Glacial retreat case study

Glacier National Park: In glacier national park, there is significant glacial recession. Only 25 of the 150 glaciers of Glacier National Park are in existence. It is predicted that by 2030, 5 more glaciers will disappear. The flora and fauna living in the glacial habitats of GNP (lynx, wolverine,flowers) are in decline as global warming occurs and spring snow cover is lost
Antarctica: Likewise, Antarctica's glacial regions are suffering decline. On certain coastal areas of the peninsula, there has been a recorded recession of 55 trillion litres of water annually. In certain areas glaciers are decreasing roughly 4 meters per year. Antarctica's glacial decline is so significant that it has contributed .16 millimetres to the entire ocean yearly.
Social Impact:
-Glaciers are essential for drinking water so as these melt away into the ocean, the world loses available freshwater
-Asia relies on glaciers for irrigation and many will need to change their lifestyle should these disappear
-As sea levels rise, coastal communities will be flooded and beaches will be lost
Environmental Impact:
-Flora and Fauna lifing in glacial environments are gradually loosing their habitat

-Coral reefs are dying as rising sea-level leads to lack of accessible sunlight for photosynthesis
-The weight of glaciers on the earth are suppressing to seismic activity however as they disappear, more earthquakes and volcanoes will occur/erupt
Economic Impact:
-The tourism industries in glacial areas (ex. Glacial National Park) will decline
-Clean freshwater will be in higher demand and need to be conserved more
-Environmental response to glacial retreat results in damage to human development and expenses will need to be paid for repairing purposes
B) Tourism
In the case of Glacier National Park, tourism of the glacial region accounts for roughly 1 billion per year. Should the glacial regions decline, this area's economy will also decline. As the flora, fauna, and beautiful phenomenons created by glaciers disappear, so while guests. Furthermore in 46,000 workers are employed annually for peak tourist season, the tourists spend 1.8 billion, and 1.93 million visitors arrive each year. This region is very dependant on the tourism industry and as glaciers decline, will be negatively economically 
affected. 

Energy Assignment 3

1) Based on the cost of implementation, the country's geography, and what Pakistan's government is already doing, Coal is unfortunately the most fitting source of energy to be utilized. Pakistan is a country suffering many economic disadvantages and has high government expenses due to flooding and natural disasters. As over half of the country is said to be below the poverty line and it is considered a third world country, the cheapest option will be most easily available to support the country. Based the government's ethics and priorities in terms of environmental conservation, it is evident that environmentally friendly sources of energy are not highest priority.Pakistan has an abundant of coal to utilize, It's largest coal reserves in Sidh possess 184.623 billion tonnes to the resource. Pakistan is also a major provider of the world's oil and  can easily access it as a source of fuel to be burned. Currently, the government is allowing the county to be 65% reliable on combustable fuel so therefore thermal energy is the most likely to be implemented Pakistan

2)Nuclear power plants are more expensive to erect and maintain than thermal energy generators. Nevertheless they are less expensive to erect than solar energy cells. The country does not produce and store vast amounts of Uranium but has roughly 1,159 tonnes that have been produced and stored. The country is not as abundant in this resource as it is in coal and oil. Currently, the government has 3 nuclear power plants erected that provide 0.9% of the country's energy. This has less potential to be implemented in Pakistan than thermal energy plants do.

3)Solar energy does not seem like the first option that Pakistan would choose for energy production. Considering the country's priorities, it would most likely not spend large quantities of money to erect solar energy cells. Based on the country's desert climate, it would make sense to erect thermal energy plants considering the intense summers climate. Pakistan has vast amounts of sunlight readily available. However, Pakistan currently does not use or generate any significant quantities of solar energy as it mostly relies on thermal and hydroelectric power. Presently, thermal energy has the least potent implemented in contrast to nuclear power and coal use.

Energy Assignment Part 2

The electrical power in Pakistan is largely generated from thermal power plants. Thermal power is produced by the burning of fuels which in this case, is coal: the cheapest and most damaging of energy sources. There are currently 21 thermal power plants in service and 13 undergoing the process of proposition and construction.

To erect these power plants are inexpensive and generate millions of dollars worth of thermal energy each year. During the Kashmir earthquake many of these power stations were damaged and flooding is also destroying the electricity plants. The impact of Pakistan's thermal-energy reliance is that there are increasing levels of smog and acid rain effecting the country.

Coal burning is also a major contributor to climate change which is something that Pakistan struggles with as they experience irregular precipitation and flooding.

