One Fish, Two Fish, Dead Fish, No Fish.

Nice title, I know. Thank you.

The fish are being over hunted. It's plain and simple as that. Japan and Norway are vigorously out there, capturing, killing, and selling fish on the market. But will they end all this when the fish become endangered? Most likely not. With this as their jobs, they depend on the money made from selling their catch to support their households and family. But does this make it right? I don't believe it does.

When watching Open Oceans, Empty Nets, I frequently cringed. As the people could just cut off the heads and tails of those poor fish, and throw their frozen bodies against the ground, I could bring myself to feel joy at all. It would have been odd if I felt joy during this film anyways. Point is, it really had an impact on me. Whoever had put together the movie really wanted to appeal to the audience's ethos, and capture their emotional mind to force that information of how the fish are quickly depleting in the world. I believe it is horrifying how fishermen are capturing fish. Especially with the trawling method, they are destroying the ocean floor as well as killing aquatic species. Sure, it is a quicker way to go about things, but it doesn't make it right!

One positive note I was happy about, was how there are fishermen still that use more traditional, healthy ways to catch their fish. And to know that there is a label at the fish market saying that this fish was caught using those good methods is nice to recognize. I do eat fish, even though I'm a vegetarian, I have to because I am anemic, we think. But watching that video made me not want to even go near fish for that weekend. It was horrible, and so sad. I have no jokes for it today..

National Geographic Awesome Stuff

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/photogalleries/101130-best-of-2010-science-nature-pictures-news-fish-hands/#/skink-evolves-live-birth-eggs_25436_600x450.jpg
Please. Look at that link, and tell me the lizard isn't the coolest thing you've seen today (thus far). Stumbling upon this image of a yellow-bellied three toed skink, found along the warm coastal lowlands of New South Whales, this australian amphibian has made a huge change in the way of its evolutionary pattern. Instead of laying eggs to produce its young, it has started giving live birth. Imagine this little skink laying there, giving live birth as if a dog would to its pups. I found it strange to picture, but incredible, all the same. This is interesting, because it is a discovery in what new things these creatures are starting to do. Who knows, in a couple years they could evolve even furthur to grow wings and fly. Probably not, but tell me THAT isn't cool to imagine either.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/11/photogalleries/101130-best-of-2010-science-nature-pictures-news-fish-hands/#/new-handfish-species-pink_20881_600x450.jpg
A fish with hands. Seriously, no, it's a real thing. The pink handfish is a newly named species of 'walking fish', who use their fins instead to move around the ocean floor like legs and hands over the traditional swimming method. Apparently, the world knows of 14 types of handfish at the moment, all of which can be found in the shallow, coastal waters of southeastern Australia. It seems Australia gets all the good species, pretty crazy looking ones that I like to gawk at, especially for this assignment, as it is my job to do so. I found this interesting because a handfish could be something I could have come up with by doodling in my notebook. To see that something so surreal is actually REAL, again, evolution is pretty amazing, and that just goes to prove it.

Oh, and here are some bonus AWESOME photos of new species I looked up. They're pretty amazing, and crazy looking, if you ask me. Enjoy.

SUPER TINY FROG {new class pet, plz?kthnx.}
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/photogalleries/101006-papua-new-guinea-species-tube-nosed-bat-science-animal-pictures/#/papua-new-guinea-new-species-camouflaged-frog_27191_600x450.jpg

HUGE HEADED ANT {Ew.}
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/photogalleries/101006-papua-new-guinea-species-tube-nosed-bat-science-animal-pictures/#/papua-new-guinea-new-species-ants_27186_600x450.jpg

INSECT THAT LIKES TO POKE YOUR EYES {Ow..}
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/photogalleries/101006-papua-new-guinea-species-tube-nosed-bat-science-animal-pictures/#/papua-new-guinea-new-species-brown-katydid_27187_600x450.jpg

OPPOSSUM WITH A FEATHER FOR A TAIL {Bird-Oppossum?..}
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/photogalleries/101006-papua-new-guinea-species-tube-nosed-bat-science-animal-pictures/#/papua-new-guinea-new-species-mammal_27190_600x450.jpg

