Seal Hunting

I am very proud to be a Canadian. We are home to some of the most beautiful sights, the most natural places and have some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. We have a direct pathway to the arctic- where we can find thousands of unique species. So what do we do? Well, with this beautiful land and different landscape, we should use the land for sight seeing, for getting a change of scenery, we should work hard to preserve the rare wildlife that lives here!

No.

Instead, we've decided that this would be a great place to hunt! 325,000 seals are killed each spring with an additional 10,000 harp seal quota for an aboriginal allowance. During the 3-year period of 2003-2005, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) allowed a kill quota of 975,000 baby and adult harp seals and 30,000 adult hood seals. Often times sealers exceed the quota by up 75,000. When the first European explorers landed on the East coast of Canada, there were an estimated 30 million harp, hood, and gray seals. Because of the reckless management of the hunt in the past, Canada allowed the number of harp seals to drop to 1.8 million in the early 1970s. Now they claim that a "healthy" population of 5.2 million exists but in the same breath admit that they have not had a peer-reviewed population survey since 1999.

Scientists and environmentalists endlessly dispute the Canadian governments' seal population claims, and suggest that the seal hunt is severely impairing the population, and will continue to harm their numbers, as the number of seals killed each year is significantly different than the number of seals born. The government plans to have a new population survey done, but while we all wait, thousands of seals are wantonly killed.

Are we willing to sacrifice everything, including our national reputation, to continue this hunt, which is nothing but a "make-work project for out-of-work fishermen"?

After the collapse of the East coast cod industry, the Canadian DFO has declared war on the seals in hopes that massive seal kills will bring back the cod and keep their fishermen working. But, cod is not a major food source of the harp or hood seal diet. Recent evidence suggests that killing seals contributes to bacterial infestation on the ocean floor which leads to hypoxia, where patches of ocean lose all the dissolved oxygen and are unable to sustain marine life of any kind, including cod. However, these facts seem to have been brushed aside by the DFO in their efforts to justify and continue the slaughter.

Unfortunately, due to a revived fashion trend, the demand for seal pelts has sky-rocketed, especially in Europe. Harpseals.org reports that high fashion designers such as Prada and Dolce & Gabbana are selling sealskin apparel. Seal meat is generally considered to be inedible and unfit for human consumption. While there is a small market in Newfoundland for the seal flippers (for seal flipper pie), most of the rest of the very small amount of meat found in the slaughtered seal, if utilized at all, would be purchased by pet food and fur farm industries. So countless seals are killed, and only a fraction of their remains are used.

The government of Canada and the seal industries are not happy about the amount of meat they are able to sell each year. What they are happy about though, is the revenue received from selling seal oil. The way they are doing this is by falsely promoting seal oil capsules as a healthy source of Omega-3, when they actually contain high levels of PCBs- a known animal carcinogen that produce health effects such as skin ailments called chloracne, reproductive disorders, liver disease, and other problems. According to their own website, "The industry is positive about this new development but is aware that more R&D is required to expand the range of products derived from seal oil."

"R&D" (Research and Development) means more Canadian tax dollars going to the cause of killing seals.

Many are under the impression that this cruel and inhumane slaughter was stopped for good. Anti-seal hunt campaigns by Sea Shepherd and other organizations together with pressure from Europe to boycott Canadian products brought the industry to a halt. In 1984, after the European Parliament banned the import of baby harp seal pelts, the Canadian seal hunt was reduced to a limited landsmen hunt

This has all changed as the heavily-subsidized seal hunt is being promoted by the Canadian government as necessary to bring back fish stocks. We know the cod fisheries were closed down because of years of fisheries mismanagement, and now they have to take the harp and hood seals too. The slaughtering of these animals is not only a seriously shameful and cruel source of income, but it, ironically, worsens their problem of the decreasing cod population. I don't see any reason at all for this contemptible act to continue, not to mention the impact it has on our reputation. We're known to be a natural country, full of forestry, vegetation and biodiversity that we respect and protect. We're supposed to be "tree huggers". So why are Canadians the only people who don't believe that?

Climate Change in the Arctic- A Hot Subject

The Arctic regions have amazed scientists and researchers for decades for their resilience to things like harsh climate conditions and seasonal darkness. One might assume that living in below freezing weather where there is little vegetation and few land animals would be hard, but what is harder for the wildlife than these extreme living conditions is when their climate changes and their ice starts to melt.



