Asteroid Aftermath-Dinosaur Extinction

“Biodiversity – It’s Your Business” 2011 – European Business and Biodiversity Campaign

Why is Biodiversity so important?

The most significant areas that we need to focus on is without doubt Biodiversity and Evolution. The term “biodiversity” was first used in the 1980s by scientists to refer to the richness of biological variation on Earth or within a particular region.When thinking about Evolution what comes to my mind is the Evolution of The Human Being and then  when I think about the Biodiversity what comes after is the time of dinosaurs and how or why they disappeared. After a point of time a mass extinction happened and then nothing was the same in earth. New species started to appear and the old ones disappeared totally. 

In Earth’s history over and over the years there was a development from tiny microbes to multiple kinds of species.

 But what is a species? A species is a particular type of organism or, more precisely, a population or group of populations whose members share certain characteristics and can freely breed with one another and produce fertile offspring. From the other hand a population is a group of individuals of a particular species that live in a particular area. Over eons of time, our planet’s species and populations have been molded by the process of biological evolution”  Through the evolution our Earth is rich in diverse types of species that develop and change over time.

What is the Biological evolution? The Biological evolution is no more than the genetic change in populations of organisms across generations and these genetical changes are the ones who cause alterations in species’ appearance or behavior over the years.

Did you know that approximately 1.7 million species of plants, animals, fungi, microbes, and other forms of life have been identified and named by biologists, but estimates of the total number of species on this planet vary greatly, from ten million to one hundred million?  Scientists are engaged in several efforts around the world to identify and number undiscovered species, and many environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act, focus on preventing their disappearance or extinction.

This can cover distinct populations of the same species (rice, for instance, exists in thousands of distinct varieties) or genetic variation within the same population (cheetahs in Africa, for example, lack genetic diversity in that all members are very similar in their genetic makeup). Scientists also refer to ecosystem diversity, noting the presence on Earth of a wide variety of natural habitats that contain differing varieties of life and ways in which species interact with each other.In addition to such direct benefits, the world’s diverse living creatures working in concert provide important ecological “services” such as air and water purification, climate regulation, erosion control, and providing oxygen in the atmosphere that humans need to breathe.

Human activities such as hunting, fishing, logging, the conversion of natural habitat into farmland and urban areas, and the spread of non-native species into fragile ecological areas are all blamed for species extinction and declining biodiversity.Moreover, Avery and others contend that most known extinctions have taken place on islands, which have small populations that are highly vulnerable to extinction and therefore do not necessarily demonstrate the existence of a biodiversity crisis elsewhere.People who may be concerned about the fate of the panda or blue whale may feel less sense of loss if an undiscovered species of beetle in the tropical rainforest becomes extinct—a far more likely scenario.

Since human activities are believed to be the main threat to biodiversity, most proposed solutions—such as setting aside land as wildlife habitat, banning hunting of animals, restricting logging—inevitably result in restrictions on human activities and create economic burdens. … But some observers argue that due to the scientific uncertainty as to the extent and ramifications of loss of biodiversity, broad conservation measures attempting to restrict human activities might not be warranted or should at least be weighed against other social goals.

Many scientists believe the twenty-first century will be a crucial time in determining the fate of many of this planet’s species and that actions people take now will have a significant and lasting legacy.Though the impacts are extreme, saving the environment is not a lost cause. There are infinite ways of cleaning up our atmosphere, revitalizing lost habitat and wilderness, and reducing our pollution and impacts on the environment. We can still change this planet for the better and restore everything good that nature provides. We need to change our lifestyle if we want to stop the loss of biodiversity on earth. It’s time to embrace going green!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loss of biodiversity

Environmental Justice or Enviromental “Justice”? The case of Greece.

