Amazon Deforestation

Luka Suon
Sociology 202-Current Events Environmental Issues
October 3, 2008
11:23 a.m.

The Amazon rain forest in Brazil is being deforested once again due to a spike in global food prices. Many say soy farmers are encouraged by this trend to begin clearing out the land in order to meet the demand. Brazilian Politicians are also to blame, since their desire to garner more votes has led to them turning a blind eye. The destruction has jumped nearly 228% in August. 292 square miles have been decimated this year than last year when 89 square miles were decimated last year. Currently, a hundred individuals and companies are being held responsible, among them being Incra, the nation's environmental preservation and agrarian reform agency. Greepeace accuses the organization of circumventing regulations and cutting deals with the logging companies.
Greed is the motivation behind everything, and nothing will stop people from achieving the green--money that is, not trees. The problem here is that while global warming has been proven to be prevalent in altering the earth the people just don't seem to care...it's a death sentence they're content with and it's disturbing, bordering on manaical apathy.




Links:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26944664/

UN Initiates Save the Forest Program

Luka Suon Sociology 202 Environmental Issues September 26, 2008 11:17 am






Save the Trees!

On Wednesday the United Nations launched a program to save the world's forests from further deforestation. The program, called Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Programme (UN-REDD), seeks to slow down if not stop the deforestation process, since clearing out trees for farmland accounts for 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for the climate change. Many see this as the successor to the Kyoto Protocol (the program responsible for investigating global warming). World delegates plan to meet in Copenhagen in the next year to figure out the situation before the pact expires in 2012.
The basic gist of the plan is for rich countries to pay the poor countries to cut down on their carbon emissions, something not everyone is excited about. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown believes such a plan is flawed and risks alienating the poor countries in the process. An alternative to the plan is to simply pay based on the size of existing forests. Countries that violate this immediately loose out on the deal. The nations that met in Ghana to discuss this pact appear to agree with it, although still some questions left to be answered.
What a stupid and idiotic idea! Geez, why don't I pay Pablo a $100 every time he cuts a tree, eh? Yeah, I get it...the U.N.'s got a bit of the messiah complex and now wants to do good, like the U.N.'s done anything good in its existence. Listen, this is a good example of international naivety and easy extortion! Hell, anybody can do it! Now, I know the U.N.'s got good intentions and maybe this is the best they've got, but seriously, will it do any good in the long run? Money comes from trees, motherf***ers! What happens when all the trees run out? Yeah...then they go back to doing what they do best!
Reader, if you've gotten this far then you must be in agreement with this statement, because seriously, you really think they're (the poor countries) going to keep this up? They're playing us for saps...ha ha ha...I just made a tree joke right there.

Links:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/50371/story.htm

A Menagerie of New Species of Sea Animals Found Off the coast of Australia

Luka Suon
Environmental Issues around the World/Global Warming
September 18, 2008
begun 3:53 p.m. finished 4:15 p.m.

Australian Find

A recent expedition off the coast of Australia exploring the coral reefs have uncovered a trove of new aquatic species (where they numbered 300 soft coral species alone) . Around forty to sixty percent of the new species were described as insectoid in appearance. This comes as a delight to researchers, since the world's oceans are becoming susceptible to oceanic acidification, pollution, and overfishing throughout the planet. With this find researchers are hoping this new find will serve as a baseline for measuring the effects of global warming and understanding how its implications affect aquatic life. This, they hope, will offer clues as to how they can fix (or at least mitigate) the current problem(s). Future expeditions will set out to study the development of climate change and its effects.


Global warming has had a negative effect on the state of existence on planet Earth. Globalization and development is endangering the existence of other species, with some cases where entire species have been wiped off the face of the earth. That is the cold, hard truth. The recent discovery offers hope...sure, it's small hope but it's hope nevertheless, and it gives us a clear idea of how we can handle the situation. We globalize, we endanger the world around us. Progress is never without casualty; the scale of casualty has just as much adverse implications as anything else. It's good to see nature back, but we need to be careful with how we handle ourselves and the situation. Perhaps this is a wake-up call, an alarm, a sort of second chance of humanity...a second chance to make things right before we permanently destroy the Earth.


Links:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24369695-29277,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24369695-12377,00.html
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hundreds-of-new-species-f
http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/38225
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080918/wl_asia_afp/usaustraliasciencebiology;_ylt=ApANDG376zqfLlN6bla6sG9vaA8F

Canadian Politics and the Carbon Tax

Luka Suon-Global Environmental Issues

September 11, 2008 began 3:22 pm finished 3:38 pm

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is fighting the carbon tax proposed by his chief political rival, saying such a move would weaken national unity, already bereft by Quebec's separatists. He justifies his move by claiming such a tax would cause a recession.
The idea for the carbon emissions tax comes from Stephane Dion (leader of the Liberals who are rivals to harper's Conservatives). Dion claims such a move would lower emissions and would be "revenue-neutral", but Harper believes it would involve more money in it than money out of it. In his defense Dion would put a higher tax on fuels (except for gasoline) and offer subsidies to the poor. For the moment Harper's government is turning away from the idea of a carbon tax (seeing it as risky), since the economy is coping with the downturn in the American economy.