Energy Assignment Part One

Coal, Nuclear, and Solar Energy

Coal: The advantage that using coal as a source of energy is that it is the easiest to utilize and the most affordable source. It also employs nearly 340,000 people and is therefore beneficial to the economy. In addition, for every person employed in the coal industry, this directly results in 3.5 people obtaining another job as coal is heavily relied on. Canada and America were both founded on the use of coal especially in the industrial revolution and are therefore still quite reliant on it. However, coal is not a long-term source of energy as it is not a renewable resource and the earth is damaged for it's obtainment. Workers in this industry are negatively affected by health effects including black lung and chronic bronchitis. From the heavy metals and dangerous elements that they are exposed to, workers are known to have a decreased life expectancy. Coal is also very damaging to the environment. Furthermore, strip-mining of coal destroys the genetic profile of soil, alters the lithosphere, and creates a hostile, unlivable environment for flora and fauna. Rivers also come polluted from the limestone ash associated with coal-mining. The burning of coal releases 20+ toxic chemicals into the air and ruins the atmosphere with the greenhouse gasses it emits.

Nuclear: In contrast to coal use, the utilization of nuclear power does not involve nearly as much greenhouse gasses to be released, nor does it release significant amounts of carbon dioxide. The operating costs of nuclear power plants are generally relatively low and from a single plant, huge amounts of energy is able to be generated. The issues with this method include the fact that high levels of Uranium are required although it is a rare resource. Furthermore the waste that nuclear-energy production leaves behind is dangerously radioactive and must be dealt with in the most cautious of ways so as not to release toxic chemicals and radioactivity into the world. This form of energy is very risky to use as there is no room for an accident to happen. If one does, it could effect the whole world. An example of a power-plant accident would be the incident in Fukushima in which over 100,000 people were forced to evacuate and 1000 were killed in the process of maintaining the evacuation.

Solar: Of the three, Solar energy is by far the most ideal method. Solar energy is both renewable and sustainable as there are no radioactive or rare materials needed and the utilization of sun-rays does not involve the release of harmful substances. Sunlight readily available for absorption and is so safe that its generators can be conveniently placed on rooftops. The disadvantages of this source of energy is that solar cells can be rather expensive to obtain and they require large amounts of surface area to be effective. Furthermore, if there is too much pollution already in the air, it can hinder the effectiveness of these fuel cells. Another issue is that they can usually only absorb energy in the daytime and in areas with minimal periods of daylight, this form of energy will not be the most abundant.

1. It is evident that a major earthquake will occur in Vancouver as it is on the Juan de Fuca plate. This is an at-risk zone that will eventually cause destruction as others around the world of this kind have. The chilean earthquake may have had the power to trigger earthquakes in plate boundaries such as the Juan de Fuca and as more earthquakes occur around the world, more plates will be triggered. The Nazca plate in Chile moves 6 cm a year and was able to produce a 9.5 magnitude earthquake. Juan de Fuca moves at the similar fast rate of 5 cm a year and will therefore most likely create an earthquake of similar magnitude and destruction. Based on studiesof earthquakes in the pasts, seismologists have devised that earthquakes occur in approximately 200-850 years intervals. Juan de Fuca’s last earthquake occurred 1700 years ago so the chances of an earthquake happening soon are significant.
2. Geological Setting: Juan de Fuca is subducted below the North american plate as it is moving underneath the continental plate. Grating against Juan de Fuca, the Pacific plate is contributes to a buildup of earthquake-causing stress. Therefore, if Vancouver were to have an earthquake, it would be due to the strain of a transform fault or subduction zone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jAVdSBUNtQ (youtube link)
3. A) Liquification: In Vancouver, the highest-risk area for liquefaction is False creek. The soil is very saturated, and therefore vulnerable to this kind of disaster

Landslides: Chilliwack Valley is at a high risk of having a landslide due to the high slope that it is on.
Tsunami: Vancouver Island is at a high-risk area for being affected by a tsunami. Due to low elevation and costal characteristics, the area will be heavily affected by a tsunami should a large scale earthquake occur.
Flooding: Lower lands like the Fraser valley possess lower elevations and are near the coast which makes them more susceptible to being hit with the effects of flooding.
b)Social: -Communication and electrical lines may be destroyed and necessary communication will be corrupted
-People may lack basic resources like water and electricity due to pipeline/wire damages.
-Over 400 people would be killed
-Roads may be destroyed and unusable for transportation.
-Some people will become homeless
-Food could be difficult to access 
-Economic: -There could be over $150,000 in damages
-Commercial buildings/factories may be destroyed
-Government money will go towards supporting affected individuals
-Thousands could lose their jobs due to damages
-Natural resources could be destroyed and no longer able to contribute to Canada’s economy
Infrastructure: -Tunnels could cave in
-Older bridges of poorer construction may fall
-The skytrain will be no-longer functional without the use of electricity(which will probably be gone until restoration) to control the magnets that allow it to run
-Water reservoirs may be contaminated 
-Pavement will crack
4)To be prepared for the earthquake, Vancouver has plans to complete Granville bridge’s upgrade so that it will not be effected by seismic activity. For the social issues occurring with the issue like homelessness and lack of resources, using community disaster support hubs is part of their strategy.

