week one question

I agree with everyone else that there really isn't one environmental problem that is more important than another. Although some problems, like deforestation may have a larger, more immediate impact, in terms of destruction of habitats and few trees to clean the air, many other issues are just as pressing. If sea levels rise too much, coastlines will change. If the poles warm too much, glaciers and ice coverings will melt. If our climates warm too much, weather patterns will change, most likely causing more severe storms. they are all important global environmental problems.

Living in an environmentally friendly way is also a subjective phrase. on the most basic level, those in the developing, or more accurately, the underdeveloped world are the only ones who live truly environmentally friendly lives. The majority do not drive or use electricity. and they do not consume food at the level that the developed nations do. However, living in the developed world i think that while we may not be completely environmentally friendly in the same respect as the underdeveloped word, the term has come to be a relative term. relative to many other individuals, i try to be environmentally friendly. I recycle at home in NY (DC doesnt seem to believe in recycling), i take cloth bags to the grocery store, i turn the lights off. Everything that i have been taught to do to be "environmentally friendly" i do. Unfortunately i do still drive in DC. I guess i still have some room to become more environmentally friendly.

Tai brings up a good point, it is incredibly hard to pinpoint the most "important" global environmental problem. How can one say that deforestation is more/less important than rising sea levels? It would be hard to convince anyone with strong convictions that one issue is more important to mankind than another. That being said, I think that biodiversity loss is one of the many important global environmental problems. It is among the most important because it is impossible to reverse.
The large variety in species of flora and fauna on earth has come about through billions of years of evolutionary mechanisms. Through the mechanisms of natural selection, species naturally go extinct. There have been five previous mass extinctions that have been seen in the fossil record. However, the current rate of extinction is one thousand times that of the fossil record. What this means is that we are in the middle of the sixth mass extinction. This extinction is believed to be caused by human behavior. Changing natural habitats, introducing non-native species, and over hunting have all contributed to this mass extinction. Once these species are extinct, there is no way to bring them back. The reason why this is such a big problem is there is no feasible way to reverse this extinction through technology or changes in human behavior. Once a species is gone, it's gone for good. It is possible to clean our rivers, re-plant trees, and stop emitting greenhouse gases, however unless we develop some kind of Jurassic Park technology there is no way to bring these species back. The only thing we can do is stop the bleeding, and globally change our practices. As you can see, there are no easy answers here.

I don't really know what I consider the most important global environmental problem. It's overwhelming how many environmental problems there are. Its hard to prioritize a problem such as global warming over water pollution. Also, environmental problems are all, in a sense, related to one another. They affect each other.

Therefore, I think the most important global environmental problem isn't an actual environment problem but the lack of awareness and action of these problems. There are so many problems around us but little being done about them. Environmental problems need to be addressed in domestic and international arenas. Only after environmental indifference is addressed can progress be made against environmental problems.

week 1 essay

I think that the I=PAT equation is a good way to start looking at the environmental problems the earth is facing. It's simple enough, and is pretty easy to remember, but it's also pretty comprehensive. All three are definitely related to each other and affect each other's impact on the environment. I did think that the technology part of the equation is a bit iffy though. Like we discussed in the last class, technology might actually even help the environment in some ways (like solar panels or whatever).
I think affluence is probably the most important and influential part of the equation. As computed in the ecological footprints, we would need a lot more than one earth if everyone lived like an average "modern" person. I actually thought I was going to do okay in that footprint thing, because I walk and commute and I recycle almost everything (I hardly throw anything out;my apartment is full of empty boxes and grocery bags), but I still got a really bad score of 7 earths or something like that because of all the flying around I do. I guess we can't have people flying around all the time.