Economically the international joint commission notes that desalination would be a way more effective and cheaper way for USA to get fresh water. NAWAPA (North American Water and Power Alliance) has plans to build a system that can transport water from one country to another. This system alone costs the same amount of money as buying the water itself. Quebec could have $65 billion a year by selling just 10% of its renewable sources. Is money worth the problems that will come from this action of selling our fresh water to other countries in the future?
Environmentally it is Canada’s job to make sure freshwater does not become the world’s next oil. Many ecosystems rely on Canadian water sources to keep life forms alive, also to keep ecosystems alive. Without water sources ecosystems all over Canada would start dying odd and becoming nothing. If Canada sells its freshwater to the USA for example it would be like giving them an excuse to not solve their own increasing water problems. With global warming coming up Canada is going to need all the fresh water we can get. This can be solves by not selling it to other countries.
Recreationally fishing habitats (one of Canada’s large food sourced) will not be affected. Selling our water will mean conserving more water, which means shorter showers, fewer showers, and smaller toilets. These are positive things and should be done anyway but not because we’ll die if we don’t. Because of global warming Canada’s bodies of water are already being decreased majorly. By saving the freshwater that we are so lucky to have will increase the time on our planet for recreational activities with deeper water, eventually after selling enough freshwater, water levels will drop to a level too low for boating and other activities in some lake and rivers.
Morally in Canada the freshwater in our country is our right. Conserving water should be enough. Water is a vital source in the world and has a huge heritage background. Some people will be offended by the idea of “selling” freshwater. It’s a disgrace to some people. Canada should sell their fresh water because we could profit from this and also it would be helping the people who need water the most, sure Canada needs it but we could survive without a shower 1 a month and 1 wash hands a month. The U.S. and other countries were starting to want to come after Canada’s water resources so, if Canada were to sell it then it would lower the chances of having it stolen.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Climate Change
Climate change is a change in the distribution of weather over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. Climate change may be limited to a specific region or may occur across the whole earth. There is a conference in Copenhagen that discusses the climate change it is essential for the worlds climate and the Danish government. The UNFCCC is putting hard effort in making the meeting in Copenhagen a success ending up with a Copenhagen Protocol to prevent global warming and climate changes. A lot of important political decisions have been made by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. They provide decision makers interested in climate change. Other organizations that are making claims are the World Meteorological Organization, and the United Nations Environment Program.
During the 20th century, sea level rose about 15 cm due to melting glacier ice. Scientists predict that sea level may rise as much as 59 cm during the 21st Century, threatening coastal communities, wetlands, and coral reefs. Arctic sea ice is melting, the summer thickness of sea ice is about half of what it was in 1950. Melting ice may lead to changes in ocean circulation. Sea-surface temperatures are warming. Warmer waters in the shallow oceans have contributed to the death of about a quarter of the world's coral reefs in the last few decades. Hurricanes have changed in frequency and strength. Warmer temperatures affect human health. There have been more deaths due to heat waves.
NAOO is an organization of skeptics that have been monitoring the ocean for climate changed. They decided there were so many scientists and people banking on the world ending and the oceans heating up they would try to prove other wise. They found out that over five years, ocean temperatures have slightly decreased. The IPPC is another group of skeptics that found out that everyone had a field day after finding out the temperature in Antarctica rose .5 degrees but ignored the fact that it also dropped 3.6 degrees. A new scientific study has just been complete by the Danish Meteorological Institute, which compiled temperatures records for Greenland for the last 250 years. The results of the study show that temperatures in Greenland today are in reality lower then they were in the 1940's, thus the temperatures have been on average stable there for the last 70 years.
During the 20th century, sea level rose about 15 cm due to melting glacier ice. Scientists predict that sea level may rise as much as 59 cm during the 21st Century, threatening coastal communities, wetlands, and coral reefs. Arctic sea ice is melting, the summer thickness of sea ice is about half of what it was in 1950. Melting ice may lead to changes in ocean circulation. Sea-surface temperatures are warming. Warmer waters in the shallow oceans have contributed to the death of about a quarter of the world's coral reefs in the last few decades. Hurricanes have changed in frequency and strength. Warmer temperatures affect human health. There have been more deaths due to heat waves.