  Commercial buildings are now made with extra caution to become earthquake proof, ensuring the safety of people and the business. Strategies also include enhancing access to the water supply used for firefighting even after the earthquake are being planned as many pipelines will be damaged but as earthquakes are prone to fires and without water, vancouver would be helpless to it, it is essential that there is enough accessible water to fight fires.

Waikiki

1) The volume of sand that was once abundant on Waikiki Beach has  now become almost completely eroded as a result of industrialization in the 1800s when it became a popular tourist destination. Because the beach is mostly ma-made, it faces many complications that have to do with the fact that concrete-control structures such as sea walls having manipulated and changed the natural flow of water on the beach. As sea levels respond to human impact, sand is moved around differently and in this case, is gradually being covered and pulled away from the beach
2) Since 1939 there have been sand-replenishment programs there have bean over 10 replenishment attempts in which at over 300,000 cubic yards of sand were added to the beach. These attempts have served as very temporary solutions to the overall problem and have not come close to being a long-term solution. A few years, 2.2 million was spent to spread new sand over the span of 1730 feet. Less than a year afterwards, the beach continued to erode. The current plan is for the government to receive 7 cents for every 1000 dollars worth of a businesses property value and use it towards replenishment. In addition, there is a plan to float a barge over large masses of sand and transferring it via pipeline to the shore. I think that a gradual upkeep plan like this would be more effective than one large depositing of sand, however neither is a long term solution. There needs to be another strategy that can make the shoreline exist farther out. 
3)Economically, the taxes of residents are used on replenishing the beach. People in the tourist industry on beaches will have a more difficult time working as less-and less- beach exists. There will be less vacation tourism in Waikiki if it's signature beaches are not there anymore.  On the social side, tourists will no longer be able to enjoy the beach and resident/tourist surfers face safety hazards with the uncovering of dangerous concrete. Native Hawaiians are losing their valued area of historical significance. Tourists will not be able to have an aesthetically pleasing beach experience as the shore is full of chains, concrete, and sandbags. Environmentally, the constant replenishing and addition of sand from humans could affect ecosystems close to shore that are bombarded with foreign sand and the biomass on other beaches where the sand is extracted from may be corrupted. 

Rhine River Case Study

1) The rhine river is considered the Industrial Heartland because it is one of the longest rivers in Europe and flows through six countries. It is heavily utilized for transportation of transportation of goods and raw materials throughout the continent. The river facilitates the connection between Rotterdam(largest seaport in the world)and Duisburg(largest inland port). The river is the source of drinking water for over 20 million people, supports a diversely thriving ecosystem, utilized for energy, and carries away municipal wastewater.  The Rust Belt region has been formerly referred to as the industrial heartland of North America due to the presence of the great lakes.

2)Human activity has lead to this river being known as one of the most polluted in Europe. One signifiant accident affecting the river involved a chemical spill in 1986 that made it heavily contaminated. Contamination and pollution is minimally tolerated by salmon and combined with overfishing, there was a significant loss of salmon-population. After the second world war, there was a significant amount of waste contaminating the river (pesticides, heavy metals, organic chlorine compounds, hydrocarbons).The upper rhine was also straightened for navigation purposes.

3) In solving the river's problems with pollution, it would be beneficial to have less chemical plants and factories built near the river to prevent future waste-accidents. There should not be so many nuclear power plants/chemical industries around a large boy of crucial water. This would be difficult to implement as there are already many built around the river and raw materials for the power plant/ chemical industries will take longer to arrive and be more difficult to transport. Furthermore,
Furthermore, there could be more fish-habitat restoring programs to attempt to restore the ecosystem. This would be difficult as the river is already heavily polluted.

