for them. Each day they get antibiotics to be kept healthy. But this could end up in what we eat for our meals and could possibly hurt us.

Opinion:
After reading i was a little shocked with what happens o the factory farms. I really don tlike they way they treat the land. It is amazing to me what goes on in the farms and i dont like it. Personaly i would not eat food from the factory farms, but we do need them for our food supply. I think they should have to rotate the crops and have to let the land sit to become healthier.

Questions:
1) Do you feel safe eating food from factory farms?
2) Should there be limitations to what the factory farms can do to the land?
3) Should we have more family owned farms that do not pollute as much instead or of the factory farms?
4) Do you agree with what factory farms do to the animals and the crops? 

Selective Breeding

Changing Minds: Has Selective Breeding Restructured Some Dog Brains?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=breeding-dog-brains
August 13, 2010 (Published)



Picture:
          This picture shows that dogs were being affected by selective breeding and the brain could change in smaller dogs.

Summary:
          Over many years, humans have done selective breeding in dogs. They wanted this color of this dog, and that dog needed to have curly fur. We changed what dogs would look like and it is starting to affect thier brain changes to their sense of smell and their behavior. A neuroscientist, Michael Valenzuela, did a study on the position of the skull in a dog because he thinks that all dogs came from Canis Lupus, or gray wolf. Valenzuela and other scientists tried to do tests with MRIs to check the length of the skull  and if the brain has rotating, making the gray wolf's brain the control of the emperiment. They also took the width and the length of  dogs skull and multipthem by 100 to get the cephalic index (CI). This experiement was tested with 11 dogs. They found out that dogs with the dogs with smaller snouts actually had a different brain than the original wolf. So when humans were deciding on the perfect pet, dogs were having a change of brain which mostly affects their smell. With all the tests that were done, Valenzuela still is getting more research. But we know that pug-like dogs are not the best for the work force.

Opinion/Reflection:
             I was shocked knowing that selective breeding can effect dogs so much. You would think that dog breeders were just breeding dogs to get certain traits from each and that it won't affect the dog but maybe we should start looking in another direction. Maybe we need to start thinking about trying to breed more dogs so that way they can use their sense or smell. Or look into how dogs behave and keep using the selective breeding tactic to get dogs with long snouts.

Questions:
1. Is it possible to be able to breed so that dogs with smaller snouts can still use their sense of smell?
2. If you were a scientist, how would you try to solve this problem?
3. Could breeding dogs so they had their normal traits before selective breeding change them back to the way they were?

Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?
by: Deborah B. Whitman
April 2000

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

This picture shows a little bit of what adding a gene to a crop is like

Summary:
GMOs are Genetically Modified Organisms that have a big impact on the population's health. They are crop plants that are used for human consumption, using the latest biology techniques. Genetic engineering can alter a specific gene in the one crop that you essentially would want to "make better". The genes can not only be transferred from plant to plant, but non-plant genes can be used as well. Some great advantages of these GM foods include Pest resistance, Herbicide tolerance, Disease Resistance, cold and drought tolerance, nutrition, and pharmaceuticals.  Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations and other scientists and government officials all have negative opinions about GM 
foods. Health risks, environmental concerns, and economic risks are just a few.   Therefore, these types of genetically modified foods have the potential to be a real life saver when it comes to our populations growing in ways that it never has before.

Opinion/Reflection:
I think that this type of food making will most definitely be needed in the future. Especially once our population gets to an outrageous number. This may not be the most safe way to get food, but when it comes down to having dinner or preferring not to have it because it might not be safe, I think most people would choose the food. 

Questions:
1. Would you feel safe eating Genetically Modified foods?
2. What is another way we could feed the growing population most efficiently?
3. Do you see GMOs as a problem, or a great solution?

Alternative Energy: Underwater Vibrations

The image above is what the metal rods that are capturing the vibrations of the ocean current and creating energy look like in place.

Article:  The Weirdest New Source of Alternative Energy: Underwater Vibrations

By: Andrew Grant

The latest frontier for renewable energy is the ocean floor. A novel method of generating power uses a network of metal rods to tap into the currents that flow along the bottom of the ocean (and along riverbeds as well). Water swirls as it flows past the rods, making them vibrate. This phenomenon is painfully familiar to oil companies, which spend large sums of money minimizing such vibrations in order to stabilize offshore drilling equipment. “Everyone was obsessed with suppressing this motion,” says Michael Bernitsas, the University of Michigan engineer who developed the technology. “At some point it dawned on me that maybe we can do the opposite: Enhance it and harness the energy.”

