PMU199 Course Blog

If you bought a Coke recently, you’ve probably noticed that there is a polar bear on the bottle. This is because Coca-Cola has started their Arctic Home project, in cooperation with the World Wildlife Fund. This project is dedicated to “ensure there is a home for the polar bears in the future”. They have donated 2 million dollars for this project, which, although generous, isn’t much, when you think of their 2010 profit of 11.8 billion dollars. This project is dedicated to ”ensure there is a home for the polar bears in the future”.

Polar bears recently have been commercialized as a sign of endangered Artic species due to global warming.  When you think “endangered artic animal”, you automatically think of polar bears. Well recently, in 2008, a study carried out by the IUCN, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, has proven that polar bears are no longer the species that is most at risk of extinction due to ice cap melting because of global warming. The number one species is actually the narwhal, so maybe it should be they who have the honour of being on the iconic coke bottle.

Narwhals are the whales with the spiral tusk, which resembles that of the mythical unicorn. According to Stanford University biologist Terry Root, ”Polar bears are able to adapt a bit while narwhals can’t”. An argued reason for why polar bears are more commercialized than narwhals is that polar bears are white and fluffy which can be seem as cute while narwhals are “not that cute”.

Narwhals have evolved to live in cracks located in the arctic ice, so when it melts, they lose their habitat and are more vulnerable to attack from their predators, such as the killer whale.  They are also restricted to what they eat, Greenland halibut, therefore if they are forced to migrate, they will have lost their only source of nutrition.

In conclusion, the next time when you look at a Coke bottle with a polar bear on it, remember it’s not the only endanger species! Remember the narwhal, the underdog of the arctic, even though it’s not as attractive cute.

For more information visit abc news

As I was doing some research for our first blog assignment, I came across a short quiz that can help get all of you more informed and educated about the effects of Global Warming. Take a look…

Global Warming Facts, Global Warming Information, Global Warming Questions, Quiz – National Geographic.

Just thought it would be cool for you to know. I just finished searching “Climate Models + Society” to find information for my essay, and the course website was the 5th result Google came up with.

          The hurricane forms exactly in the Atmosphere and it is the cause, because water vapor in the clouds forms the hurricane. The temperature of water is needed to cause the hurricane and it has a close relationship with the ocean current. A hurricane is formed in a particular layer in the Atmosphere called, Troposphere. Troposphere is where we live and the air becomes thinner as the gas decreases with height in this layer. Thus, the temperature decreases with the height also. Basically, all weather condition occurs in Troposphere. In Hydrosphere, the hurricane receives a source of energy. It is a result compared to the cause=Atmosphere since the hurricane receives a source of energy in Hydrosphere. 

          An example is given when Hurricane Katrina occurred on August, 28^th, 2005 and it occurred in the Southern Coast of the United States. It involved an extremely large hurricane and a numerous victims. The hurricane hit the United States, which left more than 1, 8000 who lost their lives and there were more than $81 billion dollars in damages.

There were two reasons why Hurricane Katrina happened:

1. Due to the global warming

2. Hurricane occurs from a sea of latitude 5~25 degrees, if temperature of the surface of the sea reaches more than 27 degrees.

          We will be aware of the solution to prevent Hurricane if we know its major source of energy. It is recognized as the latent heat, which is a kind of heat formed when the water vapor turns into the water. The water vapor comes from the sea when it receives heat, but if water vapor becomes water again, the heat will be released after all. This released heat is known as the major source of energy that could form the hurricane. The sea becomes to be the place where it supplies the major energy to the hurricane. I think it is difficult to find a way to prevent the hurricane being formed in a sea. However, if the source of energy keeps close to a continent, we can turn its way to somewhere else to prevent the hurricane. We can do so by pouring huge amount of dry ice into the hurricane, because it will eventually make the heat to move away. The reason why I suggest the dry ice is because the temperature of the dry ice is -70~-80 degrees; it can absorb the heat while it decreases the temperature of surroundings. Thus, it acts as a catcher that takes up latent heat (major source of energy). Nevertheless, we cannot do anything about the damage that occurs from the carbon dioxide. Basically, any object that can absorb the heat will solve the problem. However, the average of the wind velocity for hurricane is 17m/s, which can be converted into 61.2km/h. The speed of the wind per hour blows from 61km while we need to approach to the hurricane and pour something in. The problem is that there is no adequate airplane that can endure the circumstance and at least some tons of the object or the dry ice are needed to throw down, but then we should consider financial issues at the same time. In my opinion, it is barely possible to prevent natural disasters without any damage unless we protect the environment or the nature to reduce the amount of natural disasters.