Case Study: Land Subsistence in the American Southwest

A) The greatest cause of land subsidence is over drafting aquifer. This occurs when ground water is pumped from areas with clay/silt beds around it. These beds lose support due to loss of water pressure. As the water is gradually drained from the clay/silt, the beds are compressed and the land is permanently lowered and compacted. Other Causes include human activity such as the underground pumping of resources (water, oil and gas),sinkholes,soil drainage, and mine collapse.

As human development increases, more and more resources are taken from the earth. The more resources that are taken from the earth, the more he earth is damaged. 

B)Land subsidence can be hazardous to construction and development. It can cause damage to buildings and infrastructure as well as pipelines, sewage, and drainage systems. Transportation is effaced as bridges,roads, railroads, can be ruined. Well casing failure is also an issue. Furthermore, as the land lowers in coastal areas, the tide may advance to areas which were never before below tide level. Earth fissures(cracks/openings in the earth) may also occur as a result of land subsidence.

C)  Some ways to prevent land subsidence would include drafting aquifers where there are less clay and silt beds. Soil drainage can be minimized and underground pumping can be more spread out and gradual causing a weaker impact on the soil. Mines can be more strongly reinforced and filled in before use so as not to accidentally collapse and lead to subsistence.

Water Use in Agriculture

Surface Irrigation
Pros: 
-Simple to operate
-Inexpensive
-Easily utilized by developing countries
-Less technology and tools required
Cons:
-Roughly 1/2 of water is not transported to crops and is wasted 
-Water is lost from Runoff

Drip Irrigation
Pros:
-More efficient in watering fruits/veggies than flooding
-Less evaporation
-Water is applied directly to the root and is more nourishing to plant
-Water is easily directed
Cons:
-Equipment is more costly than flood irrigation
-Installation can be troublesome
-Can require significant management time

Spray Irrigation
Pros:
-Less wasteful than surface irrigation
-Offer controlled, thorough, and automated watering intervals
Cons:
-Requires costly machinery
-High levels of evaporation occur 
-High pressure systems are lest precise and more wasteful

     In my opinion, drip irrigation is the ideal option for farmers to utilize. The fact that it is least wasteful makes it less expensive in the long-run which accomodates for the initial costliness of equipment. Furthermore, considering the many issues of water shortage around the world, it is very important to conserve as much water as possible and this system definitely does that well. Because the flow is very controlled and applied directly to the root, more money and water is saved in this method than the spray or surface methods. Utilizing rows of rubber tubes would also reduce manual labor required for watering plants in contrast with surface irrigation. Therefore, i think that if countries have the financial ability to invest in drip irrigation, It would be the most beneficial method of irrigation to use.

Deforestation

1)
In Pakistan, deforestation is a prevalent issue resulting in environmental problems. 48% of Kashmir's(capital city) forest has been reduced to 44% over the last 20 years. In fact, Pakistan has been said to have one of the highest rates of deforestation in all of Asia. People rely on the forests for resources (wood, food, wildlife) however on 2.5 of the forest land there is an approximately 2.1 % deforestation rate.Over 151,000 hectares of Pakistani forest have been demolished. This is leading to climate change, soil erosion, and lack of biodiversity.

2)
Impacts of deforestation in Pakistan
Social:
-mountain/forest communities are suffering from a decrease in the natural resources that they rely on (wood, food, pasture)
-poor communities that rely on forests are being more affected by poverty
-as rarity of plant species increases, traditional healers can no longer utilize them and the historic knowledge of healing plants may be forgotten
Environmental:
-Lack of biodiversity
-Increases desertification and soil erosion
-Decrease in rate of rainfall
-Deforestation aggravates intense flooding
Economic:
-Floods resulting from/worsened by deforestation have inflicted $16 billion (US) worth in damages to infrastructure
-The overall rate of people fallen below the poverty line increases as natural resources decrease
3)
I believe that deforestation is a greater issue in Pakistan than it is in Canada. Based on the information provided, it is evident that Canada has a lower rate of deforestation occurring and logging is more regulated. In 1988 the first large illegal tree-felling occurred in Pakistan, ridding the country of roughly 400,000 cubic feet of forest wood. There was no punishment given to the industry that did this and therefore people continue to do this as there is no consequence. Canada on the other hand has very strict regulations utilizing less destructive methods of cutting down trees and facilitating re-growth operations. Furthermore, as the rate of deforestation decreases in Canada, it is increasing in Pakistan. This is evident in that Pakistan is literally falling apart in comparison to Canada. Pakistan's weather and precipitation is greatly affected by the deforestation in the country, floods are occurring, and people are living in poverty because of it. Canada seems to have the situation more under control.

