What's Your Carbon Footprint?
What is your carbon
footprint?
Your carbon footprint refers to the amount of carbon dioxide
and other carbon compounds emitted due to the consumption of fossil fuels. This can be calculated by factoring in electricity usage, gasoline consumption all the way down to how much money you spend on clothing per year.
Why is this important?
By now almost everyone has heard of Global Climate Change or "Global Warming". Green house gasses produced by human consumption is responsible for almost all of the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. The effects of global climate change are catastrophic. Some of the consequences include: more frequent and severe weather, higher death rates, dirtier air, higher extinction rates, more acidic oceans, and higher sea levels.
Looking at the United States:
With respect to the united states a recent study conducted by students at MIT showed that most americans even those who consume minimal energy, are producing more than double the global per capita average. To further demonstrate this difference the same study found that in the U.S the average annual carbon dioxide emissions was 20 metric tons per person. The world average is only 4 metric tons per person.
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
Sources:
- https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm
The term “Green Revolution” refers to advancements in agricultural practices and the development of new high-yielding seed varieties that began in Mexico in 1944 at the Center for Wheat and Maize Improvement, a non-profit agricultural research institute under the direction of U.S. agronomist Norman Bourlag. The introductions of these new agricultural technologies were techniques in an effort to improve food availability and access in Asia and Latin America.
ReplyDeleteThe green revolution led to increased levels of environmental destruction in implementing countries by necessitating higher levels of pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer use. So re-orient agricultural training programs away from Green Revolution-style agricultural practices is the best choice since seems to be not environmentally beneficial because of higher levels of pesticide involved. Also another reason that explains better why the Green Revolution may not be the best choice is because was not successful in Africa. Although the majority of arable lands in Africa are rainfall dependent and somewhat less suited to irrigation, this fact also shows that green revolution techniques may not be the best option. Last but not least is that the Green Revolution is that it increased income inequality in certain countries, particularly in Latin America.
When we discussed in our class the debate regarding the utility of the agricultural technological advancements attributed to the "Green Revolution” we mentioned dramatic gains in agricultural productivity in some countries that implemented the change. The most important benefit was the impact on agricultural productivity and food availability, environmental protection and sustainability, and income inequality and the poor. These benefits are what makes the green revolution is definitely a topic that needs to be evaluated from different perspectives. On one hand we have this great promise to end hunger through some advance seeds, agrochemicals and genetically modified crops. On the other hand we have the environmentalist in the United States condemning some multinational corporations responsible of these advances of attempting to impose “food totalitarianism” on the world. We all know that corporations do not have good reputation when comes to make profits, and they only look for self-interest, this bring us to the conclusion that if corporations are being beneficiated with the Green Revolution Evaluating then we have to be careful and study all the possible outcomes. Among the results of these new advances have brought to light positive effects, such as the "miracle" seeds which quickly spread to Asia, and soon new strains of rice and corn were developed as well.
I am personally opposed to globalization and prefer crops without any synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or preservatives, and not grown from genetically modified seeds. I was very identified with activists from the New Yorker and liked the article “Seeds of doubts” by M. Specter. Who want their agriculture to be free of poison and G.M.O.s (genetically modified organism.) Another important argument is that the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the United States government, and even philanthropies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, are attempting to impose “food totalitarianism” on the world. This is something I would like to investigate more on the negative effects of G.M.O on the human body. It is obvious that productivity has increased, however have been uneven across crops, regions and Consumers. Due to this advancement as well some have benefited from declines in food prices, while others still are facing famine.
Environmental effects such as unsustainable farming practices, irresponsible farming like the excessive use of manure will have an adverse effect toward climate change. These practices will make some places on earth less fertile, especially in the tropics, but it will also make some place more fertile, especially in the Northern latitudes as state in our textbook. Agriculture as a practice has always damaged the environment, this consequence has being present since our ancestors went for hunting, this activity is negative because the intrusion on man into nature. The environment was directly affected because its original form was altered. This kind of invasion later demonstrate the consequences, among the most popular we have habitat of animals being transformed and moved away, the waterways were altered because the creeks were blocked, and new pathways were created for man to use. By looking at this adjustment to Mother Nature it is fair to say that the environment was being transformed into a habitat where man was forcefully wanted to be part of.
ReplyDeleteWhen man started dominating the environment and implanting changes to nature is when the beginning of primary environmental effects were taking place, things started to change to get worse. What is interesting is that the changes caused to nature because of farming was only taken as a serious matters if would have caused damage to humans, without taking into consideration that by acting against the environment a serious problem was occurring. If we take a look into the crucial environmental effects of modern agriculture we can mention that the effects are negative, probably man was not too knowledgeable back then of how have a sustainable environment. As the population has being growing a modern agriculture and commercial farming was becoming a necessity, with these necessities environmental effects were growing and environmental impacts have increased, including potential degradation of the soil.