Would the carbon tax do anything at all to change the environment? I don't think so. People are already doing their part to conserve without having to deal with a nuisance such as the carbon tax, and such a move to endorse it wouldn't do anyone any good. Rather, it's like shooting yourself in the foot. Well, not really....
In any case, the carbon tax is not a motivation to conserve, and such an idea is ludicrous to begin with. People are going to help the environment, they just don't need a tax that's going to pull an extra three dollars from their pockets to do so!

links:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5guTSMQRJqWWNB97ASPKDGOMEpQvA
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080911/wl_canada_nm/canada_politics_can_col;_ylt=AnDsX.zs.OeFQo43g7L7X_xvaA8F

Fossil Fuels are the Culprits to the Cause of Global Warming

Luka Suon September 2, 2008

International analysis has recently pointed out the main culprit (culprits) of global warming is the world's reliance on fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), although some believe deforestation and development are responsible. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program) reports human activity in recent years being the root cause, since the said activity relies heavily on fossil fuel. The sureness of the consequence has become "99%" according to one researcher, quite a drastic change from the 66% estimate made back in 2001. To add fuel to the fire (the matter surrounding global warming) researchers go on to add that even if people lessened their dependency and usage of fossil fuels the effects felt today would not disappear for the longest time, much less mitigating the increase in temperature. As one scientist pointed out the carbon dioxide that has accumulated would still remain even into the next century.

The recent climate assessment made by the IPCC will be the organization's fourth since 1990. The one made in 2001 indicated a surge in global temperature from 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the end of the century. For the record, the one from 1901 to 2005 was by 1.2 degrees. There have been reports that this temperature surge has led to an increase in floods, droughts, rising ocean levels, and shrinking glaciers, becoming ever more covered by the media in recent years. Atmospheric studies have verified the claim that increased carbon emissions are the cause of the planetary heat increase.

The report set to be released this week outlines the projection and measurements of temperature, sea level, precipitation, storms, winds, and melting of the polar caps and their effects. In the United States Congress is set to review the IPCC report, and several cities have taken the initiative to limit the greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is germane to American society in particular, since a majority of the population live in areas that could easily be bereft by the consequences of global warming.
While IPCC reports have the propensity of being somewhat erroneous (and controversial) at times, the negotiations in Paris this week will continue in their revision of the report's summary "line by line" as one scientist put it. This is due to the concerns of every nation involved in the negotiations on the same matter.
The nations of the world are ever increasingly finding the relevance of the whole matter, but is it too late for us? Is it too late for us to change our ways? Scientific reports suggest it is. We've buried ourselves so deep in the hole we can barely see the sunlight (depending on when you decide to bury yourself be that noon or night). However, what does that mean? Should we return to apathy knowing what we do will have no results? Absolutely not! As the saying goes, "Rome wasn't built in a day." The results may not be apparent in our lifetime, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't proceed with the cautious measures of cutting our dependency on fossil fuels. It may not mean anything today but it will for our children. We certainly can't be the ones blamed for the problem, although all evidence refutes that otherwise. In any case, I believe that lessening our dependency and development would do the good later than sooner, even though we are a society that stresses the significance of sooner than later. C'est la vie, n'est-ce pas?
To put it simply, reader, I cannot say what will happen ten years down the road. Hopefully for me I'll have two Golden Globes but that's from a perspective of an idealist. I can't say what will happen to us in the twenty-second century...hopefully we'll have developed warp drive to explore other worlds and make Mars our new home. But, as Doctor Who once said, "man has the potential to do great good as well as great evil...he spreads out like a pioneer or a disease." The perception of our fair race is a double-edged sword and we can do great good as well as great evil. We have brought this world into the modern era as well as f---ing up the biosphere. What can I say? We are a disease; just let me ask, what is the cure?

links:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-01-30-ipcc-report_x.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

Drop in Arctic Sea Ice Indicates the Reality of Global Warming

Luka Suon, August 28, 2008 3:54 pm

Recently,the National Snow and Ice Data Center have found evidence to confirm the severity of global warming--the Arctic Ocean is at its second all-time lowest in about thirty years, covering an area of only about 2.03 million square miles. Last September it was measured at 1.65 million square miles.
Arctic ice melts typically in the summer and re-freezes in the winter. However, with the recent environmental activities going on the decrease in Arctic ice poses a huge threat for the world as a whole. The ice serves as a reflector of the sun's heat, but with the sudden decrease of ice and increase in open water the absorption of heat accelerates, causing an increase in the world's oceans' levels overall, as well as causing an increase in heating in other parts of the world.
Experts at NASA believe that within a duration of five to ten years the Arctic could be devoid of any ice. In addition they believe it could further accelerate the planet's warming. The entire process could mean a much warmer atmosphere in the near future.
As one scientist put it so elegantly--" We are moving beyond the point of no return."

The decrease in Arctic ice may not seem all that significant to me, but the truth of the matter stands that this alarm should require our utmost attention. The truth of the matter is we cannot afford to ignore something that has the potential of ruining our planet. In turn, if we are on the long road to suicidal armageddon we are pretty much the ones to blame. The data suggests the depletion of ice is a warning sign, a red flag, that the problem of global warming is all too real and not something of mere fiction. As a social problem the genesis is us, and we are the parents of this predicament. The current status we find ourselves in requires us to fully comprehend the severity of the consequences in the long-term as well as in the short-term sequence, and we must address the problem immediately rather than procrastinate. Of course, I'm not alone in these convictions.

Links:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_sc/sci_arctic_ice;_ylt=As7w7wE2BGzuG1pFv4cTvH8PLBIF