Aquaculture

1. Aquaculture is the term for farmed oceanic resources ( fish, crustaceans, and plants ).

2. Pros and Cons of Aquaculture:
 Environmental Pros:
-Adds additional supply to overfished species (ex. salmon, sea bass)
-Regions involved in aquaculture will be more involved in the protection of coastal waters
 Environmental Cons:
-Spreads parasites/harmful bacteria/diseases to local wild fish species
-Can destroy local ecosystems/habitats
-Gene-pool= not diverse enough- inbreeding
Social Pros:
- The poor can obtain fish at a lower price
- Fisherman in this trade in developing countries may have greater employment opportunities
- Fish contain 35% more fat and therefore greater concentrations of omega 3 fatty acids
Social Cons:
- Fish is more susceptible to parasites and diseases- undesirable for consumption
- Fisherman are exposed to many antibiotics in the farming process
-Humans consume an accumulation of antibiotics, pestecides, and  polychlorinated biphenyls.
Economic Pros: 
-As production of fish increases, demand increases (Jevon's Paradox)
-Countries have the power to produce their own natural resources to profit off of
-Developing countries can have more employment opportunities
Economic Cons:
-Disease spread from aquaculture to natural aquatic resources diminishes the population of natural harvestable sea-life
- As the price of fish lowers due to increase in general fish industry, wild fisherman face higher demands
-Resolving environmental issues resulting from aquaculture costs a significant amount of money

3)I believe that aquaculture is a good thing when utilized for the farming of more simple organisms such as seaweed and crustaceans however when larger fish are cultivated (ex. salmon), there are greater complications to the ecosystem and overall environment. Plants and crustaceans do not carry diseases in a way as destructive as fish-farming does. In fish farming, local wild fish are killed by diseases that are spread and ruin ecosystems. The end product of farmed fish is not ideal either. The fact that it is so highly concentrated with antibiotics, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls makes the act of eating fish no longer as beneficial to human health. If our ocean is overfished, why can't the world eat less of it? Considering the numerous sources of protein and omega 3s that can be consumed from other less destructive and cheaper sources (seeds, vegetables, fungus) farmed fish is not absolutely necessary. In my opinion, instead of destroying shorelines and sea life, it would be economically and environmentally beneficial to have more agriculture in developing countries instead of aquaculture. 
1. Aquaculture is the term for farmed oceanic resources ( fish, crustaceans, and plants ).

2. Pros and Cons of Aquaculture:
 Environmental Pros:
-Adds additional supply to overfished species (ex. salmon, sea bass)
-Regions involved in aquaculture will be more involved in the protection of coastal waters
 Environmental Cons:
-Spreads parasites/harmful bacteria/diseases to local wild fish species
-Can destroy local ecosystems/habitats
-Gene-pool= not diverse enough- inbreeding
Social Pros:
- The poor can obtain fish at a lower price
- Fisherman in this trade in developing countries may have greater employment opportunities
- Fish contain 35% more fat and therefore greater concentrations of omega 3 fatty acids
Social Cons:
- Fish is more susceptible to parasites and diseases- undesirable for consumption
- Fisherman are exposed to many antibiotics in the farming process
-Humans consume an accumulation of antibiotics, pestecides, and  polychlorinated biphenyls.
Economic Pros: 
-As production of fish increases, demand increases (Jevon's Paradox)
-Countries have the power to produce their own natural resources to profit off of
-Developing countries can have more employment opportunities
Economic Cons:
-Disease spread from aquaculture to natural aquatic resources diminishes the population of natural harvestable sea-life
- As the price of fish lowers due to increase in general fish industry, wild fisherman face higher demands
-Resolving environmental issues resulting from aquaculture costs a significant amount of money

3)I believe that aquaculture is a good thing when utilized for the farming of more simple organisms such as seaweed and crustaceans however when larger fish are cultivated (ex. salmon), there are greater complications to the ecosystem and overall environment. Plants and crustaceans do not carry diseases in a way as destructive as fish-farming does. In fish farming, local wild fish are killed by diseases that are spread and ruin ecosystems. The end product of farmed fish is not ideal either. The fact that it is so highly concentrated with antibiotics, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls makes the act of eating fish no longer as beneficial to human health. If our ocean is overfished, why can't the world eat less of it? Considering the numerous sources of protein and omega 3s that can be consumed from other less destructive and cheaper sources (seeds, vegetables, fungus) farmed fish is not absolutely necessary. In my opinion, instead of destroying shorelines and sea life, it would be economically and environmentally beneficial to have more agriculture in developing countries instead of aquaculture.