Many proposed ocean energy projects rely on turbines that require sustained strong currents, but Bernitsas’s device can run efficiently on water flows of just a few miles per hour. He says that the cost of water-flow power production is less than that of solar or wind and that current-based generators can be arranged in large networks to power thousands of homes.

Although his technology has proved itself in the lab, Bernitsas still needs to find the best materials to withstand the elements in a real underwater environment.Vortex Hydro Energy, Bernitsas’s company, plans to install a prototype—about the size of a large car—in the Detroit River by the end of the year.

Summary: Oil companies for years have been trying to reduce vibrations from underwater currents to help stabilize their offshore drilling equipment but an engineer named Michael Bernitsas discovered that you can get energy from the vibrations themselves. His idea consists of metal rods that run along river bottoms and the ocean floor that captures and transfers the vibrations into usable energy. He class it Vortex Hydro Energy. Michael Bernitsas built a prototype of his idea and put it through a series of tests to prove that his technology actually worked. The tests proved that it does in fact work, only needs a current of a few miles per hour, costs less than solar or wind technology, and could power thousands of houses through areas of generators.

Reflection/Opinion: I think that Vortex Hydro Energy is a great idea if it works as well in the real ocean as it did in its tests. Its a cheaper, more environmentally safe way to provide energy for homes, businesses, etc. Since the article talked about how the idea was discovered through the pipes of off shore drilling equipment, maybe they can combine Vortex Hydro Energy with the oil drilling pipes to harness the energy from both at the same time.

Questions: 

1. Do you think that Vortex Hydro Energy would be an efficient energy source?

2. What problems, if there are any, do you think the metal rods would cause for marine life?

3. What would happen if the current isn't strong enough to provide enough energy to power the houses that are relying on it?

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/25-weirdest-new-source-alternative-energy-underwater-vibrations#.UMj0Y4OCmSp

Organic Farming

The New Era of Organic Farming by Vicky Uhland

http://search.proquest.com/docview/219605386/13AF0573798161B1122/3?accountid=41322






The above graphic is a map of where the organic farms are located throughout the United States. Similar to the article above, it shows that the state of California is the leading state with the most amount of organic farms.


Summary:
This article is about how organic farms are no longer for hippies or weirdos. Organic farms are now becoming more popular with young farmers because of the business aspects. Organic crops are more valuable now a days than regular crops. Many large vegetable producers that you see in the store now have organic acreage in their farms. Younger farmers are the more likely organic farmers that you will see, because they want to experiment and they believe that it is healthier and better for the environment. Many small town farms are starting to grow organic instead of using pesticides and fertilizers, that can modify the genetic make- up of the crops and could possibly hurt the animal ingesting the crops. A problem that occurs in organic farms more often that regular farms is that the harvest has to be hand picked, and the farmers cannot pay many workers, so they use illegal immigrants or they pay salaries to people who live there year round to help them pick their crops.

Opinion/ Reflection: 
I think that all farms should be organic. I believe this because if pesticides and fertilizers can kill off bugs or rodents and speed up the growth of a plant that is not used to that, imagine what it can do to the human body. Pesticides can slowly kill us if there is enough of it still on the crops and fertilizers can speed up growth rate and lead to diseases and body malfunctions. I think that if I eat more organic foods, I will see a change in mood, weight and growth rate. The chemicals could interfere with all aspects of life, if the food is not organic. I also think that all farms should be organic because it would make the economy better if there was more competition for organic foods at grocery stores and the prices would be higher making the economy to boost up.

Questions: 
1. Should farms have to have at least some of their land designated for organic crops?
2. How can going organic help the human race?
3. What can the average person do to make companies go organic?
4. Is going organic necessarily better?

Coral Reef Bleaching

Extreme Heat Bleaches Coral, and Threat Is Seen

By JUSTIN GILLIS

Published: September 20, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/earth/21coral.html?_r=0

 

 

Coral bleaching, like that seen in the Flower Garden Banks off the Texas-Louisiana border, is an indicator of heat stress.

