Category: Environmental Issues

Robyn Davidson’s Tracks and Sean Penn’s Into the Wild present the natural world as a liberating way for individuals to free themselves from the constraints of society. Both journeys of the protagonists show that, while the wilderness is capable of frayed emotional states, it is also inherently challenging and potentially deadly. While both Robyn Davidson and Christopher McCandless each have idealised notions of what the wilderness might bring them, Davison and Penn ultimately show that heading into the wilderness with unrealistically sentimental or romanticised notions without understanding the complexities and dangers of planning adequately for survival against the elements, is reckless. The memoir and the film highlight the power and unpredictability of nature and that it should be respected, as well as question the idea of life alone in the natural world as a visible long-term lifestyle choice or a means to achieve personal happiness.

McCandless and Davidson both have romantic and idealised views of the natural world. Both protagonists experience alienation from their societies and reject the expectations of their gender and class. They see the natural environment as a sanctuary and antidote to the ills and corruption of modern society. In the opening scene of Into the Wild, Penn portrays the relationship between man and nature as a sublime majesty through the use of aerial shots and extreme long shots. McCandless is dwarfed in comparison to the natural world, highlighting its powerful nature. Specifically, his melodramatic response to his encounter with the herd of deer’s, crystalises his communion with nature. Complimentary to this, the extra diegetic narration explains McCandless feels “no longer poisoned by [the] civilization he flees” as he experiences “ultimate freedom”. However, Davidson and McCandless have fundamentally different perceptions of nature. McCandless seeks enlightenment in the romantic, literary concept of nature and is blinded by it, whereas, Davidson is drawn to the brutality of the Australian outback and survives by learning from her environment and the people who inhabit it. Davidsons ability to recognize she is a novice traveler and respect and seek help from Eddie (Aboriginal mentor), contrasts with McCandless’ ignorance in learning from Kevin. Initially, Davidson set off in journey out of love for the desert’s vastness and purity, as well as attempt to diminish the expectations put on her as a well-educated middle class, white female and the Indigenous Australian culture. Davidson has a moment of enlightenment where she perceives the natural world as fundamentally different. She metaphorically describes it as a ‘net’, where “habit and routine” dissolves and not seeing things as discrete objects.

Hostility of the natural environment threatens to destroy both protagonists journeys. In Into the Wild, nature is demonstrated as indifferent and hostile to man. The turning point in Into the Wild, as demonstrated by the moose scene, illustrates Mccandless’ isolation from nature, how nature disregards him and gifts him another “harsh blow”. McCandless describes his failure as “one of the greatest tragedies of [his] life” as it emphasises his incapability to be self-reliant, as well as invalidates what he was trying to prove to his father. McCandless’ trauma of unsuccessfully cooking the moose parallels with his family trauma which he relives repeatedly. Ultimately, McCandless’ ignorance in preparing his journey ultimately leads to his downfall. He becomes “literally trapped in the wild”, when faced with the strong current of the Teklanika river. Penn suggests that McCandless can no longer rekindle his relationships and connections, symbolised by the beanie he had left behind. The magic bus which once embodied spiritual rebirth, now acted as a prison. The emotional investment from viewers are heightened through the closeups of his face in pain. The magic he feels in the wild fades as hunger and isolation take their toll. In Tracks, Davidson experiences an identity crisis when she is invited to dance with the Aboriginals and asked to pay. She becomes what she loathes the most, a tourist amongst the Aboriginals. Her fantasy of belonging and being accepted by the Aboriginals was punctured as she felt a “symbolic defeat”. Furthermore, despite Davidsons departure from modern society, human interference and manipulation is shown to be still existent, demonstrated by the poisoning of Diggity, where she was taught “the most profound and cruel lesson of all”. Similar to Into the Wild, nature is depicted as hostile when Davidson is confronted with the wild camels. She finds this challenge internally conflicting when deciding to kill the beast, as she gained a spiritual connection with the land. However, “[she] had her own survival to think of”. In addition, Davidson experienced existential despair from her journey and believed it was beginning to lose its mean and becoming repetitive, “always the road…step after step…”. She saw nature as the enemy and was “ashamed of [her] thoughts”. Likewise, Davidson and McCandless both experience a similar internal dialogue with their respective parental figures when faced with their conflicts – “there was nothing but chaos and the voices”. Despite seeking isolation in the wild, their pasts always followed them. Moreover, Davidson recognises much earlier than McCandless that she must respect nature rather than romanticise it. Upon McCandless’ death bed, was it when he had an epiphany that “happiness is only real when shared”.

McCandless and Davidson’s communion with nature is a source of profound joy and spiritual transcendence in their journeys. McCandless’ beliefs of self-sufficiency in the wild is significantly fuelled by his books which provide an escape from is dissatisfaction of his life. He believed “You’re wrong if you think that the joy in life comes principally from relationships”. American philosopher, Henry Thoreau’s lasting impressions on McCandless was that living without commitment was a positive thing and to strip any bare essentials. Penn portrays a harmonious outlook of McCandless communing with nature through a split screen combined with close up shots depicting the natural environment. In addition, Penn captures a 360 degree panning shot of McCandless in the mountains, where he is at his pinnacle and feels momentarily completely free from society’s constraints. The viewers are positioned to feel greater appreciation for McCandless’ motivations for trying to find peace through nature, by the juxtaposition of him at his peak and flashbacks of his unfortunate domestic environment. In comparison Davidson describes the natural world as “tame, benign and giving” where she believes “our greatest communication lay in the sheer joy of our surroundings”. Davidson overcomes her conflicts and eventually no longer relies on routines and rituals that she fell back on heavily. She begins to slowly reject her past and discard her schedules. An example of this was when she abandoned her clock, which contrasts with McCandless’ beanie. Davidsons evolution is reiterated when she is for the second time, confronted with the wild camels, however this time she acts on instincts and doesn’t shoot. Her growth is further tested when faced with the obstacle of burying Diggity or allowing her to naturally decay into the surface of the ground- “[she] didn’t bury her”. Davidsons growth denies her from falling back on rituals which symbolises her newfound maturity growth, whereas McCandless doesn’t ever overcome his conflicts.

