Please read the following articles and respond to the questions below.
Can Planting Trees Make Up For Warming River Water
Cleaner Bluefish Suggest Coal Rules Work
What do you think of the information presented in each of these articles? What questions do you have about each?
When you have finished with the above questions for each article, grab an evaluation sheet. Please go online and find 4 different games or interactive online activities that deal with any material we have covered in this class. Please find/provide 4 that you feel are worth while.
Turn the evaluation form in by the end of class today.
Article One:
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to hear multiple sides of the issue at hand in this informative article. All parties are trying to accomplish the same task, but given the many possible solutions to a complex problem, it’s important to know all the facts and possible good and bad consequences of every action. I would like to know how long it would take for the effects of the tree planting to actually take place, and whether or not there is some sort of system for evaluation in place to monitor the cost/benefit turnout of this plan.
Article Two:
It’s lovely to hear that the effects of regulating coal emissions within aquatic ecosystems have proven to show positive change so quickly. It shows the sensitivity that these organisms have to changes in their surroundings, especially with such drastic changes over such a short period of time. I would be interested to know what other sources of pollution have led to high mercury content in fish, historically, as well as what the FDA’s plans are for increasing awareness about the impacts of mercury on humans.
I think the information in the two articles are both interesting and I would not think of topics like these if not for articles like these. The first article about trees and pollution brings up a big issue where both sides present valid arguments. On the one side, this is clearly better than nothing and is helping the environment and helping the citizens at a very cheap price but on the other side they are still hurting the environment. My main question I have about this topic is if it has any bad long term effects. If not I think that this is a pretty good idea overall and should be implemented in more places. The second article makes a lot of sense. This article pretty much confirms what I and many people were already thinking. It is clear that the production and use of coal is what is leading to this issue and that using less coal solves the issue. For this reason I believe that the coal rules should stay in effect. I would want to ask what else could be implemented to help solve issues like these even more.
ReplyDelete1. I enjoyed this article and was particularly interested with the effect that trees have on water. What would be interesting to know is just how effective this method is and how it works on a scientific level. I was also wondering how immediate the problem of warming water was and if it called for a quicker fix like the cooling station. The counter point about the trees only accounting for the 5-10% oh warming that comes from sewage treatment was also seemingly sound. It seems that on a small scale the trees are a good idea, but they are not the solution to the whole problem.
ReplyDelete2. This article was encouraging. I know that the debate about just how much mercury the people who eat fish regularly are ingesting. Here in Oregon I hear about tuna containing mercury because we don't eat as much bluefish on the West Coast. I know people who have been told by their doctors to cut down on their sushi consumption because of the high risk. I hope that the trend of cutting down on coal consumption will continue. It will have a very positive long term effect if it does.
The results seen in this project on the Rouge River are very encouraging. Restoring habitat to combat climate change is relatively simple and cost effective, and hopefully other places will see this and use the same model of conservation and rehabilitation to solve their own problems. It would be a step in the right direction if laws were put into place that required this kind of mitigation of pollution produced by human activities. A question I might have would be what can the city and surrounding cities do to plant trees on the banks of the feeder rivers to help cool the waterways even more.
ReplyDeleteIt seems as though it is easier to convince legislators to strengthen regulations when the pollutant in question is having a direct impact on our health, but only to a point. However, it is good to see how quickly the ecosystems of the earth can bounce back if the proper legislation is put into place. I would be curious to know what else the EPA and FDA are doing to reduce mercury in the the environment and educating people on the effects and sources of mercury in the food they eat and other parts of their lives, as well as what else they could do to stop mercury from entering ecosystems in dangerous amounts.
Article 1. I think that this is a very good solution for the environmental problems that began to arise with the draining of warm water into Rogue River. Though planting trees does not stop the flow of wastewater, it stops many other things, and benefits the environment. The planting helps cool the water so it is safe for salmon, helps with CO2 emissions, along with also helping control runoff into the river, which will help with the overall water quality of the river. This is a very smart, environmentally friendly idea that is also better for the economy because it is much cheaper to plant trees than build cooling towers. Though, realistically, this solution can most likely not be applied on a worldwide scale, or even to the future as we begin to produce even more waste, though, it is an amazing start to changing how we deal with water waste and how our actions affect the environment.