NAOO is an organization of skeptics that have been monitoring the ocean for climate changed. They decided there were so many scientists and people banking on the world ending and the oceans heating up they would try to prove other wise. They found out that over five years, ocean temperatures have slightly decreased. The IPPC is another group of skeptics that found out that everyone had a field day after finding out the temperature in Antarctica rose .5 degrees but ignored the fact that it also dropped 3.6 degrees. A new scientific study has just been complete by the Danish Meteorological Institute, which compiled temperatures records for Greenland for the last 250 years. The results of the study show that temperatures in Greenland today are in reality lower then they were in the 1940's, thus the temperatures have been on average stable there for the last 70 years.
Dam Decision Paper
The purpose of a dam is to provide water for towns and cities, create a reservoir of water for other uses such as industrial and for making hydroelectric power. Dams can also help some plants and animals to have a calmer ecosystem. Dams can be used as bridges across rivers. Most dams usually have one purpose but there is such thing as multi-purpose dams.
Environmentally I believe dams are a positive thing. Dams that are properly built save plants and animals from being flooded, killed and forced to leave their habitats. Dams can remove toxic wastes from rivers and streams and help maintain healthy oxygen levels. Flooding is necessary for the life cycles of some plants, animals and tree’s, this is a negative thing. But, these plants and animals that need flooding to live will evolve to live in habitats that do have flooding. Without dams in rivers the upstream areas of all rivers will become flooded causing damage for humans and their property.
Economically successful damns can save property and habitats from being destroyed therefore no cost is needed to repair. Economically I think dams spend and save equal amounts of money. Once a dam is completed they are usually cheap and reliable. Dams last for a long time, without needing repair.
Morally dams can be negative and positive, at times more negative. Dams can be positive if you were asked to give up a small portion of your property for your dam you would feel good about this knowing you helped prevent a possible flood. But on the other hand, dams can cause significant ecological changes that perhaps the plants and animals cannot adapt to, and therefore die or are forced to leave their home. Hydro- power generation is created from massive dams and this is necessary for people to live and survive. The most negative effect morally, environmentally and economically is the fact that millions of people in china are loosing their homes and property to one large dam. All these people are forced to relocate because of one massive dam. This is morally wrong.
Environmentally I believe dams are a positive thing. Dams that are properly built save plants and animals from being flooded, killed and forced to leave their habitats. Dams can remove toxic wastes from rivers and streams and help maintain healthy oxygen levels. Flooding is necessary for the life cycles of some plants, animals and tree’s, this is a negative thing. But, these plants and animals that need flooding to live will evolve to live in habitats that do have flooding. Without dams in rivers the upstream areas of all rivers will become flooded causing damage for humans and their property.
Economically successful damns can save property and habitats from being destroyed therefore no cost is needed to repair. Economically I think dams spend and save equal amounts of money. Once a dam is completed they are usually cheap and reliable. Dams last for a long time, without needing repair.
Morally dams can be negative and positive, at times more negative. Dams can be positive if you were asked to give up a small portion of your property for your dam you would feel good about this knowing you helped prevent a possible flood. But on the other hand, dams can cause significant ecological changes that perhaps the plants and animals cannot adapt to, and therefore die or are forced to leave their home. Hydro- power generation is created from massive dams and this is necessary for people to live and survive. The most negative effect morally, environmentally and economically is the fact that millions of people in china are loosing their homes and property to one large dam. All these people are forced to relocate because of one massive dam. This is morally wrong.
Aerial Wolf Hunting Opinion Paper
Aerial wolf hunting is found in most parts of Alaska. Aerial wolf hunting was made up to help with predation. When people need more moose and other wildlife animals, aerial wolf hunters come and reduce the numbers of wolves in this area. I believe this is morally wrong and unnecessary. I don’t believe that humans are not successful enough hunters to compete with wolves and find their own prey. They did it for years before helicopters and guns were invented. Wolves don’t harm people so I don’t believe they need to be harmed, especially since they are an intelligent species. The four values that I chose to contrast are moral, economic, environmental and recreational.