The Arctic is not an easy place to live without climate change problems. Some of the factors that promote survival in the North also make its inhabitants more susceptible to chemical contaminants. For example, the fat that animals use for protection make them more likely to accumulate organ chlorines and other water insoluble chemicals. Due to the atmospheric (and riverine) transport of chemicals, the North is the reservoir of chemicals that have never been locally used; these chemicals often increase in concentration up the food chain - resulting in concern for local wildlife. This also poses a threat for natives in the arctic who eat the animals that contain these chemicals.

For every degree that the world climate changes, the Arctic climate changes at twice that rate. People in the Northern regions are heavily dependent on their regions' biodiversity both for food and for social and cultural reasons. According to the United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, “biodiversity benefits people through more than just its contribution to material welfare and livelihoods. Biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, social relations, health, and freedom of choices and actions.” With the Arctic sea ice retreating, more marine life is exposed to land, making it easier for people to catch them in large numbers. Biodiversity is changing dramatically in the North, the result of overharvesting, global habitat loss in wintering and staging grounds used by migratory species, and, most significantly, climate change. These species will either die or migrate, most likely impose on other species, therefore hindering their survival as well.



And it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone to hear that in the future, if we don't do anything about the problem and the ice continues to melt, vegetation will be severely impacted. For example, the Arctic tree line, the furthest north that trees can grow, will likely move northward, converting the Arctic into tundra forest under more permissible climate conditions. Also, the thawing of permafrost could convert large areas of well-drained lands into wetlands, and species native to the Arctic would begin to die as their main food sources disappear and are replaced by plants and animals more relevant to the new climate. Animals that inhabit the Northern regions such as caribou or the Arctic fox will either become extinct thanks to the lack of available forage as the land adapts and changes, or they will attempt to migrate, imposing on the habitats of other species and thereby hindering their survival as well.

Land animals in the Arctic won't be the only ones to suffer if climate change continues. The timing of the climate change and melting of sea ice in the spring and summer severely impairs the growth of algae at the ice edge. The loss of this seemingly insignificant species would devastate the rest of the Arctic food chain, as this is the main food source for krill, which needs to feed the Arctic cod, which is prey for belugas, narwhals, and seals. The food chain is all connected, so the loss of one of the small species at the bottom would destroy the food chain with each level starving to extinction in a domino effect. While the wildlife attempts to overcome this problem, large fishing companies are given extremely easy access to almost all marine life with all the ice melting. This will result in a grotesque number of fish and mammals being caught and hunted; a number much larger than it would have been had their habitats been protected by the glaciers.



The reduced ice cover and access to seals would limit hunting success by polar bears, with resulting reductions in bear populations. Many species of seals, sea lions, and walruses, especially those inhabiting regions covered by seasonal sea ice, are directly reliant on suitable ice for resting, foraging, reproducing, and moulting. Indirectly, the timing of the formation and melting of sea ice will affect the migration patterns and nutritional status of these animals. A greater volume of shipping through Arctic waters, because of less sea ice and more ice-free navigation channels, may also negatively affect some populations and further pollute the Arctic waters.

This Means War

I don't think I need to explain the obvious downsides and consequences of warfare, like the millions of people who are killed in wars, the number of those people that were under the age of 25, the number of innocent civilians killed, or the money the governments spend on both weapons and training for the military, which only scratch the surface of the list of problems incorporated with war. But there is another serious downside to war that not many people consider.

The impact that war has on the environment has been apparent for many years, but the boost in technology and the increasing size and severity of the weapons has dramatically advanced the damage of warfare to, in some cases, an irreparable level. Experts have coined the term ecocide, literally meaning "the killing of the environment".

From the Romans in 146 BC salting fields around Carthage to impair food production to the looting of Iraqi nuclear facilities in recent months, the environmental destruction resulting from war has had an enduring legacy. While the spraying of Agent Orange to defoliate jungles in Vietnam and burning of oil wells in Iraq have become icons of environmental warfare, many lesser-known but no less significant acts of ecocide have been perpetrated by warring states, like the endless amount of water contaminated, impairing both the environment and the health of the citizens, and the impact of combat on endangered species.



Depleted Uranium (DU), an extremely dense metal made from low-level radioactive waste, is principally used by the United States, but also by other countries such as Britain, in defensive military armor, munitions, and missiles. Its ability to penetrate the armor of enemy tanks and other targets more readily than similar weapons has made DU extremely valuable to the US military. Of course, the US military has downplayed potential health risks posed by exposure to Depleted Uranium, which might not surprise you. “I think the evidence is piling up that DU is not benign at all,” said Malcolm Hooper, a professor of medicinal chemistry at the University of Sunderland and chief scientific adviser to the UK Gulf Veterans Association. “The inhalation of these fine dust particles represents a health hazard that was known to the military as long ago as 1974."