 

Summary:

            Coral bleaching is when the coral shed their color and start to go into survival mode because of all the heat stress. Scientists think that it is the cause of the greenhouse gases that causes this. Also, the coral can be affected easily by heat and with the greenhouse gases, that makes them more vulnerable. The coral is made up of tiny animals called polyps. this animals form a symbiotic, or interdependent, relationship with algae. The polyps give nurtients to the algae while the algae captures carbon dioxide and sunlight to make sugar for the polyps. When bleching occurs, the algae are taken out and thats how the coral looks white becuase the algae give the color for the coral. The last time coral bleaching happened in a big sweep like now was in 1998. That is also the highest recorded temperature in history. Even though coral only take up a fraction of our oceans, they still home a quarter of all marine species. They are even called the under sea rainforest. If the temperatures cool down, then the algae could possibly be reduced and saved. This whole process has been happening from Texas to Thailand, and now it starts to reach southeast Asia and possibly Australia. If it hits Australia, then the Great Barrier Reefs could be in serious danger.

 

Opinion/Reflection:

               I think that coral bleaching is big topic to worry about. Since they home about a quarter of marine species they can effect a lot of other ecosystems/food webs. So other organisms could be affected that don't use the coral like humans. We as humans use marine species as source of food, and if that type of food is affected by the coral, then that is one less food source we have.

 

Questions:

1. How can people prevent coral breaching from happening?

2. Will coral breaching turn into a worldwide problem?

3. Is there another reason for this problem other than greenhouse gases?

4. Do you think that coral breaching is actually a problem we have to worry about?

Lead in Water

Lead in Drinking Water, By the EPA, 2012 March 6, 2012
http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/lead/index.cfm

Picture: This picture shows that not all water is safe in some tap water lead was found. This is harming humans and pets.


Summary: In many households lead or other metal deposits were found in the water. It was from the sinks used in the home. This is very dangerous to humand hurting many people. It can cause mental and physical difficulties as well as poor eye site. And an increase in blood preasure found in some cases. Although it is not very common to happen it starts from the erosion in the sinks. It is a very harmfull substance for humans but its not to common.


Opinion: It is amazing how people are getting hurt from drinking water. You think it is safe but some times it isnt to safe. It is scary to think about. Although it is not that common it can happen to anyone. It really makes you think about what you are drinking.


Questions:
1. What do you think the EPA is doing to stop the lead from coming in to your water?
2. What ideas are being used from companys to help stop the lead?
3. What should people do to help them from getting lead poisen or having lead in there water?

Drugs found in Drinking Water

by: Jeff Donn

Associated Press

9/12/08

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-10-drugs-tap-water_N.htm

This image shows how drugs could get into our water.
http://www.seechangehappen.com/see_change_happen/current_affairs/

Summary:

A large group of drugs have been found in drinking water for over 41 million Americans. This is causing concern for the long-term health of consumers. So how do the drugs get into our water? People take pills and when they are taken, they are washed down the toilet through waste. Then when they go through the process of cleansing again for water, some of the drug residue is still not removed. The AP National Investigative Team reviewed that Philadelphia has had 56 pharmaceuticals in treated drinking water. Also, there were 61 found in the city's watersheds. In fact, the federal government does not even have any testing for safety set up. Sometimes people that get bottled water could have drugs in their water because the water is not tested. Some of the reasons that this is such an issue is also because people have been taking more and more drugs, both responsibly and irresponsibly. Unfortunately, this affects how big of an amount of drugs are in our water today. One thing that could help this problem is to use reverse osmosis, however it costs a lot of money for a large amount. Also, it leaves more polluted water. Even though drugs are supposed to be tested safe for a humans for a couple of months, this will happen for years on end.

Opinion/Reflection:

Personally, I think that it is ridiculous that there are still drugs in our water today. How can we possibly still have drugs in our water when we have the highest of technology then ever before? We should most definitely be able to test if there is or isn't drugs in the water. We shouldn't have to worry about anything in between.

Questions:

How can we save our water through testing?

What effect will this have over a long period of time for us humans?

Why do you think no one is doing anything about this?

Who's fault is this?