Environmental justice involves the fair and equitable treatment of all people with respect to environmental policy and practice, regardless of their income, race, or ethnicity.  Simply put, some people will have to live next to a dump. They will have to live their lives smelling the society’s garbage. However, that doesn’t seem to be really fair or just. Moreover, in the 20th century the rapid economic development has resulted in environmental problems. Hence, the environmental pollution has been a cause for concern for the past few decades. The greenhouse effect caused by the release of carbon dioxide for example has become a main focus in the world. But the greatest injustice here lies in the fact that many countries have sacrificed nature for profit which has condemned many countries’ future including Greece.

To begin with, some months ago there were riots in Keratea, Attica between people living there and the police. The clash was about government’s decision to install a dump near the inhabitant area. The locals claim that the government is obliging them to become “hooligans” in order to protect their homes. This happend because the situation is totally out of control and they have already burnt two police stations only to promote their beliefs and protect their properties.

This is unethical because the environment is being destroyed and also the living conditions are being more and more dangerous for health. Also the injustice that comes from the government provokes the locals and they tend to revolt .

What I do believe is that the clash is justified because the people have somehow to protect their belongings and health but on the other hand most of the houses in Keratea are arbitrarily built.  Thus, the dumping of the garbage in that particular area cannot be considered as illegal or inappropriate. The biggest problem is that the government is unable to find another location as big and available to use as a dump.

Below is a list showing the opinion of some different ideological approaches towards the subject.

• The Preservationist would say that Keratea is a historic area and therefore the government should not turn it into a dump.
• The Conservationist would claim that the dump of garbage should be reduced instead of finding new places for dumping. More people should embrace recycling and try to be more careful about this issue.
• The environmental justice advocate’s belief would be that there should be a fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all the people no matter their social and economical condition towards the implementation and enforcement of environmental protecting laws. Thus they would say that what the government is doing is right and that the people should obey and follow the rules.
• The neoclassical economist would argue that dump should not be thrown in the area of Keratea because markets in this place would face problems as fewer and fewer buyers would go there to buy products if the area is not that much sustainable or clear.  This brings out the law of supply and demand which supports that when the demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, then it leads to lower equilibrium price and quantity. In general, this means that the economic condition of Keratea will get worse if the dump will be thrown there.
• Last the ecological economist  would try to find a middle solution that would benefit both the locals and the government in terms of economics  without harming the environment of Attica.

My personal opinion for the issue of the garbage dumping in Keratea would tend to be more as from the perspective of the ecological economics. We need both a sustainable environment to live but we also need a good market in order to have money to live well. Thus, I would like to be called more as an ecological economist.

The ethical standards that I would use for this issue would be to examine what is right and what is wrong, and what has to be done in order both of the sides to be satisfied. Definitely,  I would prefer the environment that will give people the appropriate conditions to live well in all sectors.

To conclude, the hard part is to find a solution that will be accepted from both sides without any other disagreement s.  We believe that the government will find finally a resolution for this problem so it will help the environment without making people feel dissatisfied or underprivileged.  The case is that technology could help a lot to improve our environment but without the contribution of all of us nothing can get better off.

How much land can we use? And how much land do we use?

As found in the dictionary, the ecological footprint (EF) is the amount of productive land appropriate on average by each person ( in the world, a country, etc) for food, water management, and other purposes. (dictionary.com)

To overshoot  means to pass or go by or beyond (a point, a limit, etc), also to overreach (oneself or itself); go further than is intended or proper; go too far.(dictionary.com)

Last, the carrying capacity is the maximun, equilibrium number of organisms of a particular species that can be supported indefinitely in a given environment.  (dictionary.com)

Comparing the Ecological Footprints. 

The ecological footprint is a huge global issue that relates to the natural resources that we humans need/use/want in order to survive. However, the overconsumption of those resources  may have a giant negative consequence in our environment. As we can see in the table 1, the countries that are listed have a different EF and maybe this is related to their economy (strong or weak) and political conditions.

Poor versus rich countries.

