The article highlights the current problem with the death of many pollinating animals/insects. There are about 20,000 species of wild bees that help the growth of fruits and vegetables, and if they start to go extinct or die off the amount of food supply is going to decrease. The total of all plants that depend on pollination from these animals make up 35 percent of the total crops and carry a value of about 577 billion dollars per year. The other problem with this is that the agricultural system is going to fail and millions of people worldwide will be without a job. Scientists believe that climate change is playing a huge roll in the danger towards bees in North America and Europe. The warming that is happening changes the territories of plants and also changes the blooming season for plants that provide fruits and vegetables to the world. Dr Watson, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, asked the question “Will the pollinators be there when the flowers need them?”

Scientists also predict that pesticides and and the emergence of genetically modified foods are adding to the problems. This problem can continue to increase in severity if the climate change and global pollution continue to increase throughout the next few decades. It will be necessary for scientists to figure out a way to help the bees and other pollinators survive the changing conditions. The pollinators will be crucial to sustaining a food supply for the growing population that we learned about in module nine.

Article:

Schwartz, John. “Decline of Pollinators Poses Threat to World Food Supply, Report Says.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/science/decline-of-species-that-pollinate-poses-a-threat-to-global-food-supply-report-warns.html?_r=0>.

Australia is the home of the Great Barrier Reef and the world’s largest coral reef eco system. It homes thousands of organisms but as of Tuesday March 29, 2016, the Australian Research Council says it might be in a little of bit of trouble. The reef is currently experiencing the worst bleaching event in history. In addition, the National Coral Bleaching Taskforce took an aerial survey and documented more than 500 coral reefs spanning 2,485 miles were experiencing severe bleaching.

Bleaching is when coral is exposed to stresses such as warmer-than-average waters for prolonged periods of time. Then after the coral will appeared to white or “bleached”. This can be a problem for the current ecosystem because it can harm the organisms that live there. It can be dangerous for global ecosystems because it can affect food chains all around the world.

http://www.livescience.com/54272-great-barrier-reef-worst-coral-bleaching.html

In reference to the title, it doesn’t appear like it will be this year. There have been no extreme weather events that have affected the country on a national scale lately. While 2015 may have been the warmest year on record, the difference between its temperatures and years before it are imperceptible to most of the US that don’t observe weather trends. How do you capture the public’s attention on an issue that arguably hasn’t contributed to any national catastrophes as of late?

Sanders and Clinton have contributed most to the topic, but they just appear to be fighting for a few remaining undecided democrat voters; they’re preaching to the choir, and I can’t imagine it would help either of them get independent or moderate republican votes in the general election.

That being said, if Kasich gets the republican nomination, he looks to be the most likely candidate to attempt to reach across to independent and moderate democrats in an appeal to climate change regulation. It’s strange to think that a republican nominee has more incentive to speak on climate change than a democratic nominee, but that may be the case.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JehM8NRDQ54J:www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Ashanti Thomas

April 3, 2016

Earth 103

Blog 9

Blog 9

In the article “Study: Climate Change-Caused Food Scarcity Could Have Dire Consequences” a model predicts climate changes will impact our food system causing malnutrition. Calories of food per person will increase in 2050 but with climate change it will not be at its ideal peak that we would want it to be because there is a predicted 3 percent decrease in calories each year, this could cause 500,00 extra deaths per year up to 2050. These deaths from the drop in calories would be considered extra deaths considering the mortality rate we already have.

I think this model and article is telling us that the more the climate changes it will continue to effect crop growth and as food supply of fruits and veggies etc lowers, our calorie intake does which will begin to destroy the population (malnutrition, etc.)

https://weather.com/health/news/climate-change-food-scarcit

In a United Nations breaking news article from earlier last month, The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) announced that a timely agricultural assistance for the upcoming rainy season is essential to help the drought. The drought in Ethiopia is worsened by the strong El Nino that has been impacting the lives and livelihoods of farmers and herders. The reason Ethiopia is struggling so badly is due to the drought that has led to successive crop failures and widespread livestock fatalities. FAO estimates taht 10.2 million people are not food insecure. The rainy season in Ethiopia is referred to as the belg which has been delayed. The rainy season, for Ethiopians, provide 85% of the nations food supplies.

In Module 9, impacts on different continents was explained to be controlled by the ability of the society to cope. The inability of Ethiopia to cope with the prolonged drought and strong El Nino, both enhanced by climate change, is due largely to the fact that they are a developing nation. Beatrice Mwangi, resilience and livelihoods director for World Vision explains this concept well, “[severe drought] is going to be the new norm. So our responses need to appreciate that.. there is climate change, and it’s going to affect the people.” Because agriculture in developing countries is more vulnerable to climate change than already developed countries, impact will depend on the ability of places like Ethiopia to adapt.

References:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53381#.VwGGJBIrJYg

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/16/drought-high-temperatures-el-nino-36m-people-africa-hunger

In a closely contested primary Sander’s has started attacking Clinton for taking money from the fossil fuel industry.  Although Clinton has taken no personal donations from fossil fuel companies she has received money from individuals in charge of these companies totaling over 300,000 dollars.  Her super-packs have also taken in 4.5 million dollars from fossil fuel companies.  Bernie Sanders by comparison only has risen 50,000 dollars from the energy industry.  Sanders suggests that this means he will be a stronger supporter of preventing climate change.  Greenpeace an environmental activist group demanded this week that Clinton stop taking money from fossil fuel industry.  Another difference between the two is Clinton only came out against the Keystone pipeline in the summer while Sanders has been against it from the beginning.  Another difference between the two is how serious of an issue they see global warming, when asked at a debate what was the greatest security threat to the United States Clinton answered terrorism. Sanders answered climate change.

Clinton has however put out a policy proposal to install half a billion solar panels nation wide.  Clinton also has acknowledged the seriousness of climate change throughout her campaign.

Sanders strong environmental views have lead him to make progress at Clinton’s lead in her home state of New York which the environment is a major issue in.  Both candidates overall appear to be strong supporters of environmental regulation to help stop climate change.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cnsnewscom-staff/bernie-sanders-climate-change-greatest-security-threat-and-directly

The article I have chosen to blog about this week, “How New York Gets Its Water”, by the New York Times, took a detailed look into the amazing process of supplying the largest city in the United States with its clean water.  The reason I have chosen to blog about this article is because of recent controversy in Flint, Michigan where public drinking water was contaminated, and also how fresh water has been a topic evaluated in our modules throughout this course.  I found the article very informative and was interested in seeing the process and detailed thought that goes into creating such a large scale plan.  In the article it is noted that 90 percent of the city’s supply is from the Catskill/Delaware watershed, which extends nearly 125 miles northwest of the city.  The watershed extends over a million acres and is owned by the city, state and local governments, nonprofit land conservancies, and private owners so the land can be regulated to prevent pollutants from getting into the water supply.  A 92-mile-long Catskill Aqueduct is located 1,100 feet underneath the Hudson River and was constructed nearly a century ago.  The Aqueduct uses only gravity to force the water into the city making it an extremely efficient system.  The article also shares interesting information on the high-tech water treatment facilities and amazingly engineered water grid throughout the city.  The project is huge and is updated yearly as new problems arise, however, New York has done an amazing job of staying on top of the system.  I am pretty amazed at how big the process is and how much time and effort went in to engineering it.  Although every city has its own complex system it is stated that many should learn from the way New York has accomplished the goal of supplying such a large population.  New York’s water is commonly nicknamed the “Champagne of Drinking Water” and I am glad I got a chance to read this article to learn a little more of how it works.

Rueb, Emily S. “How New York Gets Its Water.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2016. Web. 03 Apr. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/24/nyregion/how-nyc-gets-its-water-new-york-101.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fearth&action=click&contentCollection=earth®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.

A recent modeling study has predicted that due to climate change, food shortages could cost the world 500,000 extra deaths per year by 2050. The model predicted a 3 percent decrease in calories per person per day. Red meat, fruit and vegetable consumption will take the biggest hit. However, this study also finds that deaths caused by malnutrition will actually fall by 2050.

The model predicts that food availability will actually increase by 2050 even with climate change implications.  Calories per person will be up to 3008 per day from 2817 right now. While this is good that calories will grow, it is not up to the ideal level of 3106 per day that would occur without climate change.

While it seems confusing that calories AND deaths will increase, it is taking into account that the population will also be increasing. This means the extra deaths result from the predicted 3106 calories per day dropping to 3008 due to climate change. The most impacted areas will be areas with high populations that have little access to food like China and India.

I think the study was just trying to inform people that climate change would affect food supplies. Hot places will get hotter and be unable to grow crops, but cool places may actually warm up enough to grow crops. Middle latitudes will actually have weather that is more favorable.  This is a problem because some of the biggest polluters are in middle latitudes and many living in these latitudes will not see the negative effects of climate change.

Resource:

https://weather.com/health/news/climate-change-food-scarcity