"Rise of Slime" Response

Jackson believes that the marine ecosystems are changing for the worse.  Warmer waters is one way that the ecosystems are being altered by human activity.  Due to pollution, the water temperature has slowly increased over time causing a change in the ecosystems that once thrived there.  Run-off from fertilizers are create massive ares of water where nothing but algae can grow, also known as a "dead zone".  Most of the dissolved oxygen is sucked out of the water by the algae, which pushes out other species.  This creates the slime that Jackson referred to in the article. 
This article and the movie that we watched in class really opened my eyes to how much trouble the marine ecosystems are actually in.  Usually, when I think about endangerment, I think about the rain forests and pandas.  What I didn't know is that so many aquatic species are threatened today because of human activity.  What really surprised me was how much a consumer could do to help the marine aquatic system, even if it's something small like not getting a certain seafood dish because you know that the species isn't doing to well.  I was also surprised by how little some governments are doing to try to solve this problem.  You would think that they would be more concerned with their people's future, but instead, some seemed focused on how much money they can bring in.  I usually don't eat seafood, but when I do, I'll be sure to ask where it came from.

"Brazil Ethanol Looks to Sweeten More Gas Tanks" Response

I was surprised to find out that the country that is pushing ethanol as an alternative to oil is Brazil.  Not only are they already the leader in this movement, but they are looking to extend this trade to other countries around the world.  In doing so, a huge market would open up and improve the economic situation in South America.  They are hoping that recent economy crash will entice more people towards the idea of fuel made from sugarcane because it is more cost effective than corn based bio fuel. As more people are drawn in, Brazil is hoping that the strict trade barrier, 54 cents per gallon of fuel imported, will be lowered by the United States.

The US lobby group for ethanol fuel has reported that thousands of jobs and dollars if ethanol is pulled as an alternative.  These facts have been contested by UNICA, backed by a study done by Iowa State University,  which reports that amount of jobs loss is grossly overestimated.

One of the driving factors behind the debate of  whether or not ethanol is actually an environmentally friendly option for consumers.  US Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that ethanol's greenhouse gas emissions are 61% lower than that of oil.  Others are concerned that this ethanol use would only spark degradation of land as it is overused for sugarcane production.  It's kind of worrying that ethanol might only remove one problem and replace it with another.

"A Move to Replace Soot-Spewing Stoves"

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced her commitment to a  called Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.  The United States will be providing $50 million for five years worth of seeds and 100 million stoves that will be supplied to villages in Asia, Africa and South America.  The government plans to have all of these resources distributed by 2020.  In addition, numerous private companies made contributions that totaled up to $10 million.  The stoves, though inexpensive provide a much more efficient and healthier way for people to cook.  On the flip side, they aren't built to be long lasting and will need to be replaced every 2 to 5 years.  I found the article to be very interesting because it mentioned that even though this project will help so many people, it will only be reaching about 1/5 of the total population that needs help.  I know that there are a lot of people that don't have the modern conveniences that we have to cook food and be healthy, but I was unaware of the magnitude of the situation.  Since the stoves don't last a long time, I think that  they should set up a system or a chain of stores in order to supply the people with new stoves when theirs breaks. 
Replacing the open-pit fires with the solar powered stoves will provide the people, especially the women and children, with safer living conditions.  Women and children that live in the houses with the open-pits frequently develop health problems, such as heart problems and low birth weights.  It is also going to supply job opportunities for women.
The project will also combat global warming because the open-pit cooking and inefficient methods that they are using now are creating millions of pounds of soot that disrupt the atmosphere.  It is also thought to be the second biggest factor that contributes to global warming.  By eliminating this method of cooking, we will cut back on a ton of carbon in the atmosphere.
The cookstove project will also help to cut back on deforestation.  The people will no longer need such mass amounts of wood to burn, so they will consequently cut down less trees. This will also combat global warming because the trees will help eliminate the carbon dioxide that is in the air.

Trophic Levels

    The pros of eating at a lower trophic level are that fewer acres would be needed to support one human life, a person would consume less toxins from the environment, and that competition for food would be far less than at a higher trophic level. The cons of eating at a lower trophic level are that you get much less energy from one unit than if you at a higher trophic level, you have to work harder to find enough food to sustain you and human population would increase if we all ate at a lower trophic level, thus eliminating the benefits of eating at a lower trophic level. Less developed countries typically eat at a lower trophic level because it is more affordable to grow food like soy, especially since soy has a much higher level of protein than a cow, which would be expensive to buy. 
   Over the last five days, a few of the foods I have eaten that are from a lower trophic level are peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, grapes, chewy bars, french fries, vegetables, and rice. Some foods from a higher trophic level that I have eaten are a hot dog, Hawaiian pizza, and chicken.  I would say that about 30% of my diet comes from a higher trophic level and 70% comes from a lower trophic level.

Ecological Footprint

If everyone in the world lived as I do, we would need 4.9 Earths.  This means that we would need 4.9 times the amount of Earth's resources for everyone to live like me.  My largest category for my footprint was my carbon footprint. I have a big family, so we need bigger cars.  This combined with all the traveling we do caused my carbon footprint to be higher than all the others.  The methodology behind the quiz is not completely perfect, however.  At the moment, it doesn't take into account the pollution caused by each person, nor does it address unsustainable resource management.  It also takes into account your share in the public footprint, like schools and roads.  This can cause the results to be higher, even if you do live a green lifestyle.  The total ecological footprint takes into account all of the country, while per capita ecological footprints divide that number by the total population to find each person's effect. You need to consider both, because it helps show that every person's ecological footprint makes a difference and if we all lowered it, even just a little bit, we could dramatically change the nation's ecological footprint.

Tragedy of the Commons

Since the early 1900s, people have used dams to retain water and create hydro power.  While these uses undoubtedly help people who live near and around the dam, the effect on salmon is far less pleasant.  The dams disrupt and increase the amount of times they migrate.  Those who do make it past the dam, are often stunned by the electric turbines they have to pass through.  Many people have tried to solve the problem, including creating hatcheries, but all attempts have been unsuccessful.