ReplyDeleteHow can this be applied on a large scale bases?
Article 2. This article surfaces mixed thoughts. It is superb that our efforts to change regulations to help with emissions has actually had an impact in the last 40 years. I hope that the drop in mercury levels can continue. But, just because the level of mercury in fish has dropped, that does not mean that we should start eating more fish, because that could trigger many other problems if the population/food chain becomes imbalanced. Also, it is very hard to look over the threat of pollution blowing in from other countries and harming all the efforts that we have made. This is amazing progress, but there is still a long way to go, and many more changes that need to be made.
Why would the supreme court block further changes to the Clean Air Act when it is scientifically proven that the act is working?
Have we begun to try to continue the Clean Air Act out of the country to make sure that these changes begin around the world?
The first video was really interesting because it talks about more than one effective solutions. it makes you think about other environmental problems and alternative ways to solve them other than the obvious solution. A question i would have is how effective is planting the trees or like how long does the process take in order to cool the water and such.
ReplyDeleteThe second article is cool and almost gives a sense of hope because it shows that like with regulations, it can be effective in positively effecting the environment. It also really emphasizes that people often times only try to change things when it negatively effects them.
I learned a lot from these articles. All of the information was super helpful. They both show how you don’t have to spend a bunch of money on heavy machinery and technology. I think that these articles can show us that we can use our natural resources to solve environmental problems. These problems show us that we can solve them through natural resources. Problems like this need to be solved like this more often.
ReplyDeleteHow come we don't solve more problems like these?
Article One
ReplyDeleteI found this article to be forward thinking and progressive in a way that presented solutions to issues I wouldn't have initially considered. I'm left wondering, however, how long the process will take to cool the water. Also to what degree do the trees accomplish the given task?
Article Two
This peace gave me a sense of encouragement and hope that a brighter day is foreseen in the environmental world. It shows that the mistakes we've made as a community are actually reversible. What kind of progress can we make globally through regulation?
ReplyDeleteI felt the information in the two articles as both intriguing and unorthodox seeing as how I would not ponder these concepts if not for articles like these. The first article about trees and pollution brings up a big issue where both sides present valid arguments. On the one side, this is clearly better than nothing and is it is both cost effective and profitable as well as somewhat helpful. However, it is not a perfect system, as things rarely are and is still hurting the environment. My main question I have about this topic is if it has any bad long term ramifications. If the consequences for the project were not substantially negative I feel it should most likely be implemented in other places as well. The second article makes a lot of sense. This article pretty much confirms what I and many people were already thinking. The production and use of coal is what is leading to this issue and that using less coal solves the issue. For this reason, I believe that the coal rules should stay in effect. I would also like to point out that although we know a lot about coal as a natural resource we do very little to inform each other about the consequences of its long-term use. And as a result, do not fully understand the environmental ramifications of using this recourse until we are exposed to classes or information of this kind.
First Article: I honestly can’t really see a downside to using trees as a method of cooling water. Although it may be hard to use tree planting as the only cooling method on large rivers, other than that trees do nothing but good for the environment. They help with CO2 emissions, create shelter for animals, cool rivers, and help reduce runoff. They’re also a lot more economically friendly than cooling towers, making it so there’s no real reason not to use the tree planting method.
ReplyDeleteAre there any other effective water cooling methods other than cooling towers and planting trees that could be implemented into rivers?
Second Article: This article shows how important regulations are for the environment. Although it’s sad that the only reason these regulations were created was because of the direct impacts these pollutants were having on our health, it’s good to see how quickly ecosystems can reform when we give them the proper care they deserve.
How many other problems can we solve simply by regulations?
Article One:
ReplyDeleteI think that it is impossible to say that there is a downside to using trees as a way to cool water, the only downside is when you're ONLY using trees to cool down water. Certainly it is never bad to plant a few more trees, but it is important to not let wastewater plants to get off this easily, there have got to be higher expectations for preserving these aquatic habitats.
Article Two:
While initially this article made me more hopeful, when I thought about it more I noticed other implications. It's scary that these regulations only were made because it was clear the negative effects the pollutants were already having. This is understandable and unsurprising, but the ideal kind of regulation would prevent these pollutants from ever being released.