Economically the amount of predators killing species in a certain area will decrease, allowing hunters to have more prey to hunt, sell and make more money. The population of wolves will decrease over long term, leaving hunters with more prey to hunt and make money off of. I don’t think this is a necessary sacrifice to make. Hunters could work a little harder to hunt a moose and save a species from becoming closer to extinction. Also if all the wolves are killed to quickly it could seriously off balance the ecosystem and cause the prey to not need to come out of the thick forests for food, making hunting more difficult.
When it comes to recreation, I don’t see aerial wolf hunting as a sport at all, but for those that do its way too big of a sacrifice killing off beautiful wolves for amusement. Money is made from killing wolves, and food is gained, but that same money and food could be from a moose, or a wolf that has passed away. It is a harsh way for any animal to die, just for the recreation of people.
Morally aerial wolf hunting is completely wrong. Some wolves do need to be hunted, but this is not the right way to hunt them. Wolves have never or very rarely have harmed humans, and humans torture and kill wolves for a sport. Wolves are a beautiful species and by watching them and hunting them you can learn more about them, but by just watching them and observing them you can also learn about them. Wolves are very intelligent and harmless, they mind their own business and help with balancing the ecosystem, when they are killed for money and pleasure that is one hundred percent morally wrong.
Environmentally wolf number populations will be reduced in the areas hunted but they will never be completely extinct. If aerial wolf hunting continues to become more popular eventually too many wolves will start to be hunted and populations will decrease. Wolves are common predators of moose, deer and caribou. These animals will become overpopulated when all the wolves in the area are killed.
In conclusion, I believe that economically there are other ways of making money by hunting than aerial wolf hunting. I don’t think that aerial wolf hunting can be considered a recreational activity at all. Morally there is nothing right about aerial wolf hunting, chasing a wolf down to exhaustion then shooting it when it cannot run anymore and hauling off its dead body is wrong. Environmentally yes, wolves need to die sometime to balance the ecosystem but they don’t need to be brutally murdered.
Economically the amount of predators killing species in a certain area will decrease, allowing hunters to have more prey to hunt, sell and make more money. The population of wolves will decrease over long term, leaving hunters with more prey to hunt and make money off of. I don’t think this is a necessary sacrifice to make. Hunters could work a little harder to hunt a moose and save a species from becoming closer to extinction. Also if all the wolves are killed to quickly it could seriously off balance the ecosystem and cause the prey to not need to come out of the thick forests for food, making hunting more difficult.
When it comes to recreation, I don’t see aerial wolf hunting as a sport at all, but for those that do its way too big of a sacrifice killing off beautiful wolves for amusement. Money is made from killing wolves, and food is gained, but that same money and food could be from a moose, or a wolf that has passed away. It is a harsh way for any animal to die, just for the recreation of people.
Morally aerial wolf hunting is completely wrong. Some wolves do need to be hunted, but this is not the right way to hunt them. Wolves have never or very rarely have harmed humans, and humans torture and kill wolves for a sport. Wolves are a beautiful species and by watching them and hunting them you can learn more about them, but by just watching them and observing them you can also learn about them. Wolves are very intelligent and harmless, they mind their own business and help with balancing the ecosystem, when they are killed for money and pleasure that is one hundred percent morally wrong.
Environmentally wolf number populations will be reduced in the areas hunted but they will never be completely extinct. If aerial wolf hunting continues to become more popular eventually too many wolves will start to be hunted and populations will decrease. Wolves are common predators of moose, deer and caribou. These animals will become overpopulated when all the wolves in the area are killed.
In conclusion, I believe that economically there are other ways of making money by hunting than aerial wolf hunting. I don’t think that aerial wolf hunting can be considered a recreational activity at all. Morally there is nothing right about aerial wolf hunting, chasing a wolf down to exhaustion then shooting it when it cannot run anymore and hauling off its dead body is wrong. Environmentally yes, wolves need to die sometime to balance the ecosystem but they don’t need to be brutally murdered.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)