Here's the best one.. Don't get too excited, try to stay calm..
YODA BAT {Oh.My.God.}
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/photogalleries/101006-papua-new-guinea-species-tube-nosed-bat-science-animal-pictures/#/papua-new-guinea-new-species-bat_27185_600x450.jpg

China Revs Up

Watching the second part of that dvd Mr. Schaedel showed us in class, the China Revs Up hour, I first was surprised by how quickly China is catching up to America. Of course, not in population, since China is huge compared to the U.S., but in carbon emission. It is said that China will be releasing just as much carbon emission into the atmosphere as the United States by 2030. That's not very far off, if you think about it. Pretty scary, actually, that not only will America be destroying and polluting the air, but China will be helping us out with that. Super. Great to know, right? Also, according to the UN, China is home to 7 of the most polluted cities. How sad is that? It makes me wonder how many cities America has that are the most polluted in the world. 

China is known, at least to a majority of my friends and I, for it's gigantic population. Population control in China is very strictly enforced. Families are allowed one child each, and they will have to pay a certain amount of money if they wish to have more children. But as China is still growing, there is always the scare of a possible overpopulation, leading to famine, then a revolution, and the throwing over of their government in a frenzy. Hopefully, this will not happen soon. Just maybe, China will start to slow down on the producting of babies.

China uses coal three times more than the USA does. Apparently, China is famous for having coal producing plants. Of course, this may be a cheap way to generate energy and fuel, but it is very dirty, and pollutes the air an immense amount.
Also, without steel, China's economy would come to a halt. Steel had been one of China's leading factors of pollution. But recently, Chinese government had put a stop to all the steel, limiting the output of it where factories were too polluting to the environment. I hope my sentences make sense, by the way. It's hard to type down my thoughts as I watch the video, as like notes in class, I'm slow to take down what I hear before the speaker moves on to the next topic.

Cars have started to overtake China's roads. As they once have been deserted, nowadays, it is incredibly hard to find a Chinese consumer who doesn't have an interest in owning a car, or drives one already. Luckily, there are some companies that still try to encourage bicycle riding, or walking as opposed to polluting the air with gas from cars. It's sort of funny how China houses cars from other countries other than itself. China does not manufacture any cars of their own, so they take in the cars from Germany, America, Japan, etc etc.
BUT.
What is different for China, is that the cars that have, and may create in China that are models from around the world, have the emission 2 model of engines. Meaning, their equipment in the Chinese cars are about ten years older than what cars use today say in Europe or America. So, the emissions given off from the car is even more filled with bad toxins and icky stuff for the air. That sort of makes me want to frown at China even harder than before. If my frown could possibly fall to the floor, that's where it would be at this moment in the program.

Even though China has the largest population, only 7% of China is airable land. O.M.G. That is horrible!! China is seriously being pushed to it's limit. It's like, as that percentage diminishes, China will explode. And if China explodes, then we will explode from some sort of ripple effect. I think to solve this problem, China needs to have an intervention with itself. Or, sit down, look out to the country, and say Slow. Down. Nothing good can come from all this, except manufactured items to export to America. But, that's selfish of us, since everything we own is pretty much made in China. This is a serious problem, and I believe China really should try to calm down, be responsible, and take hold of it's own reigns.

Clean Stoves FTW.

According to an article in the New York Times (A Move to Replace Soot-Spewing Stoves in the Third World), in developing countries, millions are still using primitive indoor stoves. These stoves are nothing, nothing compared to the kind we would use in America. Fueled by crops waste, coal, wood and dung, these stoves are creating a major problem for the people of the Third World, and for the rest of the earth. Not only is it producing toxins that can cause users to come down with diseases, and various sicknesses, but it is also pertruding chemicals into the air that add to the effects of Global Warming. All in all, these stoves are a problem. As it turns out, this problem has a solution. Hilary Clinton has been working on funding money to give 100 million clean stoves to these countries, in order to replace their dingy, unhealthy and just no good kitchen appliances. These stoves won't be all out until 2020, unfortunately, but Hilary is working on it with the help of organizations, like E.P.A., and other governments wanting to assist these poor people.