Ground Water Balance

"Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint" 

Tom Gleeson, Yoshihide Wada, Marc F. P. Bierkens, and Ludovicus P. H. van Beek

August 9, 2012

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7410/full/nature11295.html#/author-information

This diagram shows aquifer sizes and locations and groundwater footprints.

Summary: This article was about how groundwater footprints are being used to track how fast groundwater is being used to how fast it is replenishing. Groundwater is an area of fresh water that helps keep ecosystems alive, supply drinking water to humans, and supplies water for farming, or any other type of agriculture. Recently there has been a major decrease in groundwater all over the world. A groundwater footprint is "the area required to sustain groundwater use and groundwater-dependent ecosystem services." Humans are affecting Earth's groundwater footprint because we are using groundwater so fast that we are taking all of the fresh water from many large aquifers all over the world, especially in Asia and North America. The article stated that the groundwater footprint for the whole world is about 3 and a half times larger than the total area of aquifers themselves. Because of that, many people live in ares that depend on groundwater but they are threatened because of the lack of groundwater left. Scientists are now trying to use the groundwater footprint to estimate whether or not groundwater will be able to renew its amount of groundwater in aquifers.

Opinion/Reflection: I think that this is a very important issue. If humans use up all of the groundwater from major aquifers, then there won't be any left for farming, or even for the ecosystem itself. Us, as humans, have to find a way to 1. either find a new source of fresh water, or 2. find a way to limit the amount of groundwater that we use. Also, I think that the groundwater footprint would be a very important in figuring out what it will take to help renew groundwater in aquifers in order to lower the percent of groundwater footprint size compared to the total are of aquifers themselves.

Questions:
1. What do you think humans should do in order to help preserve groundwater and aquifers?
2. What do you think would happen to the local ecosystem in all of the groundwater is drained from the local aquifer?
3. If the current rate of groundwater use occurs without being renewed, how do you think that would affect Earth as a whole?

Water, Water Everywhere

Water, Water Everywhere...But Not Enough for Business
By: Emily HolBrook
Published on website in June of 2009
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SPL2298H-0-1067&artno=0000295305&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=lead%20in%20water&title=Water%2C%20Water%20Everywhere%2E%2E%2EBut%20Not%20Enough%20for%20Business&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=N




http://www.calvert.com/water/images/graph.jpg


  This picture/ chart shows that there is not much fresh water on earth and that less than one percent of that three percent is actually usable and easy to get. There is barely enough fresh water to begin with and the fact that less than one percent of all of the fresh water on earth is usable is a crazy statistic!


Summary:
          This article is about the scarcity of fresh usable water there is on earth and the risk that we are going to use it all up. There are six different sections in the article. Agriculture: The world's sponge is the first one and it basically just states that the agriculture field uses up seventy percent of the world's fresh water! By 2050 they believe that the amount of water agriculture will use will be close to ninety percent! China and India face the harshest water availability challenges due to irrigation projects.  Extractive Industries: Dirty Run-Off is the second section of this article. This part of the article talks about how oil and mining industries facing water scarcity. They use water for wells and more. They also use a high amount of water. The third section of the article is called Food & Beverage: A Reputational Risk. This section is about how major food and beverage companies are using enough water by themselves to service the world for a full day. The fourth section is called Semiconductors: Seeking Water From Silicon Valley to India. This section covers the topic of mega- companies like Texas Instruments use close to eleven billion gallons of pure fresh water in 2007! The fifth section is called Apparel: Thirsty Cotton. In order to create cotton you use a lot of water. It takes about twenty five cubic meters of water to produce one cotton t-shirt! The final section is Managing Water Scarcity. This section talks about laws that cover water uses and the amount of water that can be used. This section also is about ways to save water and how major companies are cutting back on water usage.

Opinion/ Reflection:
           I believe that it is so crazy that of the billions and billions of gallons on earth that only three percent of it is freshwater and not saltwater. Plus of that three percent less that one percent of that water is available on the surface! I also think it is ridiculous that there is so much of our fresh water being used for things that are not as essential to life as water or food. For example we do not necessarily need oil or coal. They create pollution and then destroy our fresh water even more! I think that we should ban the use of fresh water usage in oil and mining fields. I also think that it is ridiculous that we have used eleven billion gallons of water in the food and beverage field! This does make sense though because we do need water to create food and other beverages.