Both Tracks and Into the Wild explore the link between one’s personal growth and environment. Both McCandless and Davidson escape from the restraints of their lives and experience profound conversion over the course of their journeys. Thus, both Davidson and Penn comment on the versatile nature of the environment around being influential in sculpting each stage of the journey of self-discovery and transformation. Ultimately, McCandless approaches his journey with ignorance and naivety and views it as a threat he must conquer, which eventually leads him to his death, whereas Davidson submits herself to the wild by finding new ways to learn and adapt to it.

Introduction

Plastic can be valuable in so many ways; worldwide, people can purchase about one million plastic drinking bottles per minute and use about five trillion disposable plastic bags per year; mostly, people use plastic only once and then throw it away. People dispose of plastic anywhere in the environment; this makes plastic ubiquitous thus becoming a threat to the natural environment. Production of plastic products began after World War 11; plastics made it possible for people to travel into space by lightning jets thus saving fuel, and led to the production of helmets, bottles for clean drinking water, and creation of incubators (Andrés Hugo Arias, 2018, pp. 1-327).

From 1950 to 1970, plastic production was in small numbers thus easy to manage plastic waste. In 1990, plastic production had tripled in number so was plastic waste. In 2000, the number of plastic produced increased at a high rate leading to a rise in plastic waste disposal. Now human beings produce approximately three hundred million tons of plastic per year; this means that in 1950, production of plastic rose from 2.3 million to 450 million tons by 2016. Yearly, approximately 8 million tons of plastic get into oceans through coastal nations. Researchers claim that human beings have made about 9 billion tons of plastic since 1950 and 70% of plastic ends up in the natural environment.

Therefore, the rate of plastic production has grown at a high rate compared to other materials. Furthermore, people have changed from producing durable plastics to single-use plastic waste. About 99% of plastics are made from dirty nonrenewable resources such as coal, oil, and natural gas; if this continues, the plastic industry will have used about 20% total of oil consumption in the world by 2050.

The paper’s main objective is to show the problem of plastic waste as a pollutant to the environment, its effect on climate change, and the possible solutions. The paper will encourage minimum usage of plastic, discourage waste recycling, and advocate for different packaging of goods and services that leads to less emission of carbon dioxide and energy to the atmosphere. Reducing plastic package waste and producing sustainable packaging waste facilitate a clean environment. in addition, it will create awareness of the fact that the impact of plastic on humans, oceans, and climates revolves around a common story; this shows that the problems have the same problem, a common cause and most importantly, a similar solution, which is a complete shift away from fossil economy and plastic generated economy that alters with the normal functioning of the environment and the people at large (Andrady, 2003, pp. 20-792).

Climate change and causes

Climate change is also referred to as global warming; it is a shift in global weather phenomena due to an increase in worldwide increasing average temperatures thus altering weather balance and ecosystems. Today, the world is 100 degrees Celsius hotter than in 1850 when people began to record temperatures worldwide. Therefore the average temperature on earth rose by 0.8º Celsius in comparison to the end of the 19th century; the change is evident now compared to average temperatures in the 19th century.

Researchers believe that human activities are the major cause of climate change due to deforestation, burning fossil fuels, agriculture and farming, mining, and waste disposal. Deforestation is the act of clearing a large number of trees; trees are very significant in regulating average temperatures since they release oxygen into the atmosphere and absorb carbon dioxide; trees and bushes tend to keep global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius. However, people clear forests and bushes for purposes of settlement, farming, and building infrastructures such as roads; this increases the chances of releasing carbon dioxide into the air when people burn or clear forests. Burning fossil fuel releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; this is because fuels such as charcoal, gas, and oil for cars and electricity, contain a large content of carbon dioxide leading to climate change. Moreover, intensive farming includes livestock rearing such as cattle and sheep; livestock contributes to the production of methane gas, which is a greenhouse gas that leads to global warming. Farming also contributes to climate change in that, farmers use fertilizers that contain nitrous oxide which increases the chance of global warming. Furthermore, coal mining contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide gas that causes global warming. People burn carbon which reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce carbon dioxide; carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas. Finally, waste disposal such as plastic lead to global warming because, once people dump landfills in the environment, little or no air remains on the surface below, therefore, organisms produce landfill gas as a byproduct of digestion (Hester & Harrison, 2011, pp. 56-72).

Plastic pollution

According to researchers, plastic pollution is a collection of plastic particles and objects on the earth that widely affects humans, wildlife, and wildlife habitat. Plastics are cheap and durable; they are also slow to degrade leading to high levels of plastic pollution in the environment. Plastic emits a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere; when plastic decomposes, it releases chemicals such as bisphenol A which are toxic to the environment. Human beings use plastic to pack food; this is because it is cheap in terms of cost, comfortable, and readily available. Therefore people produce large numbers of plastic waste and dump them into the environment leading to environmental pollution. Sources that produce plastic chemicals consist of, leakage from landfills, worldwide transportation of chemicals from plastic wastes, incineration fumes, and water waste. Landfills and various waste dumps emit methane gas; if people burn waste in the open or use an incinerator, there will be an emission of carbon gas.

Plastic pollution can affect land oceans, and waterways; plastic can affect living organisms specifically marine animals by exposing animals to chemicals within the plastic thus interfering with their physiology. Today, people come into contact with a variety of plastic materials that are made to last for ages; plastics such as synthetic plastics are mainly non-biodegradable and thus remain in the environment for a long when people dump them. Human beings tend to drop most single-use plastic products to the ground, throwing them out of the car, and heaping them on a full rubbish bin; this results in wind carrying them off thus causing pollution in the environment. The recovery rate for plastics is very low; it’s quite impossible to reuse due to low melting point which prohibits the elimination of contaminants during reprocessing and heating. In instances where government regulations mandate plastic recycling, it does not solve the problem of plastic pollution because plastic recycling means proper plastic waste disposal while plastic pollution begins when people dispose of plastic waste improperly (Parker, 2018, pp. 1-44).