This is only one of the thousands of ways that warfare effects our ecosystems and our way of life. The degradation of infrastructure and basic services brought on by war can wreak havoc on the local environment and public health. Countries’ water supply systems, for example, can be contaminated or shut down by bomb blasts or bullet damage to pipes. In Afghanistan, destruction to water infrastructure combined with weakened public service during the war resulted in bacterial contamination, water loss through leaks and illegal use. The consequence was an overall decline in safe drinking water throughout the country.

Not to mention the habitats that are constantly being destroyed by the technology of modern warfare. During the most recent war in Iraq, individuals were forced to cut down city trees to use as cooking fuel. In Afghanistan, the creation of poorly located, leaky landfill sites resulted in contaminated rivers and groundwater. Military machinery and explosives have caused unprecedented levels of deforestation and habitat destruction. This has resulted in a serious disruption of ecosystems, including erosion control, water quality, and food production. An example of this is the destruction of 35% of Cambodia’s intact forests due to two decades of civil conflict. In Vietnam, bombs alone destroyed over 2 million acres of land. These environmental catastrophes are aggravated by the fact that ecological protection and restoration become a low priority during and after war. The plants and animals that are killed in the prolonged fight out of greed displayed by man is only half of the destruction as the other half of the wildlife struggle to survive in what remains of their home after we're done with it.



 


The threat to biodiversity from combat can also be illustrated by the Rwanda genocide of 1994. The risk to the already endangered population of mountain gorillas from the violence was of minimal concern to combatants and victims during the 90-day massacre. The threat to the gorillas increased after the war as thousands of refugees, some displaced for decades, returned to the already overpopulated country. Faced with no space to live, they had little option but to inhabit the forest reserves, home to the gorilla population. As a result of this human crisis, conservation attempts were impeded. Currently, the International Gorilla Program Group is working with authorities to protect the gorillas and their habitats. This has proven to be a challenging task, given the complexities Rwandan leaders face, including security, education, disease, epidemics, and famine.

The bottom line is that during devastating battles between countries, the environment is of little concern to both figures of authority and combatants. They are so consumed in the fact that our own race cannot get along that they often forget about the animals trapped in the battle field with nowhere to escape. We don't realize the long term consequences of the things we're doing. The loss of just one plant species can severely impact over 30 animal species. We are disrupting ecosystems that took centuries to build in a matter of years over our own problems of greed and selfishness. 

People work hard to give their children a good life. Why not give them a world better than the collapsing one that was given to you? Or that was given to your parents? Give them a world full of the biodiversity that we are struggling to keep. How about a world with the foundation for change?

Energy Usage

In the United States alone, the cost of energy between commercial buildings and industrial facilities is $202.3 billion. 30% of this energy is used inefficiently or unnecessarily. The States would save over $20 billion dollars if energy efficiency in commercial buildings and industrial facilities improved by just 10%, not to mention the 30 million vehicles worth of greenhouse gases (that deplete the ozone layer) that would be saved from the atmosphere.

The total amount of energy used in the States each year is 99.89 quadrillion Btu. Considering the fact that one match lets off about 1 Btu of energy, that is a lot of energy.

Wasting energy effects the environment in numerous ways but mostly through the use of non-renewable resources. When your energy comes from sources such as coal and oil fed power plants the carbon emissions left into the air ruin the earth's atmosphere which has an even larger impact on the earth. Nuclear powered plants and industries that use non-renewable resources such as oil and coals which send out dark billowing clouds of pollution that poisons the air we breathe, destroys the ozone layer and later fall back on the ground as acid rain. But there are alternatives.

Both wind energy and hydroelectric power are better sources of energy than getting your energy from power plants.

Wind energy creates it's power from the wind, as it blows through the blades. The spinning blades then turn the turbines and create energy. This is the ideal solution to our power hungry lifestyles, as it has next to no harmful side effects towards the environment, and creates a significant amount of energy.