My reaction to reading this article wasn't positive one, because it probably shouldn't be. I think it is horrible, and so unfortunate. The moment these individuals find resources to build and work their own stoves the best they can with what they have around them, it turns out to harm them, those around them, and everyone on the planet. It's very sad and unlucky. I was proud of the Third World users of these dirty stoves, though, as it is impressive they were successful in cooking meals and providing for their families. It just turns out to bring everything downhill once it was found out these stoves were a problem, and not the solution they thought they had come upon.

I found it surprising that it was predicted to take until 2020 to have these clean stoves ready and shipped over for the people of developing countries. That is such a long time away. It's only ten years..but still, it's more than two, five, or eight. So, still, people will be dying from diseases caused by these stoves, and still, the air will be tainted with the harmful chemicals and soot thrown into the atmosphere. It's a sad fact, and it surprised me entirely.

By replacing these stoves, I believe all aspects of life will change for the Third World-ers. Not only will their food most likely taste better, it will be faster to cook, easier, and be more efficient on taking up less space. The air will be cleaner for their living areas, which means they won't become sick from the soot and debris from cooking with the stoves, as these new stoves won't produce any of that icky, bad stuff. It will also combat global warming by, again, not releasing all the toxins it did before into the atmosphere. And it will also reduce deforestation by eliminating the need for wood to fuel the stoves.

In conclusion, of course these new stoves are a great thing to have for the Third World population. I say, YESSSS to Hilary Clinton for working on helping them out. I would clearly give her a high five if I could.

Anything but the bees.. D:

I don't know if you've heard, but if you, the reader, are in Mr. Schaedel's AP Environmental Science class for whatever period, than you know how depressing the bee condition is. How can bees be decreasing in population? It's very sad.. To know how much a little flying insect coated in yellow and black stripes does for us as humans is astounding. I'm sure not everyone in the United States thinks of fruits of cows when they think of bees. Right off the bat, what would most likely come to mind? Flowers. Honey. Pollen. Well, yeah, obviously those do have something in common with bees. But it's so much more than just that. Bees carry pollen, and pollenate our plants. They help our fruits, our vegetables grow enough so we can enjoy them. I even found out today in class that if bees become extinct, cows may even be affected. Whoa. Whoa now. That's pretty intense information. Not for me, since I don't eat meat, but A LOT of meat comes from a cow. A lot. Even while I'm drinking my coffee, that milk came from a cow, that cow ate some grass, that grass was pollenated by a bee. It all comes down to the bees!! They are so precious to us, and we may even take them for granted as the human race. I say we all need to be much more careful.

I spoke with my mom about this, and I would even like to create a special area to grow some sort of collection of flowers, plants that bees naturally are attracted to. Some kind of variety of plants that bees can come and pollenate, take pollen from, etc. etc. I want to help. I already know my mom does not use pesticides on her garden flowers in the front yard or the back. So, this is a great thing so far. I encourage anyone else who is willing to help out as much as possible in any way possible too. Let the bees come and mess up your garden a little. Who cares as long as the bees don't go extinct in our life times, right? Or even in our children's lifetimes, and so on.

We already are destroying our planet enough as it is.. This topic is very important, and might have a smaller solution that we could manage as individuals. So why not try to?

Eating at a Lower Trophic Level - Good or bad?

So, lower trophic levels. To sum it up, they are the lower positions on a food chain where organisms reside. An example could be a plant of some sort, or even a worm maybe. The question being, should people generally eat at a lower trophic level, I'd have to say yes and no. There are pros and cons to everything, especially this particular inquery.