Effects of plastic on climate change

Human beings dispose of a large number of plastic wastes in landfills, which eventually decomposes; this results in the release of both carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. In 2008, the disposal of solid waste led to the emission of approximately twenty million tons of carbon dioxide. Energy consumption adds carbon-based molecules in excess to the atmosphere leading to climate change. Burning petroleum products generates carbon dioxide; carbon dioxide traps radiant heat thus prohibiting it from getting out of the earth’s atmosphere. The continuing warm in the air results in a change of climate. Consumption of materials indirectly contributes to the change of climate since it needs energy for mining, extraction, harvesting, processing, and transportation of raw materials; also people need additional energy to manufacture, transport, and get rid of waste products. Research shows that using plastics can lead to less consumption of energy and greenhouse gas emissions compared to other materials. Therefore, in 2009, plastic production was about 230 million tons and the European Union used a quarter of it (Derraik, 2002, pp. 842-852).

Solid waste disposal leads to greenhouse gas emissions through the incineration of plastic waste that people can recycle, thus producing carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Moreover, poorly regulated incinerations pose a huge threat to both human health and the environment. Moreover, the decomposition of anaerobic in landfills generates methane; landfills are the major producer of methane on the land surface. Both carbon and methane tend to interfere with average temperature change, resulting in global warming. In oceans plastic wastes affect water animals by choking and smothering them; thus plastic kills the animals thus increasing the chances of carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere. Small particles called microplastics break down and are easily ingested by marine animals such as plankton and other fish that people eat; planktons play a very big role in absorbing carbon dioxide from the water and air. Heat and sunlight make plastics emit strong greenhouse gasses that affect climate negatively; the hotter the planet gets, the more plastic breaks down into ethylene and methane resulting in climate change and the cycle continues (DeVries, 2005, pp. 79-96).

Solution

Recycling

In the United States, recycling, burning waste in energy facilities, and landfilling are the main methods of management of plastic waste by Municipal Solid Waste. In 2015, MSW managed about 35 million tons of plastic waste; this was approximately 13 % of the total MSW produced in that year. Landfilling was mainly used as a handling method for plastic waste; this accounted for 75.4 percent of plastic generated in MSW; the rest underwent recycling or incineration.

Plastic recycling is a physical process meant to recover materials without necessarily interfering with the molecular form of the polymers; it has greenhouse benefits over other methods of waste disposal. Producing new products using recycled plastic packaging substances is really efficient in terms of emission of greenhouse gas compared to manufacturing plastic products using new raw materials; this is because recycling plastic materials saves energy than manufacturing plastic materials using new raw products. Therefore, recycling reduces the emission of greenhouse gas by reducing the extraction of raw materials and preventing gas emissions from manufacturing raw materials.

The main plastic-consuming countries such as North America and Europe depend on international trade for recycling plastics and not processing plastics at their own environmental cost and labor; this is because low-grade plastic waste that consists of multi-layered and post-consumer plastic packaging is specifically hard to separate and process. However, recycling cannot decrease emissions of greenhouse gas alone; but researchers continue to depend on plastic recycling as a major solution to the plastic crisis (Tsz Yan Cheung, 2018, pp. 1038-1052).

Landfilling.

Landfilling is to bury waste disposal materials, particularly as a method of reclaiming and filling in excavated pits. Fossil landfill wastes do not emit greenhouse gases nor contribute to the carbon sink. Landfilling plastic waste reduces climate change more than incineration; it is most suitable where a collection system is not available. However, landfills are not a long-term solution since they generate acids through the decomposition of organics that drain heavy metals from plastic into the ground.

Use less plastic

The most effective way to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from plastic waste is to facilitate the reduction of plastic production and encourage waste prevention methods. Source reduction is the process of producing and consuming fewer plastics, and plays a significant role in decreasing the emission of greenhouse gas from raw materials during manufacturing; it prevents greenhouse gas emissions all through the life cycle. Research shows that waste prevention is the best method for preventing climate change; it can lead to the reduction of 18 million tons of carbon dioxide if waste generation goes down to 1990 levels. Source reduction includes replacing plastic with other materials to serve a similar role; it continues to depend on disposal items, bioplastic, and lightweight plastic. Therefore, strategies that are most efficient are those that allow the use of reusable and refill-friendly methods in order to prevent waste production, to begin with (Andrady, 2003, p. 778).

In conclusion, plastic waste plays a very big role in changing the average temperature. However, people can use various ways to prevent an increase in climate change due to plastic waste; this includes stopping the use and production of single-use disposable plastic materials; this is the most effective and direct way of dealing with the plastic crisis. Moreover, stopping the construction of new gas, new oil, and petrochemical infrastructure, until the implementation of new ideas is put in place. Moreover, already existing plastic infrastructure and fossil fuel mandate that pipelines, gas from fossil fuel, and facilities should be captured and not vented or flared; this can reduce the rate of global warming worldwide (DeVries, 2005, pp. 55-60).

In addition, zero -a waste system is another strategy for reducing direct plastic-related emissions; this reduces the burning of plastic materials; it includes technologies such as pyrolysis, plastic-to-fuel, and gasification. Zero-waste decreases greenhouse gas indirectly by improving source separation, collection, and upstream approaches such as banning of bottled water. Furthermore, an increase in recycling and a combination with zero-waste systems and bans on new infrastructures can reduce the rate of unnecessary production of plastic, and encourage investment in systematic changes that are necessary for making a circular economy excel. Nations can also enforce and adopt targets for decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources and fossils energy including the plastic lifecycle as a whole; implementing these targets will both address and reduce the impact of plastic on climate change; it also changes the bigger fossil economy in that human beings embed plastic thus assist in protecting communities, human rights, human health from threats of climate change. Therefore, when people use the above strategies, by the year 2050, the rate of global warming will have reduced to about 55 percent (Sabine Pahl, 2017, pp. 697-699).

References

1. Andrady, A. L. (2003). Plastics and the Environment. Environmental Health, 20-792.
2. Andrés Hugo Arias, J. E. (2018). Marine Pollution and Climate Change. Climate Change, 1-327.
3. Derraik, J. G. (2002). ‘The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review’. Marine Pollution Bulletin.
4. DeVries, J. (2005). The impact of plastics on the environment. Reference Services Review, 79-96.
5. Hester, R. E., & Harrison, R. M. (2011). Marine Pollution and Human Health. Human health, 56-75.
6. Parker, L. (2018). ‘We Depend on Plastic. Now We’re Drowning in It. NationalGeographic.com.
7. Sabine Pahl, K. J. (2017). Channeling passion for the ocean towards plastic pollution. Nature Human Behaviour, 697-699.
8. Tsz Yan Cheung, L. F.-M.-F. (2018 ). University halls plastics recycling: a blended intervention study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1038-1052.