The second option in hydroelectric energy. While it, like the wind energy, is renewable, it does have some seriously impacting consequences on the environment (though not as bad as the power plants). Hydroelectric power gets its energy from the running water in dams. The water rushes downward through what is called a penstock, past the turbines that spin at a rapid rate. Behind this is a magnet turned by an electric coil that produces electricity. This is all great but many people forget that the building of a dam floods the land upstream, which is a major point of concern because of the vegetation that ends up underwater. It will rot and when it does it will produce methane, which is a known greenhouse gas. The flooding also displaces people who live nearby and thus spurs economic imbalance. An excellent example of all of this is the Aswan high dam in Egypt, which was supposedly built to help people and instead created more harm. Even today people are dying from malaria from stagnant water present just because the dam is blocking the way.
Another downside to this thought to be great solution to the harmful effects of energy use, is that dams significantly reduce the speed of flowing rivers, and in turn, harmfully effects the marine life in that river. Because the water is held in front of the dam for longer than it would in a free flowing river, the water cools on the bottom and would not reflect the natural temperatures of the seasons like it normally would. Not to mention that the chemical levels would have been altered after the dam was installed, for example, water exiting the lake may be higher in dissolved salts or have lower oxygen levels. Also the restricted water flow increases the amount of water that is evaporated each year. In some deserts, the amount of water evaporated can be greater than 7 feet. This means that if a dam was installed, the reservoir would drop in elevation by 7 feet. At Lake Mead on the Colorado River in Arizona and Nevada, evaporation losses in one year can be as great as 350 billion gal (1.3 trillion l).



The only solution we really have to this problem of wasted energy and pollution from energy plants is to find a way to get our energy only from the wind or improve the dams to accommodate for the ecosystems that inhabit the rivers and oceans. We don't realize the impact we have by accidentally leaving a light on in a room when we leave, or leaving the living room light on when we go out so people think someone is home. There are light bulbs you can buy that are more environmentally friendly, but this only scratches the surface of the problem, when we are capable of so much more. 

Dark Waters

It's no secret that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a disaster that had devastating results and continues to severely impact marine life. I find it ironic that BP (The oil company responsible for the spill) was about to receive an award for "outstanding safety and pollution prevention performance" in its offshore operations. Instead of receiving this award, they spent their time frantically attempting to stop the flow of oil that was gushing out of its deep underwater well from devastating the ecology and economy of America's gulf states – and attempting to defend its reputation against almost universal excoriation.

The 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill was caused by an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oilrig. The explosion occurred on April 20, 2010. The oilrig sank on April 22, 2010, causing massive amounts of oil to begin leaking into the Gulf of Mexico.

102 school gymnasiums could be filled from floor to ceiling with the oil that entered the water after this disaster.

Over 400 wildlife species are seriously threatened by this oil spill. Threatened species include sea life such as whales, tuna and shrimp; land animals such as the gray fox and white-tailed deer; amphibians such as the alligator and the snapping turtle, and at least 30 species of birds.





The official toll of dead birds is about 1,200, a fraction of the 35,000 discovered after the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989. But this, too, has been called into question. Officials can only count the birds they can find, and many think a number of oily birds have sought refuge in the marshes.
"It's an instinctive response: They're hiding from predators while they recover," said Kerry St. Pé, head of a government program that oversees Louisiana's Barataria Bay marshes. "They plan to recover, of course, and they don't. They just die."

Species and ecosystems that had taken centuries to develop are now being killed in a matter of months. Doug Inkley, senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation, said "I've been frustrated with the calm reassurances that we've been receiving, because . . . I don't know what they're based on."

Scientists have found many forms of marine life, predominantly fish, sharks and whales drifting dangerously close to the surf. They believe that the oil, which is robbing the water of oxygen particles, is driving the animals towards the beaches in hopes for cleaner waters. Which, of course, they don't find.

Asked whether the accident could have been prevented, CEO Tony Hayward  said, "All accidents can be prevented -- there's no doubt about that." He claimed that the "blowout preventer" failed to operate before the explosion. A blowout preventer is a large valve at the top of a well, and activating it will stop the flow of oil. For whatever reason, this did not happen, and as a result, every organism living in the Gulf of Mexico is being threatened. All of which, could have been prevented had someone checked the "blowout preventer".
Another study, from the National Academy of Engineering/National Research Council and requested by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, blamed BP for “insufficient consideration of risk and a lack of operating discipline” that contributed significantly to the disastrous oil spill.
In a startling development at the end of October, the Presidential commission assigned to investigate the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster concluded that Halliburton – the company responsible for sealing the well – knowingly used a cement mixture it knew to be unstable.
If that isn't enough, the rig apparently "did not meet recommended safety standards before the explosion".