An upside to eating at a lower trophic level more often is it could turn out to be healthier for humans in the long run. Plants, vegetables, various crops are always seen as healthy options to chow down on. I don't know about worms and insects..but smaller fish, animals, and whatnot may turn out to be better for our internal systems as well. The second pro would be that doing so in eating at a lower trophic level, humans may over time be able to help reduce the time that larger animals of higher levels are becoming extinct. I'm not exactly sure if polar bears are still hunted, but if they are, then that is really really bad right now. Seeing as they are quickly becoming extinct, just stopping to kill them altogether might help out with the issue. Pro three would have to be that it is easier to find lower trophic level foods. This being put out there, there may be more options and numbers in choices for humans to pick from, which would then guarantee that most of the human population could live off from eating lower trophic level species. Pretty much everyone wins if you think of it this way.

Now, cons are a little less positive and upbeat, sadly. Eating at lower trophic levels could be really healthy for humans, but also not so. Humans need protein. Meat has protein. Big, lean, chunks of meat from a cow and or pig. Humans crave for the stuff. So, canceling out the bigger meat altogether might make a few humans angry. Angry humans aren't that good for the earth. It also could lead to humans becoming weaker than before, which would hurt our strength in the army if we would need to go to war at some point. That's sort of a huge disadvantage if you look at it from such a drastic angle. Adding on to the negativity of lower trophic level feeding, with us eating so many smaller organisms and plants, we are taking away the foods that higher trophic level species rely on themselves. Whether we are eating the higher levels or not, extinction still could be possible. And even more so, extinction could happen to those lower level types over time if we become greedy. Also by tampering with the earth for plants and smaller organisms, humans may eventually dig up so much soil, we ruin the natural settings for growing crops. And here we are, then, with everyone losing at this certain point of view.

Reading over the fact that in less developed countries, soy is more commonly produced and digested than cows are, which are just as devoured frequently in the more developed countries, I sort of furrowed my eyebrows. America should be using more soy products over beef items, in my opinion, then. If soy can produce 200 kg of protein, while cows produce a measly 19 kg, what are we doing eating cows for? It does make sense, though. In less developed countries, soy would be easier to get a hold of than cows. Also, with such weakened bodies from the deprivation of real food in said areas, the soy would help nourish and keep the stability of residents high and healthy. Well, as high as is needed to live, of course. In America, we are meat loving, greedy little porkers. We want cow, and we want it now (not me personally). With that in mind, sometimes we don't take the time to analyze how much protein we could be getting instead of how much we are, just because something tastes good to our hungry tongues.

Alright, second half of my assignment here. Excited? You really should be. Not even kidding.
I need to list a few foods that I have eaten over the last five days. Well, seeing as I barely eat as much as some normal, seventeen-year-old might, this could be a little tough to think over. I'd have to say..
Water (does it count? I think so..)
Corn
Brocculi
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery
Tomatoes
Green beans
Peas
Bananas
Pears
Peaches

....And I'm doing this as in these are foods I've had over a seven day line up instead of a five day. I figured it would be better, since I eat smaller portions of each at random times in a week, and it's not every day. Again, I'm a weird eater. My friends would get that if they have gone out to eat somewhere with me before.. SO. Moving on.

What trophic level each food came from.. Water comes from the lower trophic level. Actually, you know what? I'm pretty positively sure that every single one of my foods comes from the lower trophic level. Mr. Schaedel, you can comment and tell me if I'm wrong or not. But I think I'm right. I hope. Maybe. I'm actually winging it on this one.

I'm going to estimate that about 86% or possibly 90% of the food in my diet comes from either the first or second trophic level. I'm a vegetarian, but not a vegan, so milk gets in there sometimes..and so can the occasional, very rarely consumed, egg.

The percentage of my diet that comes from the higher tophic levels?.. I'd say the last 10% then. I'm not sure what would go into that since I don't eat meat..but..I do eat fish sometimes......so...yeah.

Awesome blog. Done. Thanks.

My Carbon Footprint

After taking the quiz on www.myfootprint.org, I discovered that my carbon footprint isn't too bad.. At least, I don't think so. In the form of earths, if everyone on the planet lived as I do, then we would need 3.06 Earths. It's..not that good, but..it could be worse, I think. Looking through the different forms for the result of the quiz, I found that, by consumption category, comparing to the country average, my footprint is waaaaaaaaaaaay low. Especially in the food category, which might be from the fact that I'm a vegetarian, and I like to look for and try to buy foods that have some sort of organic label. 3.06 Earths is pretty insane, though. That's a lotta earth we're talking about.. But, at least it's not 4.0, right? Right.