Mountain biking has become a very popular sport over the last decade. New biking trails are opening up everywhere allowing for quick access to nature and everything that it has to offer. Many people enjoy biking as it allows them to spend quality time with loved ones, exercise in a fun way and explore the great outdoors. That being said, mountain biking has attracted a negative side. This can be seen in Palm Springs California. Doug Scott, the author of “keep bikes off our wilderness trails”, explains that a conflict has arisen over the issue of bikes being allowed in wilderness areas and on wilderness trails. Some say bikes in the wilderness are a positive thing, while others consider it a negative (Scott Par 1). I will be arguing in this essay that bikes should be allowed on wilderness trails as they do not cause a threat to the environment, and that biking can bring actual aid to a wilderness area.

Palm Springs California is home to some of the best wilderness trails in the world. It is world-renowned for its views and scenic routes. Some of the best mountain biking in the world are available. According to Scott, “These last vestiges of our wild heritage” (Scott, par. 2) have been the subject of a fierce battle in recent years. This battle resides around whether or not to allow bikes on wilderness trails. This may not seem like a big deal but there are larger problems to be taken into account. Scott explains that allowing bikes on our wilderness trails could open up a precedent that would encourage further efforts to open up the wilderness. This would threaten the natural environment and leave it susceptible to damage. The preservation of wilderness areas that have been untrammeled by man is the utmost priority as these areas need to be maintained (Scott, par. 2). This has been a hot topic and many different opinions have been shared. Many have argued for wilderness to remain untouched, this being with no interference from cyclists. Others have argued that there will be little to no impact on the present and that they should be allowed. After all, there are certain parks in America not run by the federal government that allows cyclists. There have been no major impacts with the present. Scott explains that bikers are unable to ride on the trails in the first place due to a law established in 1964 known as the Wilderness Act. This law forbids the use of any mechanical transport in federal wilderness areas. However, many cyclists are arguing that when the law was established, mountain bikes were not yet popular or widely used. (Scott par. 4). Scott touches on the point that if Congress knew about mountain bikes, they would have allowed them and considered their presence in the wilderness (Scott par 4). Unfortunately when the law was established bikes did not yet exist which raises the question of how effective old laws are. However, there are certain cases where motorized vehicles are allowed in the wilderness. Scott explains that many park rangers can use whatever it takes to rescue a person who is in danger. He continues to explain that Disabled people may use non-gasoline-powered wheelchairs and that Snowmobiles and motorboats are allowed for subsistence hunting and fishing in wilderness areas (Scott Par 6). Many people argue that if this is allowed biking should be as well.

In a greater sense, the law is really about protecting our wilderness and making sure that it does not get damaged. Scott emphasizes that if the law was jeopardized this would put the American wilderness in danger (Scott Par 12). This law was put in place for a reason. Scott references certain points stated by Senator Lee. A well-known senator in the US. Lee has argued that this legislation is intended to strengthen and enrich the American enjoyment of the outdoors while making it easier for people to bike in wilderness areas. The preservation of American wildlife is what is at stake here. There is a lot of tradition rooted in this argument as well (Scott Par 9). People don’t want to go against laws because change is questionable. They are not against biking but they do see it as a threat to wilderness areas and wilderness law. Scott explains that 600 million acres have been set aside as national parks, forests, and federal lands. This is an extra layer of safeguarding for wilderness protection. Much of the rest is available to cyclists. Wilderness areas are set aside for protection and that’s the black and white of it. (Scott par 4).

The article accurately tells both sides of the story and summarises the positives and negatives of having mountain bikes in the wilderness. A notable point in the article relating to the precedent that bikes on wilderness trails could set explained that the introduction of bikes would cause motorized vehicles to use the trails and destroy them. This is a compelling point as it lays out the unknown impacts that bikes will have and questions whether they should be introduced. Another notable point in the article refers to the lack of knowledge congress had about bikes due to the fact that bikes had not yet been established. Bikes are considered to be mechanical forms of transportation so they, unfortunately, fall under the list of things that are banned in the wilderness according to law. This is interesting considering that other mechanical things similar to bikes are used in the wilderness currently. Things such as cross-country skiing involved a mechanical component similar to biking. The main point of the essay really stood out the compromise between the two arguments. It is explained that in the end the argument really comes down to protecting our natural environments. There can be a compromise worked out between bikers and the opposition but it needs to be a very detailed one with certain rules and regulations. I enjoyed this part of the article the most as it leaves the reader off on a good note and does not create a bias for one side or the other. I found this so compelling this I changed my opinion on the topic.

As per my thesis, I will be arguing in this essay that bikes should be allowed on wilderness trails as they do not cause a threat to the environment, and that biking can bring actual aid to a wilderness area.

My first argument is the environmental impact of bikes. Many think that bikes cause excessive wear and tear on trails while hikers do just as much damage. John Fisch the author of “responses to the 10 most common arguments against allowing mountain bikes in wilderness Areas” explains that independent scientific research has proven that given similar conditions, hiking and biking wear on the land is similar, and both are far less severe than equestrian use, which is allowed in Wilderness areas. With that being said, the wear on the trails is the same in the end (Fisch, sect. 4). Fisch explains that like trail impact, wildlife impact is also falsely assumed to be greater from bikes. Again, multiple studies show that a variety of species flush at similar distances and with similar frequency from hikers and cyclists. Some species even flushed more frequently and at greater distances from hikers than from cyclists.” (Fisch, sect. 4) In the end, hikers have a bigger environmental impact than cyclists concluding the first point of my thesis.