So not only did this oil spill occur that is compromising every living animal and plant in the area, creating irreparable damage, and costing BP billions of dollars in repair costs, but this whole incident could have been prevented if certain companies would abide to the rules and regulations and have consideration for the delicacy of the waters they were working in and how difficult it would be to clean them if something happened.



The marine life, both plants and animals, will never fully recover from this disaster. The waters will never be returned to their original state, (not to mention the Gulf of Mexico was polluted even before the spill) and by the time the waters are deemed ideal conditions for liveforms to live in, thousands of animals will have suffered and died due to this horrific accident.

Judging by our track record, it's about time we start preparing for the worst.

 

Deforestation and Habitat Loss. Do We Really Need Trees? Apparently Not.

Out of all the land on the Earth, only 30% is covered  by trees, and only 20% by grass. This boggles my mind considering not long ago (in the long run) the majority of the world was covered in vegetation, minus the rock and ice. Groups of trees, approximately the size of Panama are cut down each and every year. It makes sense that in the future, the amount of deforestation will increase as the population increases and more wood is needed to build things such as houses or provide space for farming, etc. If we continued at the current rate, and did not increase the amount of trees that we cut down at all in the next hundred years, the world's rainforests will have completely vanished. Logging operations, which provide the world’s wood and paper products, also cut countless trees each year. Loggers, some of them acting illegally, also build roads to access more and more remote forests—which leads to further deforestation.

While deforestation is harmful to our environment in many ways, the largest impact it has had is on the animals that call these forests their home. 70% of the land animals on earth live in forests and cannot survive without them.

If that isn't enough, deforestation also impacts the climate severely. Forest soils are moist, but without protection from sun-blocking tree cover they will quickly dry out. Trees also help perpetuate the water cycle by returning water vapor into the atmosphere. Without trees to fill these roles, many former forest lands will quickly become barren deserts. Removing vast amounts of trees robs the land of shelter from the sun during the day, and inables them to trap in heat during the night- leading to more extreme temperature swings; affecting thousands of species.

But every problem we have seems to lead back to global warming, doesn't it? People are probably tired of hearing it, but losing trees will critically advance the effects of global warming. Trees absorb significant amounts of greenhouse gases (the cause of the heating of the planet and depletion of the ozone layer), in turn, a grotesque amount of greenhouse gases would be allowed into the atmosphere, thereby increasing the speed and severity of global warming.

The biodiversity of the Amazon is threatened more than ever, with statistics revealing that the land covered by forest will be a mere 10% of what it is today by 2030. The problem with telling people what the world will be like in 20 years is that people are convinced that things will "never get that bad". So what if I told you that there are places around the world that were once thriving with untouched forest land that now stands tree-less? For example, Nigeria has now permanently lost 80% of its forests, Brazil has lost 90-95% of its forests, and harvesting of forest cover has left Afghanistan with less than 25% of its' original forest.



The loss of trees will not be the end of our problems if we do not stop this process. Not only will we face problems with our air (as trees release significant amounts of the oxygen that we breathe), but trees leave the ground moist and fertile. Without them, only a fraction of the plants that grow today would be able to grow without the presence of trees. Thus, leaving us with only a fraction of the fruits and vegetables that we have today to eat. The loss of trees would essentially eliminate almost all plant life on earth, and leave the ground dry, resulting in soil-erosion. This meaning that you would be unable to grow anything, and it would be subject to things like severe flooding as it would not absorb water. With the loss of plants comes the loss of species and the starvation of humans.

Over utilization of forest products and logging has resulted in increased dependancy and in turn is exposing us to environmental issues associated with the large scale deforestation in the absence of an afforestation program (restoration of destroyed forests and cleared land) in place. Finding a way to restore the forests that have been destroyed at the same time preserving the forests that still stand and meet our needs of wood products would impact our planet hugely, and in turn, promote the growth of both plant and animal life on Earth.


Bulldozer found clearing protected forest where video footage of baby tigers was filmed just days earlier by WWF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&v=Fu-6taW9JNk&annotation_id=annotation_593937

Equal Rights, Why Not?

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks it's ridiculous that a you could go to jail for hitting a man with your car, but a little guilt, if any, is the most you get for hitting a dog. The world was both surprised and hesitant when the blacks were claimed equal to white men. It was hard for most of the white men to wrap their heads around the idea because all they had ever seen the black men as were slaves and animals. So why did this change? Because someone questioned logic. Where are we ever going to get if we don't question everything we think we know? Nowhere. How is equality between animal and man any different from equality between white men and black men?


