Environmentalists are those people who are dedicated to the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment, and this includes the preservation of our natural resources and the prevention of pollution. In regards to the global warming topic, environmentalists believe that forests should not be cut down or burned, which would help to prevent more CO2 from going into the air. Environmentalists also support renewable energy sources, as less coal and fossil fuel usage would lead to less CO2 being put into the air.

Media coverage in the United States tends to give equal coverage to both sides of the debate involving global warming. That may sound reasonable, but it actually might lead to inaccurate coverage. The reason why is because the “balance” of covering both sides of the issue has allowed a small group of global warming sceptics, many of which are funded by carbon-based industry interests, to be frequently consulted and quoted in new reports on climate change.

This has allowed their views to be greatly amplified to the point where it looks like there is a 50/50 divide on whether human-made global warming is a legitimate concern or not, when in reality, there is more overwhelming evidence that suggests that human-made global warming is a real legitimate concern. Controversy is being stirred when science actually finds consensus.

However, there is disagreement about whether the scientific community has reached a consensus that human-made global warming is a legitimate concern and that if it is left unchecked, it will cause considerable damage to our planet in terms of extreme climate changes, more powerful tropical storms and hurricanes, and rising sea levels that will lead to the destruction of coastal communities, among other destructive events. Opponents maintain that no consensus has been reached, claiming that most scientists believe that human-made global warming is “unproven,” they dismiss the theory altogether, or they dispute the dangers of consensus science.

Global warming is also a decisive political issue, especially in the United States. Most Republicans tend to adopt the view of not believing that human-made global warming is a “proven” issue, so they oppose all proposed measures of counteracting it because they don’t believe it’s necessary. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that human-made global warming is a legitimate cause of concern and endorse measures to reduce and/or eliminate the threat.

Two perfect examples of the political division involving the global warming issue are President George W. Bush’s inaction regarding the Kyoto Treaty provisions and 2000 Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore’s new documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” that refocuses attention on the global warming issue and why we must address it soon or face dire consequences.

The Kyoto Treaty is an amendment to the international treaty on climate change, calling for mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to the nations that sign off on it. It was opened for signature on December 11, 1997, but wasn’t enforced until February 16, 2005.

Even though the United States is a signee of the Kyoto Treaty, the US has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Treaty. Since it has not been ratified by the US to this point, the US is not required to follow the provisions of the Kyoto Treaty.

On July 25, 1997, the U.S. Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which called for developing nations to also be required to follow the Kyoto Treaty before forcing industrialized nations to sign off on it, 95-0. They feared serious harm would come to the US economy if they signed off on it beforehand, as developing nations not bound by the Kyoto Treaty would have an unfair advantage over industrialized nations like the US in coal and fossil fuel production. As a result, the Treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.

Current President George W. Bush has no intentions of submitting the treaty to the Senate for ratification, not because he doesn’t support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide after the US, and is projected to be the largest emitter by 2010.) Bush also believes the Treaty would put much strain on the US economy; he has concerns over the uncertainties which are present in the climate change issue.

Bush and the US Government have enacted some of their own legislation in order to mitigate the climate change and the US is on track to fulfil its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. However, Paul Krugman has stated that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. In addition, the White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports linking human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change.

Al Gore has brought renewed focus on the topic of global warming with his Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” This documentary shows Mr. Gore’s passionate and inspirational look at his fervent crusade to stop global warming’s deadly progress by exposing the myths and misconceptions that surround it. The documentary also reveals that if most of the world’s scientists are right about global warming, we may have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could cause our world to experience extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics, and killer heat waves at levels we’ve never seen before.

As you can see, there are many facets and elements that go into the topic of global warming. From the controversial science behind it to the way the media covers it to the politics that are behind each side of the debate to the Kyoto Treaty that tries to address the issue of global warming to the Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” that tries to alert people that global warming is a real issue that needs to be addressed now by all, both governmental and individual, global warming is a very important topic in our world. The debate will likely continue, but the evidence seems to indicate that human-made global warming is having more pronounced effects on our world, and without concise and decisive action in the near future, it’s quite possible that the damage caused by global warming will only continue to become more devastating to our world.

Bryan Wong is the owner of the global warming website [http://www.geteasyinfo.com/globalwarming]

A great website that shares quality Info, News and TIPS on Global Warming.