That said, it is encouraging to see that regulations are effective and flourishing in some cases, and I would like to see how much more we can do.
Article 1) I don't think anyone can go wrong with planting more trees. Like the article stated, trees are helpful for more than one thing. However, if they wanted to solve the problem they would have to eliminate human interaction which is not a plausible solution for humans.
ReplyDeleteArticle 2) (thumbs up). I encourage regulations on corporations, and regulations definetly set boundaries and guidelines that can benefit the environment.
I found this article very informative. I would never think about using trees and vegetation to help lower the temperature of a river. As well, I understand both point of views when it comes to this idea. The trees would be a very cheap and easy way to deal with the warming water, however, may not be a dramatic enough fix to end the current problem. It also seems like an easy escape for the sewage treatment plant to continue to pump warm water into the river without taking liability of any direct action. A question that I have is how long it would take after the tree planting to see the dramatic changes in the river that is necessary for the salmon. This idea seems to be well thought out, however I doubt that it will have the large effect quickly that is necessary for fish species and other aquatic life.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very positive and was very different than most climate change articles which generally are very negative. It is good to know that the changes we have made in in North America to lessen Co2 output is making a clear and obvious impact to the environment. The article also proves how impactful legislation passed by our government such as the Clean Air Act can be to help conserve and protect the environment.
1 ) The information was presented well, at least for me. I thought it was easy to comprehend and easy to follow all of the branching opinions and voices thrown at the subject. It led me to feel like I had a decent understanding of the subject. My only question is how quickly the tree insertion method can be implemented, because in my opinion, it seems like a very cost effective solution and if it can be done quickly, it may be a good route to go down until something more effective can come along.
ReplyDelete2 ) I think it's interesting that such a dramatic change can happen in such a short time, and it’s definitely a good sign towards humans being able to reverse the damages done by unmanaged emissions. My only question is if other critters can recover the same way, or maybe if this is an isolated incident and only these fish have the resilience to swing back.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. I honestly can’t really see a downside to using trees as a method of cooling water. Although it may be hard to use tree planting as the only cooling method on large rivers, other than that trees do nothing but good for the environment. They help with CO2 emissions, create shelter for animals, cool rivers, and help reduce runoff. They’re also a lot more economically friendly than cooling towers, making it so there’s no real reason not to use the tree planting method.
ReplyDelete2. soooo no idea what a bluefish was. but this article gives me hope. it is nice to see government regulations working and being effective. i think that everything this article talks about is good and was very interesting.
Planting trees to cool down the river is a great idea to cool down the river. It is a great success story for reversing human destruction of the environment. It is a natural remedy that does not include advanced technology to fix. Trees are great for ecosystems because they create a habitat for animals, food to eat, and oxygen to breath. If planting trees costs about the same as creating cooling tanks and they are just have efficient then it is the best idea presented. It seems like a win, win for business and the environment. Like Obama said, “It worked for business, it worked for farmers, it worked for salmon.” I wonder how effective planting trees can actually be on reducing the temperature of the water? Are there other remedies?
ReplyDeleteThis article give a lot of hope for environmental regulation. The piece of regulation has made a difference in the amount of mercury a corporation emits into the air. I never knew that pregnant women could not eat fish because they had a high content of mercury in them that has lead to show lower IQ’s and memory loss amongst the babies. I hope that regulating mercury doesn’t stop here and this is only a starting point. I still don’t think we should start eating a lot of fish. If humans start consuming more fish, it can be detrimental to the environment. I want to know more about how they went about changing regulation?
1. This article is very interesting, because it suggests a very simple solution to a complex problems. I think it is smart to take a note from nature to solve its own problems. Environments know how to regulate themselves and can usually stay in equilibrium, so replanting these trees makes sense as a solution. One question is how long it would take and how effective it would really be, especially if the river continues to warm up further.
ReplyDelete2. This article was somewhat uplifting, it gives me hope that we can actually change things and help reverse the damages we have already made. Like the article stated, it would definitely be smart to investigate further and test more species of fish to see if the mercury levels are really that reduced or if there are other factors involved (change in diet or feeding patterns.)