Questions:
1. How do you think that we can help reduce the amount of freshwater that we use?
2. How, if possible, can we replenish our freshwater that was used?
3. What would it be like on a world where there is  no fresh water that can be used?
4. Why do major companies rely so heavily on freshwater and not salt water?

Tundra Article

Artic Tundra, Whitney S., 2002
http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/tundra.htm


Picture Discription: This is a picture of the Artic Tundra. I thought it would go well because my article was about the tundra. It dispics the tundra very well.

Summary:
The artic tundra is one of the youngest tundra biomes formed 10,000 years ago. The tundra has 10 inches to 3 feet of snow on the ground. It has plants moss and othere organisms living on it. There are only 2 main seasons summer and winter in the artic tundra. The tundra is like a dessert it does not get much rain each year. Suprisingly organisms still live on it. there is not a lot of biodiversity in the tundra. It is one of the three major carbon dioxide sink. The tundra is a very fragile enviorment. It is very polluted from everything around it. the tundra is a big wastle land but has some organism who live off the land.

Opinion/Reflection:
The tundra may be a wasteland but we need to preserve it. It is a major carbon sink. Making it a little useful. Also a few types of organisms live on it and we should make sure they are okay on that land. The articl taught me alot about the artic tundra. I learned a lot of stuff i did not know.

Questions:
1. What types of organisms do you think live on the artic tundra? And what do the do to survive?
2. Do you think we should preserve the artic tundras or any tundras?
3.  How do you think the artic tundra formed and why so late after the other tundras?

Ireland's Animals Facing Extinction

'Invastional Meltdown' a threat to Irish mammals
http://www.biodiversityscience.com/2012/09/26/invasional-meltdown-a-threat-to-irish-mammals/
By: Neil Reid
September 2012

                 Native small mammals such as the wood mouse and pygmy shrew are threatened by the introduction of non-native species

 

 

Summary:

           Over the past 100 years, Ireland has had alien mammals coming into thier land. Since this is happening, the mamals that have already lived in Ireland are starting to go extinct and their habitats are being affected too. For the past 2 years, a study was shown to show the impact of when non-native animals, the bank vole and the greater white toothed shrew, affected 2 native animals, the wood mouse and pygmy shrew. These studies have shown that the bank vole has occupied a third of the island over 80 years but the greater white toothed shrew just arrived recently so the numbers would be different. This study also showed the negative aspects of the 2 non-native mammals. The outcome of this was that the greater white toothed shrew had a positive affect on the bank vole but a negative affect on the wood mouse and pygmy shrew. The author said, "If the rate of invasion continues as at present throughout the island of Ireland, its native small mammals will die out in at least 80 per cent of their available habitat." What this means is that if Ireland still has "alien" mammals coming to thier land, then the small mammals will lose 80% of their habitat. The governments in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have joined to together to try and solve this problem by trying to monitor the "alien" mammals.

 

Opinion/Reflection:   

                  I was really surprised by how just adding a few non-native animals, then the ecosystem that is already there starts to change. So when the bank vole greater white toothed shrew were added, it was coolto learn how they handled ther new enviroment. I also felt bad though for the wood mouse and pygmy shrew becasue they were losing the habitat that was already theirs to a new species. I know I would not be happy if someone would just walk on my territory so we need to help them. Also, I like the way Ireland is handling the situation at hand. They are addressing the problem and trying to find a way to solve it.

 

Questions: 

1.How can we protect our endagered species from extinction?

2.What would happen if we added non-native species to our ecosystems?

3.What types of animals need human protection so they don't become extinct in the U.S?

4.How can we help the enviroment so an animal's habitat does not become destroyed?

Global Warming

Global Warming, Climate Change, and the need for Change in Human Practices
by: Soroush Nazari
July 12th, 2012
http://ezinearticles.com/?Global-Warming,-Climate-Change-and-the-Need-for-Change-in-Human-Practices&id=7174005

This picture shows what our planet could come to if we do not do anything about this major problem.