Do you guys think there any other solutions to the Hurricane?

October 30th, 2006, the British Government released a 700-page report titled the “Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change”. It was written by economist Nicholas Stern chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. The report basically discusses the issue of “global warming” in terms of the world economy. The summary of the review states:

“The Review first examines the evidence on the economic impacts of climate change itself, and explores the economics of stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The second half of the Review considers the complex policy challenges involved in managing the transition to a low-carbon economy and in ensuring that societies can adapt to the consequences of climate change that can no longer be avoided” (You can download the executive summary here)

Basically, the review argues that it would be strongly advised and a smart move to act now about these global warming issues, and that there will be benefits if the companies were to act now, but disaster if we leave it for later. Some of the things discussed:

• For example, the cost of climate change mitigation, basically reducing the severity of the issue, will be 1% of annual GDP by 2050 if we ACT NOW, 5-20% if we act LATER.
• We will gain a benefit of 2.5 trillion dollars, and global depression if we do nothing.
• We must stabilize GHGs, using carbon taxes, we can deploy low-carbon technologies, and we need to reduce 80-90% below 1990 levels by 2050 in developed countries.
• There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if strong collective action starts now.

Like my previous posts suggested, I think that the media is a great way of spreading the word, and now I argue that major corporations are the same as well. May it be Coca-Cola, Apple, Sony, Bose, or Tim Hortons, no matter what it is, all those companies I just listed play a major role in our every day lives. Now if all these major corporations were to adapt to a new sustainability plan to fight back in this war against climate change, I think the world can change. And yes, these corporations focus on the money for most parts, but the Stern Review suggested that profits will be earned!

Of course I don’t understand anything about business or how the economy functions, even a basic understanding of economics will not get me anywhere because I don’t know how it functions in the REAL WORLD, I only know by books how it works. It will be much more complicated than the Stern Review suggests I know, but I believe however complicated it may be, if it’s for the sake of our humanity, isn’t it worth it?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/13/world/asia/satellite-photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?ref=asia

          Montreal Protocol is an international treaty created to preserve the ozone layer by ending the production of a number of substances that are responsible for the ozone depletion. On the other hand, Kyoto Accord is an international treaty and a very complex agreement where countries over the world correspond to decrease the amount of greenhouse gases.

          The Montreal Protocol turned out to be effective despite the amount of costs required to solve the problem. It reduced damage to fisheries, agriculture and materials as well as the cataracts and skin cancers. Also, the potential associated fatalities avoided. On the other hand, despite the efforts put in by the Kyoto Accord from 1997, climate change has worsened and accelerated. This illustrates that it failed to combat global warming that the effort did not get the anticipated results in 2009.

          The positive impact of Montreal Protocol is that it turns out to be very helpful to protect the ozone layer from further depletion. This will eventually help humans to prevent from getting skin cancer and protect plants as well. On the other hand, the negative impact is considered as economic impacts, in which the costs calculated for measures taken internationally to protect the ozone layer. Moreover, the positive impact of the Kyoto Accord is that it will ultimately combat global warming and save the earth and the global environment. However, the negative impact is similar to the Montreal Protocol that huge amount of economic costs have been spent.

          All countries can join together to make an agreement other than those two that exist in order to save the earth and the environment. However, we should consider both positive and negative impacts as well as failure to meet the change before doing so. I think the only way to solve the problems is for all of us to take a responsibility and show interest to the global environment and the earth overall.

Due to excessive consumption of energy, we have caused the global warming, and it seems like we have to either reduce our energy consumption or replace fossil fuel with renewable energy to prevent the global warming. But I don’t think many people are willingness to change their life to reduce carbon dioxide emission. So I researched about the renewable energy, and I was surprised that there are so many studies and researches going on.

You are probably familiar with hydroelectric power, wind energy and solar thermal energy. Hydroelectric power is the largest source of renewable energy in the world. In fact, Canada is the second largest producer in the world, and 11% of Canada primary energy supply is hydroelectric power. Also, biomass, geothermal energy, wind energy and solar thermal energy are major source of renewable energy.  (We can even use chicken feathers as biodiesel fuel!)

One of the renewable energy that interested me was getting biofuel from the world’s garbage. I really like the idea since there is plenty of garbage and dumping the garbage or burning cause problems such as disease and pollutions. Global Change Biology claims that the biofuel from garbage could cut global carbon emissions by 80%. If this can happen, I guess problem is solved J

Nonetheless, our energy consumption still depends on the fossil fuel, and it will take time to develop renewable energy to replace the fossil fuels.  I think to foster the development, we should be more interested and try to take action instead of just waiting for scientists to find a way to solve the problems.