Please Note... All links within articles are placed by their author-owners and not by this blog.Products with in those links may or may not be the best in the world.If it sounds too good to be true it could be a scam.Articles are posted for their info,ideas and or entertainment value only.

Powered By WP Footer

Deforestation has been a huge controversy with environmentalists. Many people argue the benefits of deforestation, but they look past the negative effects it does have. People who support deforestation may explore the economic benefits of deforestation. Deforestation may have economic benefits, but despite that, the negatives greatly outweigh the positives. Deforestation destroys natural habitats for animals. When a species’ natural habitat is gone, it becomes hard for that species to adapt- causing extinction. The ultimate result of deforestation is a major decrease in biodiversity.

In the article, Benefits of Deforestation, Nathalie Fiset mainly focuses on the economic benefits of deforestation. She claims that lumber products are one of the most stable constructive materials in human society, and that humans cannot live without lumber products (Fiset). That is true to a certain extent, but we are evolving into a paperless society. Nowadays, almost everything is run electronically. For example, people can pay almost any bill online now; there is no paper involved in that. Also, when people vote, they do it electronically. There are no more paper ballots. There is no reason to have to cut down so many trees when the human society is learning to live without paper products. Most paper companies today use recycled materials, not trees.

Another point that Fiset makes is that deforestation can create many jobs. She states that when environmentalists go against deforestation, it causes many people working with lumber products to lose those jobs (Fiset). When deforestation is looked at in perspective, is it really worth it? People can always get up and find another job. When these people destroy the homes of millions, those animals have nowhere else to go. It is harder for animals to just go find a new home. It takes generations to adapt to new surroundings. When these workers lose their jobs there are many eco-friendly jobs that these workers could go into. For example, they could monitor the forests and wildlife instead of cutting down trees and destroying natural habitats. Another job alternative is to work for a paper recycling company. Instead of cutting down trees, they can be saving trees by recycling used paper. Instead of destroying natural habitats, these workers could be working for a company that stands for something good.

Fiset believes that when companies destroy a forest that they can easily make up for what they lost by planting more trees in the place of old ones (Fiset). When lumberjacks cut down trees, they cannot simply just plant more trees and leave it at that. In one single forest there are various types of trees and it takes hundreds of years to create a voluminous forest that largely supports biodiversity and all the wildlife residing in it. Usually when forests are destroyed, companies plants only one or two species of trees to make up for what they removed. Certain animals need a specific tree to live or raise a family. When humans plant only one single tree, it might be hard for them to adapt, ultimately causing extinction. When natural habitats are demolished to nothing most animals get killed in the process or some of them flee. When the animals return, however, their home is completely gone. For example, many birds that had nests in the different species of trees that were destroyed, now has to raise its family in an open field just asking for a predator to eat this birds offspring. This happens because they cannot adapt quickly enough to support themselves in this new tree. When a species goes extinct, there is no going back. Once they are gone, they are gone for good.

The last claim she makes is that destroying forests could help find more natural resources, such as oil, natural gas, and coal (Fiset). The automobile industry is starting a new revolution with more fuel efficient and eco-friendly cars. The United States is slowly leaning away from natural, non-renewable resources. The effects from burning coal greatly impacted global warming with a dramatic decrease of O-ZONE levels, which protect the Earth from harmful UV rays from the sun. As a result, coal is not a major thing we should be looking for. There are so many other ways of electricity too. There is wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, hydraulic energy, and tidal wave energy. All of those energy sources do not have a need for natural resources, and they are all renewable and cause little to no damage to the Earth. If deforestation keeps going down the road it is going, then many more species will be diminished.

In the Amazon forest, there are thousands of different organisms. One certain study done by scientists was to record how the stingless bee adapted with deforestation. According to the article, these certain species of bees are important to not only the environment, but also with humans economically and culturally. Many people would say that bees are not important, but for people living in the Amazon and areas around the Amazon, bees are sacred. Some people even consider these stingless bees as pets. The stingless bee produces honey which has a variety of different uses. People can obviously eat the honey or use it in certain recipes and they can use it to make Balché, which is an alcoholic beverage. Another benefit of these bees is to pollinate farmer’s crops. If there are no bees, then there are no crops which produce food that farmers need to sell.