For example, the EF of Bangladesh maybe is only 0.6 because Bangladesh is not a strong country and is quite poor. Thus, its inhabitants have not such free access into the resources of their country. On the other hand, the EF of Australia is 8,49 and that means that the access on the natural resources of the country is very big. Also, Australia is a country with a well built economy that helps a lot in that access. The United Arab Emirates could not be less than 15,99 as they totally overuse their resources (ex. oil) and gain a lot from that. The consumption in goods and services is not equally distributed between the countries and this means that the poorer gets poorer and the richer gets richer while there is no global sustainability.

How the GDP affects the Ecological Footprints. 

The world economy  has a great impact on the Ecological footprints of the world. While each country is trying to obtain its economic growth and to have more money, they destroy their natural capital which it is not good for the planet. The Ecological Footprint of each country is definitely connected to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita (table 1). But how do they affect one another? Well, raising the GDP generally involves placing more stress on bio-capacity  for both resource extraction and waste disposal. This means, that if a country’s GDP goes up or down its Ecological Footprint will tend to follow.

Greece’s Ecological Footprint.

The upper graph illustrates, for each year,  the country’s Ecological Footprint. As we can notice, Greece is challenging major environmental issues having to do with its bio-capacity. The economic and development policies are not aiming to reduce the country’s ecological footprint. Instead, the bio-capacity of the country has been decreasing during the years while on the other hand the Ecological Footprint has been increasing rapidly. Furthermore, this is an evidence that Greece has experienced a quick economic expansion  that led to a large increase of the consumption of its natural resources.

My Personal Ecological Footprint.

My Ecological Footprint is in other words my demand for resources on earth. After taking the quiz in “myfootprint.org” I realized that if everyone on the planet lived my lifestyle, we would need 2,41 earths. So embarrassing!  Although, comparing to the Ecological Footprint of Greece which is 5,58 mine seems so much better. However, I do not think that because of this comparison I must lay back and do not feel kind of guilty about the trouble we are causing to our country and extensively to our planet.

People from Bangladesh seem to have an average 0,6 EF which is much less than mine, but on the other hand they do not have the standarts of living that I have. This is maybe is a good excuse for me. Also, in other nations the EF is much better than mine (ex. Australia) and this means that they consume much more resources than me, because of their better economy and their better technology.

Conclusion.

In the 21st Century the Ecological Footprints has increased so rapidly that have exceeded the available bio-capacity. This means, that the modern way of living has brought us to this point. However, this situation is not the same at the global level because the natural resources are not being equally distributed. As we do not have any other ways for taking extra capacity we must not let this gradual deterioration of the global ecosystems keep continuing. The current overshoot has to be eliminated in order the world to become more sustainable. And this balance we need, will come from no other place rather than from reducing the global footprint.

Seeking Solutions.

“A natural resource is a renewable resource if it is replaced by natural processes and if replenished with the passage of time. Renewable resources are part of our natural environment and form our eco-system.” (wikipedia.org)

Thus, in order the environmental system to be sustainable it must maintain a stability as for its natural resources. Many of the renewable resources can become nonrenewable if we overexploit them and do not use them in moderation. Such resources, from the most renewable to the least renewable, are food crops, fresh water, timber, soils and biodiversity.

My decision for putting in this particular order those natural resources is how much time they need in order to ‘come back’. To be more specific, food crops need a year or less in order to be ready for consumption again. On the other hand, fresh water is a result from the cycling of water through the atmosphere. It takes averagely a year the ocean water to evaporate (so the salt remains to earth), to become rain and come back down to the land as fresh water. Also, timber needs 25 to 100 years and soil 1000 to 10000 years to come back. Last but not least, biodiversity needs 100000 to 1000000 years!!!

Industrial revolution, economic exploitation, material living standard improvement and overpopulation are four major factors responsible for the overexploitation of all these renewable natural resources that nowadays  are-not-limitless.

What might constitutes sustainable use of the resources is the limitation of politicians’ and businesses’ actions as the most of them do not take into consideration the impacts on all humans and animals, on future generations and on the planet.

The distribution of the resources has to be equal to all and new laws and policies have to be drafted. Also, we have to recycle anything possible and mind for the resources remained.