Secondly, biking can bring financial stability to certain areas that have an abundance of wilderness. If we are so focused on preserving our natural areas and keeping them safe why not have extra funds to support this? If wilderness trails allowed mountain bikers they would have the ability to tell them for a riding session. This is usually through a daily park pass. This money goes right into the pocket of the park and can aid in the preservation and sustainability of the environment. If trails do get damaged by bikes the funds are there to repair them due to the income from the riders. More money allows the park to implement more maintenance staff, park rangers, and game wardens who hold the frontline for wildlife protection. Andrew Fenton, the author of “how mountain biking is saving tiny towns around the world” explains that most mountain bike riders are wealthier than average and that there easily convinced to try new trails and travel long distances. This could be beneficial for an area in need (Fenton, Par. 3). Andrew Fenton also explains that the financial benefits can be huge with upward gains of 7.6 million for areas that have wilderness bike trails. There is a lot of profit to be made from riders and there are many positive aspects that come with their introduction of them(Fenton Par 3).

Overall, I strongly believe that bikes should be allowed in the wilderness. Throughout this essay, I have accurately summarized the article, laid out some compelling points, and startedне my own opinion on the issue. While I was writing this essay I really enjoyed tying everything together and drawing out larger implications from the text. Both sides of the essay’s argument were compelling and allowed me to rethink mine in a different way. My own attitudes towards the essay were that it was written with strong points and it reflected well on its given topic of whether bikes should be in the wilderness. The larger impact or message in the essay is essential that we should always protect our wilderness environment to allow it to be preserved for years and decades to come.

I feel that the effect of the dam you say is a little over-exaggerated and wrong. I feel the reserve is a much better idea for the people because the dam brings in people to fish and do other adventurous things on the river but before since it was just a river there wasn’t much attention to Glen Canyon. Edward abbey uses a sense of anger, sadness, and other emotions to try and convince the audience that he is right, I’m here to beg the differ.

If the government didn’t build the dam then the amount of water that was filled up in the dam would have overfilled Lake Powell. Lake Powell would have made it impossible to get to the canyon if this dam wasn’t built. “Much more significant is the fact that plant life, because of the unstable water line, cannot establish itself on the shores of the reservoir”- Hardin says. But, if it means it brings in more money I think the government would build it and make more money than listen to Hardin and not make any money on it.

They needed to use the lake to store waste and other disposable things. Even though, Lake Powell is a very good place to go. I’m sure the government would much rather have a place to put all waste than to have it on the streets and all the canyons. Yes, they know that they are taking away a beautiful place but that’s why they built a reservoir to make up for that and to be able to keep everywhere else clean just not Lake Powell anymore. Dams are also a very good source of electric energy that could provide a lot of energy to homes.

Edward Abbey’s sense of sadness is very disturbing and will make an audience feel bad for him and be on his side for the lake.“You will rediscover a small and imperfect sampling of the kind of experience that was taken away from everybody when the oligarch and politicians condemned our river for purposes of their own”- Hardin says, He uses ethos as a way to make you feel bad, and also uses logos to get the point around to all readers and to really enforce it with anger. Audiences should really look past this and look at the bigger picture, Would you rather have a whole canyon of waste or just have lake Powell?

Do not destroy the greenery just to spoil the scenery. Many of us tend to disregard the importance of nature like trees and just focus on doing things that can satisfy them. I am Alyana Nadine Enriquez and I am here to encourage you to limit the use of natural resources to avoid flooding. My three main points are limitation of natural resources provides more vegetation cover, the limitation of natural resources reduces the outcome of climate change, and implementing the three R’s to reduce the use of natural resources. Because prevention is the better solution to any degradation.

My first point is the limitation of natural resources provides more vegetation cover. In our society today, we are more concerned about building houses, factories, and even roadways that reduce the vegetation cover of a certain area. But the thing that we forget is that the vegetation cover helps us to prevent flooding. The more vegetation there is in an area, the greater the amount of rainfall that is captured and the less water there is available to flow over the surface (Office of the Queensland Chief Scientist, 2018). The lack of vegetation helps the water to flow on the surface than be absorbed by the soil, that’s why we have to reduce the use of our vegetation cover to prevent that from happening. That is why prevention is the better solution to any degradation.

My second point is the limitation of natural resources reduces the outcome of climate change. Fuel consumption and other man-made activities can lead to climate change. And climate change can be one of the factors why there is a higher percentage of flooding in our country. Because climate change can worsen the intensity of tropical storms in several ways, including by making record rainfall more likely and by causing sea levels to rise, which can raise the risk of storm surge (Retrieved from https://www.acclimatise.uk.com/2018/06/07/global-warming-could-be-causing-tropical-storms-to-slow-down-and-last-longer/). In order for us the reduce the effects of climate change and prevent flooding we have to stop now the overuse of our natural resources, abusing our nature does not really gives us the satisfaction but rather a devastation we can never imagine, that is why prevention is the better solution in any degradation.

My last point is implementing the three R’s to reduce the use of natural resources. The last thing we can do is to implement the use of the three R’s, through this we can delay the exhaustion of the natural resources of the earth. It also reduces the amount of waste that we use, and because of that, it saves land and money that the community spends to dispose of the waste. The money that we save through the three R’s can be used in doing projects to prevent natural calamities like flooding. Since it reduces the waste we use, this can help to prevent the clogging of canals in the area, which can be a big factor to prevent flooding. The three R’s reduces greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate change (EPA, 2016). Because of that, it can reduce the number of typhoons that are coming to our country and avoid flooding. That is why prevention is the better solution to any degradation.

Flooding can lead to a disastrous phenomenon where our own ignorance is the main cause. That is why we have to act now before it’s too late. First, reduce the use of vegetation cover, second, limit the use of resources to reduce the outcome of climate change and lastly make use of the three R’s which are reuse, reduce and recycle. If we do not act right now we can be the killer of our own lives. So I’m gonna ask you, do you really have to spoil yourself today and destroy the great future that awaits you tomorrow?

Summary

Michael Crichton creatively portrayed the situation of the world and fear among people about global warming essay, overpopulation, health threats, excessive supply of warned materials, and advanced technology in ‘Let’s Stop Scaring Ourselves”. In that article, the author indicated that people burdened themselves with exposed suspicions and fabricated alarms by experiencing life issues. He witnessed the distress of global fears among people where they onetime stressed about the mass starvation and growing population and at another were concerned about the decline of adults in the workforce as technology replaced them. Globally, the game of fear is dramatic and people associated dread with anything such as smartphones with brain damage, and Y2K, swine flu with other transformations (Crichton, 1). Crichton critically indicated that people are exhausted with the daily reports that the end is near and concluded the article with the positive message that readers should live without fears and take doomsday predictions back of their minds to live happily.

