Carbon Dioxide Graph

1. The x-axis represents the years, from 1990-2030 (40 years), that carbon dioxide emission counts have been derived from.
2. Present-day is in the middle: 1990, the past, is on the left and 2030, the future, is on the right.
3. The y-axis represents the carbon dioxide emission counts in million metric tons. It ranges from 0-45,000.
4. The graph was created from data that was gathered in October of 2009 from the Energy Information Administration, EIA. 

Global Warming Facts

Do you believe either of these sets of facts? Why or why not?

I don't necessarily believe either one of these sites, at least not their entire pages. I'm sure they each have valuable facts but because they are both so biased, it's hard to trust them and their information. Also, at least in the first site, there were spelling errors and their vocabulary was unsophisticated. Despite each of the websites having some relevant and honest facts, it was easy to tell they weren't showing all the statistics. They each had a well defined side and stuck to it.

Soil Erosion Threatens to Leave Earth Hungry

Statistics:
1. 75 billion tons of soil are lost to erosion, waterlogging and salination each year.
2. It takes between 200 to 1,000 years to renew 2.5 cm of soil.

Responses:
1. It's hard to imagine that 75 billion tons of good soil are lost each year. It's crazy to think that the factors of erosion: wind, water and salt, are to blame. The amount of lost soil is equivalent to about 12 elephants in their prime. Personally I can't even begin to picture what that would look like. That's a lot of soil! And for farmers and workers to take care of all this land just to have it become useless to them is terrible. I would be incredibly frustrated if that were to happen to me each year.
2. Farmers work really hard to grow and practice agriculture. So when they find a good area of land, they are pleased. But for it to take 200 to 1,000 years to renew only 2.5 cm of soil, they have to have some pretty well-preserved land. They can't afford for anything drastic to happen because they don't have time to renew their ground. You wouldn't think it would take that long for soil to grow healthy again. I think it's safe to say that soil isn't the most resilient natural resource.

Miners

       Explosions in coal mines are caused by rock and gas outbursts, methane ignitions that can set off when there's a build up of loose coal and dust, inadequate ventilation and poor maintenance or functioning of water sprays. But they're also caused by federal safety rules that aren't being followed or poor/nonexistent monitoring systems.

       Families in the United States were compensated for their relatives' deaths with $1.5 million but Chinese families only received (approximately) $1,577 for victims and $105,000 for those whose family members died. Safety conditions in China are much worse, than in the U.S., most likely because they don't care as much about safety. They're more focused on the production in the mines than the safety and health of the workers making the production happen. That's also why they have poorer air conditions than us and they don't strive to prevent the pollution.

Deepwater Horizon disaster

        I think that there are many at fault for the Deepwater Horizon disaster. There's the government, all of the consumers, constructors and supervisors. In my opinion, I think that the consumers and any supervisors are the most responsible. If consumers didn't create such a demand for oil in the first place, workers wouldn't need to go to such extremes to invent and produce a process that would keep; one that would never fail. But I believe that the government should've kept a closer eye on the project and what the workers were really constructing. You also need to keep in mind that they have a lot to supervise and focus on concerning the entire country. When they are unable to concentrate on these jobs though, the supervisors hired are trusted to do their jobs and regulate what is going on. Those in charge should've directed their attention to each step done in the process.

        Consumers should have to cut down on their demands. Acquiring such a large amount of oil is unmanageable and unreasonable. If we all cut back by even a smidge, it'll make a dent. But cutting back on oil and changing to alternate sources of energy like solar panels or windmills, will make a much larger impact. As for the supervisors, I think that this should be a warning to them. They need to realize that anything they do or don't do affects the entire community and in some cases the country. They are responsible for monitoring their work and projects that they are involved in and should know it.

Turkey 7.2 Earthquake

The two tectonic plates that interact to cause earthquakes in Turkey, the Arabian and Eurasian plates, are a convergent boundary. The most powerful earthquake that has struck Turkey in the past century is a 7.8 magnitude quake in Erzincan in 1939 that killed approximately 33,000 people.

Myitsone Construction

The communities and ecosystems that depend on the Irrawaddy river system would have benefited from the dam and power plant. But the people of the region opposed the construction because Burma does not have any environmental protection laws. There was also much less study and planning for the Myitsone (versus the Three Gorges Project). The Irrawaddy Dam, in the event of an earthquake, could flood about 750 kilometers of forested area and cause irreversible damage to Burma's river system because the dam is located less than 100 kilometers from a major fault line. This could result in landslides and weaken the dam structure. If the dam were to break it would endanger the people of Myikyina, which is the largest city in Kachin State. Groups also oppose the dam because of environmental impacts and threats to the cultural sites that could materialize. The opinion of the author is against the project because their perception is to raise awareness of the threats to the Irrawaddy River. Also some of the possible risks, as a result of the construction, were displayed in a biased manner to influence people to vote down the continuing construction for the dam. The website authors were making an effort to convince their readers that the possible consequences of the dam weren't possible, but that they were definite.