Wow! Beginning to understand how widespread the negative effects of carbon emissions are and realizing that we are truly causing the extinction of millions of species is sickening. Like the article said, "the only answer may be immediate cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels." Recently we have seen a steady increase in the price of gas locally and that will help somewhat since people are limiting how much they drive. But obviously it is not enough. Pushing for more low emissions vehicles and lowering the limit for carbon emission is necessary. With the stricter regulation and better enforcement there should be a drastic decrease from a car emission standpoint. Then looking into the carbon emitting plants and no longer ignoring how much pollution they are causing. Although we are the cause of these problems, we are also the solution. Better education about the carbon emissions will stimulate more action.
Jennifer Gill of the University of East Anglia states that the biggest environmental problem is human population increase. She states, “where human habitation is sparse, reefs remain in almost pristine condition.” I think this is a very important finding that needs more elaboration than just two sentences. I think the coral epidemic is worth publishing, but I wish more concrete evidence was presented. Words like “probably” and climate change is “partly to blame” decrease the researcher’s reliability. As an environmentalist, I would love to see more evidence to support Coghlan’s claim that climate change is to blame. The drastic evolutionary metamorphosis of coral could aid in convincing global warming skeptics.
Overpopulation is definitely one of the leading causes of natural resource degradation and depletion. National Geographic just did a great special about the effects of population on natural resources on a global scale. CNN's Planet in Peril series also does a good job of highlighting the effects of overpopulation, specifically weaving in 4 stories, which I think were from China, Indonesia, the Amazon, and India.This story also hits on a point that is not well highlighted. It states that "different corals – fast-growing but short-lived 'weedy' species – then took over the reefs, outcompeting most of the remaining tree-like corals." This brings up the issue of invasive species and the effects that they have over native vegetation and habitats (in this case corals). I would have liked to see this addressed more by this article, but I'm sure I can find much more information on coral reef degradation and invasive species after further research.
It is frustrating to know that without a new techonology that can cut back carbon emissions significantly that in the next forty years some of our coral reefs will undergo a terible transformation.We know that the biggest problem to the coral reefs are dense populations of humans to the coast. They mention that across the Indian Pacific where human habitation is sparse reefs remain in almost pristine condition. As many of the environmental problems we are faced with today a new technology needed to cut back on carbon emissions
It is extremely sad that beautiful coral is being destroyed due to peoples inablilities to not pollute. The question that plagues me is how do we realy know that its the carbon alone. Would it realy matter if we had double the rainforests? Can we combate "global warming" by using cleaner energy? Has the scientific community collective said that it is real or are they still debating? Lastly, if we can counter global warming by reducing carbon, then can't we cool the planet as well?
Research like this truly brings to life the detrimental effects of carbon emissions. I would like to see all the disbelievers of global warning to try and turn forty years of research and evidence into a "myth".
Post a Comment