I'm not saying that I think that animals should be treated like people. They shouldn't have to pay taxes, but their lives should be valued equal to a man's life.
For example, American Football quarterback Michael Vick was arrested for involvement in an illegal dog fighting ring that had been active for 5 years. He lost all of his team contracts and was sentenced to 21 months in prison. This was for the death and injury of countless dogs that he had trained to fight each other until one died. The typical sentence for someone who kills another person is a life sentence in jail, or the death sentence in some states. This is for killing one person. But he can watch a plethora of dogs kill each other and get a little under 2 years behind bars. After he was released he also returned to his original football team after claiming bankruptcy.


I know that we've placed the value of money above the value of life countless times. I'm afraid to say that it's in our nature. But deliberately placing one of our lives above a group of another species' is unbelievable. And the fact that he didn't do it for money, but for personal enjoyment disgusts me. Who are the animals here, really?

Dolphin Drive Hunting

You may be surprised to know that the dolphin brain is actually much larger than that of a human. Dolphins have two hemispheres in the brain just like humans, however, theirs are split into four lobes instead of three. The fourth lobe in the dolphin's brain actually hosts all of the senses, whereas in a human, the senses are split. Some believe that having all of the senses in one lobe allow the dolphin to make immediate and often complicated judgments that are well beyond the scope of a human ability. When studying the neo-cortex, which is the outside surface of the brain that is responsible for forming perceptions, memories and thoughts, dolphins have more convolution than the most intelligent humans. But if you were to ask two scientists whether or not the intelligence of a dolphin exceeds that of a human you would most likely get two different answers and an endless debate. Does it surprise you that most of man kind would deny the fact that an animal could overcome the intelligence of "the greatest species to walk the earth"? It doesn't surprise me.

But what does surprise me is not only the fact that so many dolphins are slaughtered each year, but also the methods used to kill these amazing creatures.
"Drive hunting" is a form of hunting in which the dolphins (hundreds at a time) are forced into a large cove or bay, to which they have no form of escape. They are then beaten with wooden clubs and stabbed with knives over the side of small fishing boats for their meat to be sold to the local markets. In some cases bystanders watch in horror, their hearts breaking as the once clear waters take the deep red of these peoples victims.

The documentary "The Cove" describes the annual killing of dolphins in a Quasi-National Park atTaiji, Wakayama, in Japan from an ocean conservationist's point of view. This film goes into depth on the situation that is desperately trying to be kept secret from the public (as most of Japan was unaware of the happenings when asked about it). Rick O'Barry (former dolphin trainer for movies such as "Flipper" -1964) conducts the quest for justice for these animals and to raise awareness of the situation after one of the dolphins he worked with committed a form of suicide in his arms by closing her blowhole voluntarily in order to suffocate. O'Barry came to see the dolphin's captivity as a curse, not a blessing. Days later, he was arrested off the island of Binimi, attempting to cut a hole in the sea pen in order to set free a captured dolphin Not only were Rick and his team arrested and interrogated by the police upon arrival in Wakayama, but were forced to install hidden cameras at night to capture the footage. This is an incredible film starring incredible people who want to make a difference. I highly recommend it. 



People in Japan tried very hard to keep their secret from being exposed. So even though it may be hard to do anything from here when it's happening in Japan, if we put enough pressure on them, something will be done. But if no one knows about this horrific act, then they go on making their profit without the slightest bit of trouble.

Keeping the Oceans Blue

If 71% of the world is water, it's hard to imagine how the ocean looks considering what we've done to the land. Simply because we can't see the damage of the oceans, doesn't mean it's not there.
Oil spills contribute hugely to the pollution of our waters. Oil spills are classified as major (700+ tonnes), medium (7-700 tonnes) and small oil spills (-7 tonnes). The oceans witnessed 1 major oil spill and 7 medium oil spills in 2008 alone. Just one oil spill is enough to severely impact marine life. And although an oil spill can cause far more damage, a cruise ship creates a million gallons of waste water per week. So while an oil spill might do more damage in one swing, this only occurs on a few occasions. Cruise ships are running constantly. Not to mention the "floating pollution" that occurs around the world from people being too lazy to walk to a garbage can, and instead, throw their debris into the ocean. One place that is especially effected by this is the North Pacific. Scientists estimate that the trash carpet created here has reached the size of Texas, and is still growing.
The second leading cause of fish death other than overfishing, is ocean pollution. More than a million sea birds, like pelicans and gulls, have also met a watery grave owing to the domino effect triggered due to the depletion of fish population in the oceans. Pollution in the ocean not only affects ocean or marine life, but also affects the rest of the planet indirectly. The ocean is a significant food source for humans, therefore humans will face a serious food shortage if the marine life suffers for long enough. Not to mention the effects the pollution has on the fish that live long enough to be caught and eaten. This could result in a wide spread of disease throughout the human race. It will also alter the natural cycle of the planet which will again have a disastrous impact on humans.