Summary: Global Warming is a major issue that effects the climate change, and directly how we humans live. It is mostly caused by climate change, however, some of the problems come from the actions of humans themselves. Global Warming is ultimately caused by the shift in the atmosphere because of gases that we are letting off. When global warming occurs, it affects the temperature and precipitation. Therefore, this affects any living creature on the planet. Also, due to animal habitats being disturbed, the climate will affect the cycle of the ecosystem and, in turn, jeopardize the energy and chemical flow through food chains. "Although green house gasses are one cause of Global Warming, it has been found that the most negative cause of Global Warming is Carbon Dioxide, the most potent of greenhouse gases." To conclude, it is a fact that we cannot solve this problem alone. We need help from experts, and we need to think fast about decisions that need to be made. We cant keep living without doing anything about Global Warming because one day, we will look like that picture.

Opinion/Reflection:
Even though every one of us knows that Global Warming is becoming a big problem, unfortunately, I don't think that a dramatic change for the better will happen anytime soon. Because the human population is only concerned about how they live their everyday materialistic life, they don't understand that Global Warming is something that could tear them down very easily and can affect this planet in a terrible way. That is why we need to find solutions. And fast.

Questions:
What can we do to help stop Global Warming?
Where is earth's breaking point? When will this become inevitable?
Is there a way to diminish the unwanted greenhouse gases?
What will happen to the human population if Global Warming goes into full effect?

Loss of Tropical Forests Reduces Rain

University of Leeds. "Loss of tropical forests reduces rain." ScienceDaily, 5 Sep. 2012. Web. 27 Sep. 2012. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120905135008.htm

Picture shows fog over top of the rain forest.

Summary: A team of researchers from the University of Leeds and the NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology discovered that in areas where air passes over tropical forests, there is noticeably more rainfall. By combining the data they found from the amount of rain fall over tropical forest areas, and by making estimations they suspect that due to the decreasing of rain forest the amount of rain that would generally fall over the Amazon Basin will also decrease by at least 1/5 by 2050. Scientists were debating whether or not the forest was affecting rainfall over time, and they realized that the vegetation does in fact add moisture to the air.

Opinion/Reflection: I think that the trees are getting cut down is a big deal but also the fact that it is affecting other parts of Earth's natural cycles. If humans were not cutting trees down in the first place there wouldn't be a problem with the rainfall. If humans weren't here the rainfall to rain forest ratio wouldn't be affected the way they are. I understand that that also doesn't change the fact that this is a current problem. Somehow we have to protect the rain forest before the amount of rainfall is majorly affected. 

Questions:

1. How do you think they can try to help save the rain forest before it creates a major impact on the amount of rainfall?

2. How do you think that a change in rainfall would affect nearby civilization?

3. How do you think that a change in rainfall would affect the plants or animals?

Amazon Could be Part of Climate Change
By: Devin Powell
Copyright date: 2/11/12
Date: 9/24/12
http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SPL2298H-0-3239&artno=0000339604&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=carbon%20cycle&title=Amazon%20Could%20Become%20Part%20of%20Climate%20Problem&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=N&ic=N

Username:PL2298H
Password:19044

Picture: This picture shows that because of the drought in the Amazon rain forest, forest fires have started and are burning all the carbon that was in the carbon sink releasing carbon dioxide into the air.

Summary: Although the Amazon has been getting rid of CO2 from in the air, due to recent droughts the forest is now creating a greenhouse effect. This effect might contribute to global warming and will release CO2 back into the air. The trees in the rain forest contain about 100 billion tons of carbon. In 2005, there was a drought that caused many trees to die releasing 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air. Scientist labeled it as a once in a century event. In 2010, there was an even bigger drought causing even more carbon to be released and some Geophysical Research Letters showed the forest turning brown. An ecologist said, “Distinguishing a trend from a natural cycle is difficult.” That quote means that the release of carbon may just be part of a natural cycle rather than it being a disaster.

Opinion/ Reflection: I think that the release of carbon dioxide and drought is part of a natural cycle. I believe this because many other parts of the world have been through droughts and have released carbon into the air. With the release of carbon into the air will cause more storms and the drought will end, it is all part of a big natural cycle. Also I don’t think that the release of carbon from the Amazon is a major disaster because when there is a release of carbon somewhere then there is someplace else that needs the carbon, like other plants near the rain forest.

Questions:
1. Is the release of carbon a disaster or just part of a natural cycle?
2. How can you capture and get rid of carbon dioxide from in the air most efficiently?
3. How do you stop a drought and the release of carbon before it starts without harming the environment?