Analysis

The analysis of Michael Crichton’s piece of writing directed people to stop fearing the basic transformations of life and develop the courage to face it commendably. It all started with the melting glaciers in 1945 and Newsweek stated the outrageous news of the inclining rate of temperature to 30 degrees in the 21st century. On the other side, the UN reported a rise of only 4 degrees in the next 100 years. He further moved his discussion towards the worries of a growing population by 2030, but the world faced a straight decrease of 6 billion population over time. He additionally highlighted the charge of technology in changing the dynamics of the global systems that ultimately take over people in the job market. Along with it, he magnified the fear of people for diseases and their association with untrue reasons.

After pointing out the exaggerated dreads related to untrue events, he wrapped up the article to inspire people specifically by sharing his example and admiring them that worrying about such global disasters offered you nothing but the severe hassle that is pointless and has no worth in real life. He encouraged people to show up in difficult situations without spreading panic over the globe because all those disasters are part of the world’s life cycle and it would not take any life. Other than that, he took the example of science fiction movies, in which robots ruined the world but in real human beings are responsible to set the functions of the robot and can fail the program software at any time. Hence, worldwide fears are generated only due to the overreaction of people over the emerging changes in the world. In this way, people need to act calmly and support each other to deal with that fear and take problems with a grain of salt (Crichton, 1). The article is a collection of emerging uncertainties in the globe, but Crichton portrayed a substantial message to the youth and awaken them to stop fear in their lives and live once and be happy anyways.

By extolling his work, he dominantly uses his life stories to reflect the overall article and motivate people to try at least once for living a bold life because the emerging fears are fake and vastly exposed to the people by the media reporting. In the corresponding article, he underlined the fact that people can excessively overreact in the many situations that spread anxiety worldwide. Further, he sarcastically describes the process of fear as the pendulum of public opinion and panic in the society that exaggerated the chain of fear in the global arena from the 20th century. Therefore, with his life stories, he encouraged people who faced a similar scare like him in their adolescence that fearing the world transformations would not ease their life but the audacity to deal with the crises changed the game of distress internationally.

In response to the Crichton article, the author hit the bull eye on the emerging fears of life where people are fearful of important and unimportant problems in life and created panic in superfluous conditions. The message of the Let’s Stop Scaring Ourselves is factual that dreading crises develops stress in society as highlighted in the case of Y2K, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, global warming, etc. but those uncertainties have not spoiled the generations. Consequently, people need to move ahead and peacefully deal with the disturbing situations on a larger scale and create awareness with authentic sources, not fake ones that imposed terror in the region. If people take disciplinary actions by avoiding fears, they can manage to survive in ant fearful conditions with grace and satisfactorily.

References

1. Crichton, Michael. ‘Let’s stop scaring ourselves.’ Parade 5 (2004): 6-7.

Introduction

Water shortage is a situation where the available water cannot meet the demands of the population sufficiently. With the continued rise of the population and industrialization, there is much pressure on water sources to serve the growing needs of the people. The rise in demand for water has led to water scarcity due to high usage rates of this natural resource. But because water is a basic commodity for all organisms, the current water scarcity is at the moment one of the potential sources of conflict in the world today (Pereira et al., 20).

Discussion

So far, humans have exhausted all the natural water sources available, including aquifers, yet most countries have not been able to develop methods of recycling water.

Effects of global warming have also led to a change in climate change leading to drought and hunger. Due to change in weather patterns, rivers and lakes have dried up leading to the water crisis, which has eventually created other problems since human depend on water for economic and domestic uses. Today, people are forced to move long distances in search of water, which is a basic commodity.

Water shortage has led to regional and community conflicts when people fight over control of the water sources leading to deaths and displacement of people from their areas of settlement. Ethnic fights, political interference, and conflicts in many parts of the world have led to the emergence of economic, social, psychological, and structural issues. Ethnic and religious tensions over depleting resources have been accompanied by competition and political conflicts between different communities (Filho, 14).

As such, governments have obligations to protect its population against any emerging issues that arise due to water shortage (Marsalek, 8).

It has been observed that water shortage contributes more problems than just drought and hunger; the government should, therefore, undertake strategies to address the same considering the great implication that water shortage can have in an economy (Weaver, 8). The government can help solve the issue of water shortage by creating awareness on water recycling, protecting existing water bodies, and doing desalination to have more clean water.

There is a need to solve the water shortage problem as a matter of urgency because of the following reasons. Firstly, water recycling will prevent the outbreak of water-related conflicts and deaths, which is usually caused by the struggle of water shortage (Weaver, 23). Secondly, constant food supply that is largely dependent on the water will be sustained, thereby eliminating hunger and starvation that leads to deaths and stagnation of economic progress of a country.

Thirdly, social problems associated with lack of water as well as psychological impacts can be solved by giving people access to potable water (Pereira et al., 43). It is the role of the government to make the economy of a country stable by making its population self-sufficient; water recycling ensures that the existing water sources are well protected. Finally, the government has a responsibility of protecting human rights that include access to clean and safe water as espoused in the MDG goals (Filho, 20).

Conclusion

Different countries face varying challenges in as far as the provision of clean water to its population is concerned depending on its economic development level and geographic location.

Notwithstanding this, any government must provide access to clean water to its citizens, and this is best achieved when awareness of water recycling is emphasized. It is thus the recommendation of this paper that water recycling is every government priority to ensure safe and clean water. Once access to clean water is achievable economic, social, and political stability will also be guaranteed.

Even though you may think this speech is rubbish. Please don`t throw it away. Recycle it instead. Did you know that the energy saved from recycling one glass bottle is enough to power a light bulb for up to 4 hours? That`s a lot of energy saved! Recycling has been around us for many years although the amount of waste on the planet is accumulating every day, which can be minimized if the majority of people begin to recycle. I would like you to join those individuals and activists who are speaking out about recycling. The environment is suffering as a result of all the pollution and waste produced by humans. Therefore, recycling should be mandatory.