The largest category for my footprint turned out to be my Carbon Footprint, and then after that was the Goods and Services Footprint. The factors to cause this were probably because I don't really think of all the energy saving items I could get my mom to buy, or look out for myself when shopping. Things that could help the environment by, like, using a reuseable water bottle, instead of always using plastic ones over and over. Or maybe walking or riding my bike more instead of getting rides with mom. Actually, I have to pat myself on the back for how often I walk places and ride my bike now. I use to get rides in the car EVERYWHERE. It really does make an impact, I would hope.

Reading over the methodology behind the quiz, I tried to identify which three weaknesses I was assigned to talk about on here. Well... It's sort of hard to find them. But, one that I think might be a weakness, is how the quiz might not be completely accurate. It really only will provide an estimate, since it isn't 'flexible enough to account for all possible lifestyles and circumstances'. What if there was that tiny part they missed out on, that could end up making a HUGE difference to my footprint? I'm not sure if that is a weakness..but I would consider it to be one.

Also, there is a part where the question is asked 'I have a fairly green lifestyle but the quiz shows that it is unsustainable. Why is this so?' I think that might be sort of discouraging to see results for whoever submitted that question. What if then they were upset and thought all that they thought they were doing was green, turned out to be horrible for the environment, or not as effective as they thought? It could be a strength, though, having that question and answer out there. Then that person could change their ways, or add even more green changes to their lifestyle. It's a good, or bad outcome, I suppose.

The difference between a country's per capita ecological footprint and a country's total ecological footprint, and why is it important to consider both.. Hm. Well.. To remind myself, GDP stand for gross domestic product as the total value of all the goods and services produced in a country over a year. And per capita GDP is GDP divided by the country's total population. Seeing as a country's ecological footprint total takes in the account of each category that makes it up.. I guess the difference would be that the total ecological footprint takes up everything into mind, while the per capita is taking it in mind, but then dividing it over all the people in that country. It is probably important to consider both because it's safer to take a look and analyze each outcome. It would be good to know the country's footprint as a whole, and then the country's average number. I hope that made as much sense typed out as it did in my head.

A few 'Tragedy of the Commons' examples...

Tragedy of the commons. I never heard of this term before this week in AP Environmental Science. I felt sort of out of the loop, not having a clue what it meant, but then it made sense to me. Sort of thinking of it like a 'common tragedy' helped me out too. Well, I couldn't really come up with any examples on my own..so I had to do a little research online. Google, of course, helped out a lot.

One of the more modern commons I found had to do with car pollution. Some of the negative outcomes from car pollution include congestion, carbon emissions, and traffic accidents. Like, and I found this one explanation over Wikipedia (Yes, I like Wikipedia, sue me) which was.. Think of it as if every time 'Person A' gets in a car, it becomes more likely that 'Person Z' -and millions of others- will suffer in each of those areas. That. Sucks. There are so many Americans who drive everywhere nowadays.. Just think of how much pollution is clouding up the air, forcing soot and dust over the roads, and doing horrible other things to our atmosphere and world. It's sort of scary, I think.

Another example is the seemingly unstoppable human population growth, that most likely will soon lead to overpopulation in the world. I'm guessing the day we won't have much more capacity to fit in all the humans on earth isn't that far away. I always hear about how crowded China is, and how, I think, the families are only permitted two or three children each. I guess that's a good solution to help fix the problem..but it still doesn't end up like a 'win win' idea. It would just lead to unsatisfied parents, who wish for a bigger family to raise, and have a future with. All sad stuff. Yep.

Uhm, since I realized just now how long this entry is, I guess I should start to end it. So, those are just two of the many examples I found and had taken an interest in. At least now I know what the term 'tragedy of the commons' means.  :]