¶ … water in your area? ("Your perspective on water differs whether you live near the Great Lakes, in the arid west, or by the coast."(McCarthy, 2009)
Outline a brief water conservation plan for your own daily use. How will these changes affect your personal life? What impact will it have on your local water supply?
There is plentiful water in my region (I live in the Great Lakes region). Nonetheless, a brief water conservation plan is the following:
To use water for just its needs and to ensure that tap water is not left running in between those needs.
To double used bathwater as water that can be used for washing the floor.
To, as much as possible, use rainwater for gardening
In order to supply water to humans certain technologies must be utilized.
Desalination is one of the methods that are used for promoting pure water supply. It literally means separating slat form water and thereby increasing the water supply that way, but it is a controversial solution since, although it works, it is also costly.
Australia's Sydney was recently torn over desalination plans. They planned to build a desalination plant that would extract a reasonable amount of seawater from his water, pump the rest back to sea, whilst the purified water would be pumped into houses, businesses and so forth.
One of the advantages of desalination is that it can act as backup if dam levels are low, or if there is a drought.
The disadvantage, however, is that construction of this plant is costly and can consume too much energy such as heat and electricity. It also consumes too much oxygen levels and results in an increase of the density of waste water. None of this is good for the environment.
Further detrimental for the environment is the fact that there will be an increase in production of greenhouse gas emissions.
These are the advantages and disadvantages of desalination, and it is for these reasons that Sydney was torn over the idea. (H20. Not worth one's salt.)
WEEK 2
global climate change.
Part I. Questions:
Do you agree with President Obama's proposed commitments during the Copenhagen Climate Conference?
Obama called the conference a 'meaningful agreement', but it seems as though Obama's trip to the Copenhagen Climate Conference was a farce. He proposed that the world regulate their temperature rises to no more than 2C and that the UN assist developing nations in economically helping poor countries fight global warming.
On the one hand, the UN talks were symbolically important showing the need for global change. On the other hand, the talks were unrealistic and even counterproductive since media focus (e.g. Groves, 2009 ) was turned on Greenpeace activists who were turned away and the event was contrived to block out protestors.
Rather than focus on the lack of a binding UN treaty, the administration would do better to focus on the real problem which is the concentration of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere.
As reality, the world's two top greenhouse gas emitters -- China and the United States -- are reluctant to make drops in greenhouse emissions due to economic reasons rather than lack of concern for the climate. No UN treaty will change this. The best way to change this, in fact, is through developing cheap new energy technology rather than through a UN treaty.
Another more practical strategy would have been to promote existing low-carbon technologies, such as nuclear power and creating greater incentives for creating and globally disseminating new energy technologies. The UN could have massed to discuss more practical aspects such as cooperating in international research and development investment fund that would share intellectual property rights as well as creating policies that would guide and structure these endeavors. Domestic policies for limiting emissions that would differ from country to country would have been another reasonable issue.
In short, the climate conference -- and Obama's talks in it -- was symbolic, but practical and realistic measures are needed (U.S. News, 2009)
WEEK 3
Farmers, animal breeders, and scientists have been making genetic selections for desirable characteristics in farm plants and animals for centuries using traditional breeding methods. Genetic engineering has the potential to accomplish this in a fraction of the time. However, the production of genetically modified plants and farm animals using the new techniques in molecular biology is controversial. Furthermore, the development of genetic engineering technology opens possibility of cloning human body parts or even individuals.
What is your opinion on creating, growing, and consuming genetically modified plants (GMOs)?
Proponents of GMOs see these as the benefits:
-GM crops can be made resistant to viruses, fungi and bacterial growth.
-GM crops can be engineered to grow faster.
-GM crops can be engineered to be naturally pest-resistant, undermining the need for pesticide chemicals.
-GM crops can be engineered...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now