The majority of the earth's fresh water is stored in underground aquifers.  Water that enters an aquifer remains there for an average of 1400 years, making them extremely difficult to clean or purify once pollutants have reached them.

If we think that the waters here are bad, we should take a look around the world. 40% of the rivers in America, and 46% of the lakes are too polluted for swimming, fishing or aquatic life. 1.2 trillion gallons of untreated sewage, storm water, and industrial waste are discharged into US waters annually. The US EPA has warned that sewage levels in rivers could be back to the super-polluted levels of the 1970s by the year 2016. Asia's rivers are the most polluted in the world with their water containing three times as much bacteria from human waste and 20 times more lead. In 2004, water from half of the seven major rivers in China were found to be undrinkable because of pollution.  The Sarno river is the most polluted river in Europe, featuring a mix of sewage, untreated agricultural waste, industrial waste, and chemicals. Pollution of drinking water is a problem for about half of the world's population. Each year there are about 250 million cases of water-related diseases, with roughly 5 to 10 million deaths.

Each year, plastic waste in water and coastal areas kills up to:

• 100,000 marine mammals,
• 1 million sea birds, and
• countless fish.

3459 species live under the California Coast. Only one is killing them.

It's Not Easy Being Green

Global warming has been talked about endlessly lately, with some people legitimately concerned, and others in disbelief. Unfortunately global warming is not just a myth, but a very real and serious problem that we will regret ignoring in the future as it worsens. We're finally seeing the consequences to our machine-filled lives. The things we use everyday are killing not only the planet but us as well. Car emissions kill an estimated 30,000 people in the U.S. alone each year. The thing that makes this difficult to stop is that over 70% of the people in the states own cars and can't imagine life without them. With 310,925,000 people living in the United States, that's a lot of cars. Not to mention the fact that many families own more than one vehicle. And this does not include taxis, police cars, commercially used vehicles like vans and pickup trucks for delivery services, SUVs and cars that are used by fire departments, medical services, rental car fleets at airports around the world, even the world militaries use light passenger vehicles.
Not to mention that, especially in our society, very few people find alternate ways of getting to their destination, like walking or biking (which is 117% more effective than walking).
SUV's put out 43% more air pollutants than cars, and air planes impact the environment and ozone layer 2.7 times more than vehicles.
So what are lifestyles like these doing?
More than half of the citizens in America live in places that continually fail to meet federal air quality standards.
Impacts from global warming include sea level rise, more extreme weather events including heat waves, frosts, droughts, storms, extinction of species, loss of entire forests, marine life destruction and glacial retreat. 10 of the hottest recorded years, temperature wise, have been in the last 15 years. Also, transmitters of disease called vectors (for example, mosquitoes) like other animals and plants, are accustomed to certain climate conditions. If the climate becomes warmer, the mosquito will try to fly to new places where it can survive and expose more people to the disease. Changes in sea surface temperature and sea level can lead to higher incidence of water-borne infections and toxin-related illnesses such as malaria, infecting a larger number of people with serious diseases.


If people think that all that will happen is the climate will be a bit weird for a while, they're terribly mistaken. If ozone depletion and global warming are allowed to continue, our food chain will be seriously disrupted. For example, phytoplankton are tiny floating algae in the ocean which are the base of the marine food chain. In Antarctica, there has been 50 percent ozone depletion. This means that an unusually high amount of UV-B radiation has reached the Earth's surface. UV-B harms the productivity of phytoplankton, thereby reducing the available food for animals that feed on them. Krill eat phytoplankton and penguins eat krill. From a climate change perspective, phytoplankton normally absorb a lot of carbon from the air. As phytoplankton die from UV-B radiation, this carbon is no longer absorbed. This means that more carbon will be left in the atmosphere, contributing to more global warming. More global warming can increase ozone depletion, which kills more phytoplankton, and the process repeats itself. This will work its way up the food chain and around the world as the ozone depletion increases. Although it will take longer, this results will reach the human race. We will be the only ones left, and left with no food. (if the polluted air does not kill us first)
We're digging our own graves, and the graves of every other species on earth.