We can save money and resources by recycling. Recycling reduces the number of resources such as metal, glass, paper, and plastic that are wasted and sent into landfills. This allows businesses to rely less on raw resources, which take more energy to produce. While landfill capacity may appear to be plenty, you would not feel the same if a new landfill was built in your neighborhood. Some people believe that burying waste will cause it to decompose on the earth. While this may occur, the absence of water, air, and light in a sealed landfill prevent the rubbish from properly decomposing. Every day, brand-new items are used, but all that is required is to place them in a recycling bin or bag, which might result in many products being reused. This would benefit the environment while also saving a significant amount of money. People that refuse to recycle are not interested in conserving energy on the globe.

Recycling is important because it saves energy and protects natural resources. Take paper for instance. Paper originates from trees. Now imagine a forest with half the amount of these trees. Every year, almost 4 billion trees are felled for wood and paper products. Recycling paper items such as books and newspapers would enable more trees to be preserved in the world. Recycling items, from trees to minerals to marine resources, is critical to preserving natural resources. Natural resources are deteriorating quickly, owing to an increase in the usage of consumable items and packaging

In comparison to incineration and landfilling, recycling generates cash to help pay for itself. The more people that recycle, the less expensive it becomes. Others, on the other hand, may counter that we recycle as much as we can. Many easily recyclable products are still being discarded. Glass containers are not recycled in 73% of cases, magazines are not recycled in 77% of cases, and plastic soda and milk bottles are not recycled in 66% of cases. They set a goal of 50 percent for recycling; many municipalities recycle 40 percent or more, which is commendable but insufficient. Do most areas have less than twenty years of landfill capacity who wants to live next to a new landfill? Landfills are responsible for 57 percent of all methane emissions one of the most potent causes of global warming. About 23 of the operating landfills do not have liners to protect groundwater and drinking water sources which is bad for the environment. Some may argue that recycling doesn`t save trees or other natural resources and that recycling only saves non-renewable resources, but by recycling you are reducing the demand for raw materials especially as the world`s demand for new stuff has led to more of the poorest and# most vulnerable people being displaced from their homes.

What is the greenhouse effect and what are the main greenhouse gases?

A greenhouse effect is the heating phenomenon of the Earth and its environment due to sunlight incident radiation energy captured by greenhouse gases especially water vapors and carbon dioxide. This process occurs naturally, it happens whenever an incident striking shortwaves attains the gaseous layer surrounding the Earth, one portion is reflected back into space normally, and the other part is captured and emitted on the planet by greenhouse gases accumulated in the Earth’s troposphere. Consequently, this phenomenon keeps the globe warm and helps to maintain heat momentum. therefore, this natural process enhances Earth to support life smoothly and make it livable. Currently, the Greenhouse effect is being used as a special way of growing crops known as Greenhouse farming, it is mainly used in colder regions and in areas prone to climatic disasters, and also it is useful in places sunlight scarcity dominates, people use greenhouse gases to collect the sunlight, they help planted crops to attain the temperature which is required for the growth of the plant. Hence, these gases play the role of the greenhouse effect as they trap the radiation from the sun to support the growth of the plant, simply greenhouse effect is used in special greenhouse farming to grow special crops.

Advantages of the greenhouse effect

Without the greenhouse gases, all heat generated from the sun would have escaped from the Earth and it would have become cold and barren, it means no life would have been possible without the greenhouse effect, simply greenhouse effect is very important for the existence of life on Earth, and also to tackle the problem of food security in a region prone to climate disasters greenhouse farming system is a unique tool to do that.

The disadvantage of the greenhouse effect

As the surface temperature keep raising nowadays, from different sources such as burning fossil fuels, industrial emission, and automobiles exhaust, all those scenarios trigger Global warming, which is the increase of Earth’s average surface temperature due to the excess effect of greenhouse gases, when the surface temperature continues to raise it to lead to the rise of sea level which comes from glaciers and polar caps partially melt down, the areas surrounding the sea suffer a threat of flooding. The change in seasonal pattern is also influenced by the temperature which keeps raising, this change affects the natural habitat of wildlife, because the natural habitat of wildlife depends on the seasonal pattern, due to random and unexpected increases in the temperature, nowadays global warming is the threat to the existence of life on earth.

Greenhouse gases are mainly composed of carbon dioxide which contributes 40%, Methane with a 19% contribution, Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which contributes 17%, Nitrous oxide contributes 12%, Ozone with an 8% contribution and water vapors with a 2% contribution of the greenhouse effect, the situation today on the matter of atmospheric pollution and warming of the Earth, the three major contributors got increased at remarkable extent since the 19th century at the start of industrial revolution accelerated by human activities. Carbon dioxide remains a crucial gas in developed countries and developing countries because it is a relevant source of energy and mainly depends on fossil fuels.

Biology Presidential Speech

For years, the government has opted to not worry about environmental conditions affecting our planet and our country. With time, the planet has been deteriorating due to human impact. If we continue to ignore what is going on with our planet, generations ahead of ours will experience a world much different than ours. Something has to be done and something will be done.

The deterioration of our planet is now being noticed by people all over our country. An example is the sea level rise in a major coastal city like Miami, Florida. The United States is currently running out of nuclear, coal, gas, and especially oil reserves. The less we have of these reserves, the more amount of money we have to spend to obtain them. This doesn’t help the American people or our economy.

Efforts need to be made by the government and the people to help out in this situation. If a citizen is not recycling a five-dollar tax will be put upon the person. The tax increases a dollar each time the person does not recycle. So if a person doesn’t recycle for 3 weeks, fifteen dollars will be taken out of their paycheck. This has to be done because even though the proof of what is going on is right outside, there will still be people that will ignore it.

To make sure that people actually recycle, we will add sensors to all recycling bins, on the lid, and inside. When someone opens the bin by raising the lid, the sensor will log the day and time it was opened. The sensor on the inside will be able to sense whether or not there is anything inside of it. One may ask, how will the government pay for these sensors? The government will use some money from food and agriculture taxes.