In a study done on these stingless bees, scientists went to different areas of the Amazon that were being affected by deforestation and collected the bees to see how they were adapting to deforestation. As a result, they found seven different species of stingless bees, but only two of those species seemed to not be affected by deforestation (McCoy and Mushinski). So that means five of species of the stingless bee is vulnerable for extinction. This is just one example of how deforestation can destroy a species.

Another example of animals at risk because of deforestation is the ring-tailed lemurs. These monkeys live in Madagascar, but since the human population has been expanding rapidly in Madagascar companies are clearing forests and destroying the lemur’s habitat. Many scientists believe that lemurs are what make a rainforest healthy (Butler). There are only about 50 species left of lemurs. Deforestation is putting a lot of pressure on these lemurs living in Madagascar. The evidence proves that there are so many different kinds of species being affected by deforestation ranging from bees to monkeys.

Clearing trees to build farms, cities, and homes just destroys natural habitats. Those are just the primary effects. There are other effects of deforestation that most people look past. One example of a secondary effect of deforestation is the pollutants brought in to the forest. When a company is clearing an acre of forest, they bring trucks in that deposit harmful pollutants in the wildlife. Researchers have found that thousands of harmful chemicals are introduced to the natural environment that disrupt the nervous, immune, endocrine, and reproduction cycles of animals that come in contact with these chemicals (Hose and Guillette 87). This also has a major effect on endangered species, because when affected with these pollutants, it can be hard for them to reproduce. This means that the population of the endangered species will not go up not making it difficult at all to go extinct.

However, there are some solutions humans can make to help prevent harmful products from entering a natural environment. One resolution can be to keep very close observations on the toxins exposed to the environment. This will limit how much chemicals can pollute the environment and will set reproduction cycles back on track. Another resolution can be knowledge of the chemicals that are being distributed into these environments. Once people know how bad these chemicals really are, then they might stop using them. The last resolution is to create model ecosystems, like restoration facilities, to help reform the endocrine system (Hose and Guillette 88-89).

Although deforestation has greatly impacted the wildlife, there are a few organizations trying to help some of the animals struggling in the wild. These organizations create restoration programs for animals on the brink of extinction. Scientists can measure the success rate of these facilities, and the success rate is usually very high. It is easier to measure success one facility at a time (McCoy and Mushinski). Deforestation may be destroying the lives of some animals, but when humans take little steps towards helping the natural environment is one step closer to ultimately helping an endangered species.

There are many examples of how deforestation can be beneficiary, but a lot are simply looking at what they can do for humans. Supporters want to destroy habitats to find natural resources which can and will destroy this planet. Global warming is prevalent, and deforestation is just adding more fuel to the fire. Also, when destroying an acre of forest, that is millions of animals homes being destroyed. When the homes of these animals that live in those forests that are being cleared everyday are gone, they have no protection for themselves and their offspring. This is a major problem for biodiversity. Each day thousands of species become extinct drastically decreasing the Earth’s biodiversity. Deforestation has many benefits to humans, but it is a huge problem for the natural environment.

Sources

Butler, Rhett A. “Lemurs are Key to Health of Madagascar’s Rainforests.” Mongabay. 2008. 5 May 2009.

Fiset, Nathalie. “Benefits of Deforestation.” Ezinearticles. 30 April 2009.

Hose, J.E. & Guillette, L.J. “Defining the Role of Pollutants in the Distribution of Reproduction in Wildlife.” Environmental Health Perspectives 103 (1995): 87-91. JSTOR. Western Illinois University Library. 02 April 2009

Brown, Christopher J. and Albrecht, Christian. “The Affect of Tropical Deforestation on Stingless Bees of the Genus Melipona.” Journal of Biogeography. 28.5 (2001): 623-634. JSTOR. Western Illinois University Library. 02 April 2009

McCoy, Earl D and Mushinski, Henry R. “Measuring the Success of Wildlife Community Restoration.” Ecological Applications. 12.6 (2002): 1861-1871. JSTOR. Western Illinois University Library. 02 April 2009

Geena Bartley

Please Note... All links within articles are placed by their author-owners and not by this blog.Products with in those links may or may not be the best in the world.If it sounds too good to be true it could be a scam.Articles are posted for their info,ideas and or entertainment value only.

Powered By WP Footer