Tiger Poaching

I feel like I should go into a bit more detail about a specific way that people are failing to measure up to the great species we've made ourselves out to be. Tiger poaching is something I feel very strongly about, and one of the main things that pushed me to create change.
While there are some things being done about this, such as the work done by the WPSI (Wildlife Protection Society of India) who try to investigate all unnatural deaths of both tigers and leopards in India, most of the public seem to turn a blind eye to this disgraceful act. The poaching and seizing of the body parts of tigers is the leading cause of death for these big cats. There are less than 7,000 tigers left in the while, leaving as few as 400 per sub species.
60% of chinese medicines use rare animal parts such as tiger bone, bear gall bladder, rhinoceros horn, dried geckoes and a plethora of other animal parts. And once these parts have been obtained, the rest of the animal is sold ilegally or gone to waste. The income of the international trade of wild animal parts is an estimated "$6 billion-a-year business" and rises each year, as the parts become harder to find due to the decreasing population of wildlife.
The majority chinese doctors refused to have their methods tested to prove their effectiveness.
China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the United States, and Great Britain are all involved in the tiger trade. Hong Kong is the main importer of Chinese tiger products, accounting for nearly half of its annual business. An estimated 1,900 kg of tiger bone was exported to Japan from Taiwan in 1990; equal to 400 or 500 tigers.

Of course there are laws to prohibit the poaching and distribution of wild animal parts, but the business is incredibly profitable; as a bowl of tiger penis soup goes for $320 in Taiwan, and a pair of eyesfor $170. Powdered tiger humerus bone brings up to $1,450 lb. in Seoul.

The harsh truth is that we can't help  these animals if not everyone cooperates. There will always be laws, and consequences for breaking them, but there will also always be people who manage to get away with it. What our society needs is more respect for those who can't demand for it themselves. We value money over lives, and no one sees a problem with it. We either don't bother to help the animals in danger, or we decide that we like them, and to help them we will keep them in our homes as pets. There are hundreds of websites from which you can purchase not only wild animals but extremely endangered animals as well. This is almost impossible to control or punish because of the great amount of websites that do this. We need to give these animals what they need- their habitats back. We need to overcome out selfish and greedy nature, and work with the earth rather than against it.
30 animal species can disappear with the loss of just one plant species.
So how can we reverse the damage we've done and inform people so that they care enough to really make a change? Because I'm tired of watching it happen, unable to stop it.

Please leave a comment! 
  

My First Post

My first post on my first blog, this is exciting. I am still in high school but my ideas and opinions, I find, are a bit too serious for classroom discussion. I've realised that not many other teenagers have "change the world" on their list of things to do before they graduate.
Blogs are meant to be interesting. They're meant to inform people and get discussion going on important topics. I will try and keep my posts shorter so that people don't have to read through paragraphs of text full of facts that they could have found on google. This is more for me to get the feelings I hold in all day (plus a few facts) out of my system and see if anyone else agrees with the way I see things; as i've discovered not alot of people do. My problem is  that once I took a step back and looked at the way we choose to do things, my faith in the human race faltered if not completely vanished.

So I have to say, the way that the world has handled this whole "preserve the land" stuff is disappointing. We all act like it's important, so why arent we doing anything? Only 3% of the land on earth is preserved. This includes parks, wildlife refuges and other land reserves. So apparently we'd rather have our big cities. It also takes up to a year to get any new species onto the "endangered species list" so that something can be done to get them out of their situation. Even then, the species may not make it on the list. The Florida Black Bear has been on the candidate list since 1992 and has still not been added. We're supposed to be "the greatest species to walk the earth". We're the only other species to "dominate the earth like the dinosaurs did". So why do all of our technology and ideas benefit us and kill the planet we live on? And why does no one seem to care? How could we possibly think that 3% of the 510,066,000  square kilometers of the Earth is enough?

The problem is so big that any government, or average person for that matter, feels intimidated by it. I know I do. It's a huge problem that we've let get out of hand. What's worse is that this generation is growing up without any value for the world we live in, or the animals in it. They've been taught by our society that they can do what ever they want, and have no consequences. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was a huge accident, but since the newpapers stopped talking about it, and it's off the news, everyone seems to have forgotten it happened. People now days think that just because it isn't happening to them, it isn't of any importance. I would hate for the human race to finally see what we've done to the world with our toxic lifestyles once it's too late.