A non-renewable resource is a resource of economic value that cannot be readily replaced by natural means at a quick enough pace to keep up with consumption. That means that whatever non-renewable resource we use, cannot be generated again by nature. That also means that when we all of the non-renewable resources, there won’t be any more to use. The government can’t just refill it because there is no more.

Currently, the amount of Nuclear energy left is 135 years, there are 150 years of coal left, there is 60 years’ worth of oil left, and 86 years of gas left. The number of years seems like a lot and it seems like we still have time but the end date for each one of these comes faster than you think. Sometimes, we must sacrifice something for the greater good of mankind. Meaning that the money the government receives and private companies must be sacrificed for mankind to survive.

The amount of money required to use nuclear energy is about $21.50 per kilowatt hour. The amount of money required to use coal is about $3.08 per short ton. The amount of money required to use oil is $36 a barrel. The amount of money required to use gas is around $2.45.

To have nuclear energy, uranium atoms need to be split. That process is called fission. Coal, there are a couple of ways it is retrieved. There are surface mining and underground mining. Surface mining is the technique used when coal is found near the surface. Underground mining is used to extract coal lying deep beneath the surface. Surface mines use large earth-moving equipment, such as draglines, shovels, and loaders. To have oil, there is a process called oil drilling to retrieve oil from inside the earth. To have gas, there are two ways to retrieve it. Most natural gas in America is retrieved through a “horse head” pump, which moves up and down to lift a rod in and out of a wellbore, bringing the gas to the surface. Another technique, commonly known as fracking, creates tiny cracks in the rocks located by natural gas reservoirs.

Nuclear power plants use uranium as fuel. When it is mined, high amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the air. Air pollution from coal factories can cause smog, acid rain, and toxins. Oil pollution can have a devastating effect on the water environment, it spreads over the surface in a thin layer that stops oxygen from getting to the plants and animals that live in the water. It also harms animals and insects. Gas also affects the environment. The combustion of natural gas produces great amounts of sulfur, mercury, and particulates.

A renewable resource is a natural resource that will replenish to replace the portion depleted by usage and consumption, either through natural reproduction or other recurring processes in a finite amount of time in a human time scale. There are wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass resources.

Since all these are renewable resources, they all get replenished over a period of time. This is great for the environment because then we would only gain and not run out of. One might ask, why don’t private companies use renewable resources? The private companies use non-renewable resources because it benefits them financially while at the same time, they are destroying the planet. If a CEO of one of these companies were asked if what their company was doing was worth it, he or she would probably say yes. They would probably say yes because they are the ones benefitting from it.

The amount to use wind power is about 1.3 million dollars. The amount to use solar energy is about $2.58 per kilowatt. The amount to use geothermal energy is about $2500 per kilowatt. The amount to use biomass is about $3,000 per kilowatt.

For wind power to be obtained, a wind turbine can be installed. For solar power to be obtained, solar panels can be installed. The steam from magma-heated rocks can be used for energy. The heat received from biomass can be retrieved from the heat coming off of garbage when it is hit with direct sunlight.

These renewable resources can actually help the environment instead of harming it. One way that wind power can help the environment is by not polluting the air like factories. It relies on the wind, not a machine. Just like wind power, solar power does not need a machine that puts pollution into the air. It gains all its energy from the sun. Geothermal energy can be extracted without burning fossil fuels. Just like all these other resources, biomass does not release pollution into the air as well.

Air pollution can cause symptoms like coughing, headaches, and eye, nose, and throat irritation. Air pollution can also land people in the hospital. Pollution can also cause weather problems. Pollution can cause smog and even acid rain. An example of this problem is the Great Smog of London of 1952. The air pollution that was going into the air at the time, caused a great smog to fall all over London. This goes to show that pollution is not a problem that has just started to occur, this a problem that has been around for some time.

By polluting the air, the economy benefits because not as much money was spent. If a non-renewable resource is used, like natural gas, it is cheaper than using a renewable resource. If all the companies decided to use a renewable resource, as much as that would be nice, it would be too expensive and people don’t like to pay a lot of money for things so companies would most likely use non-renewable resources because it is cheaper.

As the world is progressing and new things are invented supply and demand increase. As time goes on, people want more and more and more. Since people are demanding so much, companies have to make things faster. With renewable resources, things can’t be done as quickly as a non-renewable resources.

It is necessary to decrease the amount of non-renewable energy people use. If citizens use more public transportation and decrease the amount of oil that is used, the government will offer some incentives. The incentives are also applied to citizens who use less coal and natural gas. Some incentives include free vacations, free concert tickets, free sports tickets, and discounted tickets. Pay for these incentives will be an opportunity to win. We will use the money gained from public transportation to pay for these.

To mandate an increase in renewable resources such as solar power and wind power, the government should work with companies that deal with these products. We will try to get a discount for families to install solar panels on top of their homes. We will also work with apartment complexes to put solar panels on top of the buildings. The government would also like to add more wind turbines in rural areas. Those who do this will get an incentive, whether it would be free vacations, free concert tickets, etc.

Every year, the US produces approximately 230 million tons of trash that most of the time end up getting burned at the landfill, and pollution gets sent into the air. If we are putting 230 million tons worth of pollution in the air, imagine how much others are putting in the air. We must do something in hope that others will follow.

People should eat more sustainable foods, such as salads. People need to eat less meat because the animal population in America is decreasing. Whenever meat is processed in a factory, pollution gets sent into the air. If we eliminate meat eating, the meat won’t have to be processed in a factory and pollution won’t be sent into the air. The change would benefit health as well.

Sustainable options for transportation could be using more public transportation such as trains, buses, etc. If people could eliminate using their own combustible transport and use public transport it eliminates a great amount of carbon going into the air. The government will increase the tax at fast food places such as McDonald’s and Burger King.

Another problem we are facing is overpopulation. Mostly what is occurring is that life expectancy is increasing. Life expectancy is currently around 80 years old. To resolve this problem, the government will make more birth control pills so that unexpected children do appear. We suggest people set limits to the number of children they want. The government will use money from the tax increase at fast food restaurants.

This is only the beginning of change. Everyone can do their part. If we do this united, the planet can change for the better and we don’t have to worry about an environmental crisis. It is now or never. It is done or die. If we do something now, there is still a chance, if we don’t, we risk everything.