Month: December 2015

by

Weed Management

Ongoing research continually proves that there are health hazards of chemicals used to control weeds. They have been shown to affect people and plants including those under the soil surface. For example, “2-4-D, used for selective weed control in turf is a proven carcinogen”. The author believes that there are numerous alternatives to use in place of chemicals for weed control. Weeds are believed by the author to be evidence of nature working to restore natural succession and biodiversity. And biodiversity is significant because Biodiversity boosts ecosystem productivity where each species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play. Large areas of bare soil are not natural and should be covered or planted to avoid not just weeds, but erosion from natural forces. Anything that covers the bare ground will discourage the weeds.

 

This article revolves around the hazardousness of chemicals used to control weeds and the different forms to ward of the dangerous health risks brought by the chemicals . This article relates to environmental science, because pest management is one of the many branches of environmental science. The pest management industry’s commitment to the protection of public health, food and property is a factor that this article mentions. Because using chemicals for weed control is dangerous it should be banned and replaced with healthier and safe methods. The author proposes that “Mechanical weed control is, in many areas, a viable alternative to the use of herbicides.”

 

Weed Management | Ganna Walska Lotusland. (2015, November 14). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.lotusland.org/learn-green-practices/managing-plants-and-pests/weed-management/

 

by

Adopt A Topic Phase II: Part V

Shin, E. (2015, October 23). Research finds that solar energy development can harm biodiversity, agriculture | The Daily Californian. Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http://www.dailycal.org/2015/10/22/research-finds-that-solar-energy-development-can-harm-biodiversity-agriculture/

 

In a somewhat ironic twist, this article points out the harmful effects of solar power on biodiversity in California. While most believe solar power is the cleanest and safest form of energy possible, the placement of our solar panel systems has had adverse effects on the surrounding ecosystem. Many of these systems are erected close to agricultural and protected areas, which has gone against the policy of finding “compatible” locations for them (according to the article, only 15% of the systems are in compatible areas).

 

I think this is a really interesting article for many reasons. In a way it is saddening to see that many of these solar companies have little to no regard for the surrounding environment, despite running a business that has the purpose of conservation. It is important that we make sure that solar power companies are not given a pass for their actions because of the nature of their business, because we cannot throw biodiversity to the side just to conserve resources.

 

by

Adopt A Topic Phase II: Part IV

Marty, J. (2015, September 1). Fire Effects on Plant Biodiversity Across Multiple Sites in California Vernal Pool Grasslands. Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http://er.uwpress.org/content/33/3/266.abstract

 

Yet again, this article is a specific example of the effects of the drought on biodiversity in California. Wildfires have spread in larger quantities and have become harder to stop, and many species that grow in the grasslands are being threatened. California has a large amount of exotic plants that are endemic to the state, which means they are facing extinction if these problems continue. Not only are these wildfires a direct threat to humans, but an indirect threat to us as well by cutting down the amount of species in our ecosystem.

 

Having an example of biodiversity that will be easily recognized is important. Most people tend to ignore protests against the death of species that seem irrelevant; however, with an issue like wildfires that many people are affected by, it is easier for people to relate and want to solve these problems. The effects of biodiversity loss are not often felt immediately, which means that we must find other ways for people to understand it’s importance and incentivize them to take action.

 

by

Adopt A Topic Phase II: Part III

Why Landscape with Locally Native Plants. (2015, August 24). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://backtonatives.org/2015/08/24/why-natives/

 

This article has a lot of very important information about why California is such an important place for biodiversity. There is a particularly large number of endemic species in the state, especially in Southern California which is considered a biodiversity “hotspot”, one of 25 across the globe. The article also is directed towards encouraging California citizens to grow native plant species in their gardens to prevent biodiversity loss. The importance of preserving these areas, especially the hotspots, cannot be overstated: according to the article, over 60% of the world’s species live in these hotspots, even though they only cover 1.45% of the world’s surface.


I really think these statistics are crucial to understanding why biodiversity loss is a top priority in our state. California’s species play an important role in the balance of our environment, and not only in just our state. I also think it is very important for individual citizens to do what they can to help avoid this potential crisis, instead of leaving it to organizations or lawmakers. We can each play a part in the health of our state, which is an idea that we must all understand.

by

Adopt A Topic Phase II: Part II

Fell, A. (2015, August 3). Changing ocean affecting salmon biodiversity and survival. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://blogs.ucdavis.edu/egghead/2015/08/03/changing-ocean-affecting-salmon-biodiversity-and-survival/

 

This article finds a very specific case of biodiversity loss in the case of the Chinook and coho salmon. Since the effects of El Nino have begun, an eastern Pacific warming pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has changed drastically. These two species of salmon, once thought to be completely unrelated, have both seen dramatic changes in population numbers due to their dependence on this warming pattern, and the effects will soon be felt in the coastal food chains that rely on these salmon, and the local fisherman in Northern California.


It is very useful to find a specific example of the effects of biodiversity loss. I also find that having a relevant example to things that are currently happening in California makes it easier to relate the topic to our society. It is very important to understand what affects biodiversity, because most people assume that humans are always the cause of biodiversity loss, but in this case it is almost completely out of our hands.

by

Adopt-A-Topic Phase II Part I

Albright, W. (2015, October 27). Safeguarding California: Implemental Action Plans. Retrieved November 22, 2015, from http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Safeguarding California_Implementation Action Plans 2015 (CNRA).pdf

 

This article has a lot of very important ideas about biodiversity in California. The main focus is the impact of recent weather events on biodiversity, especially the drought. It also points out the fact that there are accelerated growths of invasive species in the state, which are rapidly pushing the native species out of the food chain. In addition to listing these problems and explaining them, it also shows the treatments and legislation that is being applied in order to solve these problems, or explaining what else can be done to better the environmental conditions for native species. However, the author does concede that some of these problems may be unsolvable.


I found this article to be extremely helpful in developing my argument. Instead of a simple opinion piece, this is a full-blown synopsis of the environmental problems in California, filled with useful information. It is very helpful to have a source that combines many valuable aspects of different sources into one easily accessible and understandable report. There is also the benefit of having many authors which gives different opinions instead of one unified point of view.

by

Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources.

Oil and gas are an important part of the U.S. economy. Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a method used to get oil out of the ground that used water. This water is used and then left over and often times used to water plants. In areas experiencing drought, the disposal of wastewater from fracking is a difficult topic. This may have some effects on the quality and quantity of drinking resources. The government continues to study the relationship between fracking water and drinking water and shows the vulnerability of water sources to fracking.

Fracking in the United States can have perverse effects on the environment. It can destroy habitats and poison the water used to grow crops. While using up resources, humans need to find a way not to waste water to obtain a resource that is harmful to the environment already. In the United States, my opinion is that fracking should be banned so that there is no more waste of water to obtain oil and no more oil obtained that can be burned further and harm the environemtn. The release of Carbon into the atmosphere is destroying the earth and fracking plays a role, so ending fracking in the United States would be a huge step in the right direction.

by

The Environmental Impacts of Exporting More American Crude Oil.

The export of crude oil from the U.S. was discussed in the past and it was decided that after a ban for some time, oil will now be exported from the U.S. This means that the oil would not need to be refined in the U.S. or Canada before being placed on the open market, and there would be some consequences that follow. American energy independence would be abandoned and less purpose would be placed on American soil. It is considered by some unnecessary that this ban be lifted, but nonetheless the economy of the U.S.’s oil will not be the same.

The environmental consequences of this could be major. Oil should not be burned in the first place and this means that it is once again encouraged to sell oil to foreign countries where they can do whatever they want with it. This means that the U.S. gives up control of its oil for monetary value with no thought as to how this could affect the world’s environment. In my opinion, the U.S. should focus on methods of sustainable energy and not sell any of the oil it possesses to make sure that it is not burned and released into the environment.

by

Keystone XL pipeline

President Barak Obama rejected a scheme for a pipeline to be made between Canada and the United States which planned to funnel Alberta oil-sands to the Gulf coast. Obama stated that the pipeline would not serve the national interests of the U.S. for environmental reasons. The end of this deal makes it more difficult for the oil in Canada to reach the world market. This may hinder the economy of Canada and lessen the world’s oil supply, but the president of the U.S. does not think that he made the wrong decision because he thinks that the deal is best for the environment of the world.

This was considered by many a large step forward environmentally because it proved that oil was detrimental to society and made a stand against large oil companies to show that the world economy is not run by oil. I agree with the thinking behind the rejection and find it interesting that there was so much opposition to this pipe line for environmental reasons as opposed to the reasons to make the pipeline for economic purposes and the fact that environmentalists won over economists.

by

Wildlife and Habitat Conservation News: Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline

Wildlife and Habitat Conservation News: Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline. (2015, November 9). Retrieved November 23, 2015, from http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/49141

Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline on November 9, 2015, stating that the oil pipeline was not in America’s best interests. There has been a fierce debate between business and environmentalists, with 2 million comments submitted to the State Department and thousands of rallies against the Keystone Pipeline throughout the nation. Obama believed that the environmental cost of the pipeline was too much. He stated that the cost to people and wildlife would be enormous, and that it would trump the potential profit. Environmentalists hope that his decision will mark a turning point in American history, where we start using sustainable energy sources instead of fossil fuels.

This article focuses on the political science aspect of environmental science. The debate about this pipeline has raged for years, and culminated with a win for the climate. However, the fossil fuel lobby isn’t done yet. In the coming years, they will attempt to impede substantial alternative energy legislation. While this is a major win, environmental advocacy groups may not fully grasp the fight ahead of them. Fossil fuels are deeply engrained in American society. It powers our cars, and provides billions of dollars in revenue every year. While our dependency on fossil fuels has been stopped from increasing, it will be an entirely different matter altogether to substitute alternative energy for already existing fossil fuel sources.