Choose two threats to biodiversity to research further and relate there problems to your hometown. Choose one from the modules and one to research on your own. 

1. The first threat to biodiversity I will be focusing on is overharvesting. Overharvesting has been a problem in this country for a long time in multiple ways. One example of this from the module that I thought was interesting was about deforestation in Pennsylvania. This was a historical problem where the clearing of the woodlands in Pennsylvania was used to supply fuel for iron furnaces. Also people liked the cleared spaces, so they removed the trees. The problem with this is that they did not account for how it would grow back. When new forests grow, they usually will not have the same biodiversity that the previous forest did. Overharvesting trees caused unnatural changes to the environment which negatively impacted all the animals and plants that were living there and forced them to find a new environment. Since this problem occurred in Pennsylvania, something like this could impact my hometown. Doylestown, PA has multiple forests and many species of wildlife living there. Recently an acre of forest near my home was burned down and that would definitely have a negative effect on the animals and plants that live there as they are forced to find a new place to live.
2. Another threat to biodiversity I chose to research was water pollution. There are multiple types of water pollution and all involve putting something into the ocean that is not meant to be there. One of the main types of water pollution is eutrophication which is putting substances into the ocean that affects the chemical nutrients in the water. Too much of these nutrients can cause algae to grow excessively which leads to them blocking sunlight for fish or plants. Fish cannot reproduce without sunlight and the ocean plants cannot go through photosynthesis. Also when algae grow they use a lot of oxygen that is in the water leaving less for other fish. This leads to fish moving around to find better oxygen or if they are not very mobile they could die. My hometown is not close to an ocean, but there are multiple small bodies of water. From personal observation, I know that people lazily throw their waste into the water. This water pollution can have very bad effects on the marine life there especially because in a small body of water like a pond or lake there is nowhere to completely escape the pollution. Both overharvesting and water pollution are evident in my hometown and hurting the biodiversity in the area.

Info from: http://www.edurite.com/kbase/effect-of-water-pollution-on-biodiversity

This system diagram begins with climate change which is a growing environmental issue. The leaders of many of the nations around the world are aware of this and are trying to collectively take action to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. They do this by meeting at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit and creating the Copenhagen Accord. The goal of this accord was to create ways for each country to cut greenhouse gas emission. It also planned to give aid to the poor countries that were affected by this. Not all the countries agreed on this accord and the U.S. wanted it to gain support because it serves their interests. The U.S. then provided massive amounts of financial aid to affected countries that they also threatened and spied on to get them to back the accord. This is what WikiLeaks discovered and exposed on the internet. These actions lead to mistrust from many nations even though they would continue supporting the Copenhagen Accord.  With this support from the other nations they 140 countries aligned with the accord allowing action to be taken on it. What the U.S. did here was by no means the right thing to do, but the result is that there will be significantly less greenhouse gas emission and action will be taken on the issue of climate change. Although the spying and threatening is not good, I think the ends justified the means in this case and now the world can make an effort to act on climate change.

I think climate change needs to be getting more attention from world leaders, so I like how they are meeting to discuss the matter. I also believe that countries need to start taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and I would agree with the Copenhagen Accord. Climate change has been recognized by many as the most important problem in the world today, but it has taken a while to see any action taken. The U.S. wanted to prompt other countries to take action because it is a collective action problem that can’t be resolved by any one country. They did do some spying and threatening to other nations that has led to mistrust, but it was for a good purpose. Since climate change is one of the biggest problems in the world today, I think the end result justifies the means taken to get there. The Copenhagen Accord is a huge step toward solving this problem and ending mitigation from countries and I believe this justifies the spying and threatening they did to get there. As for the cables being made public, this I do not agree with. It is sometimes important to be aware of the actions of our nation, but there is a lot the people don’t know and it is usually for the right reasons. The release of these cables took a lot of attention away from climate change which is hurtful in solving the problem. If this was kept secret, I think countries would be more focused at the real problem of climate change.

1. There are a few natural hazards that have an effect on my hometown which is Doylestown, PA. On the Nathan map, Doylestown was in the area for tropical cyclones, hail storms, and tornadoes. It is in zone 2 tropical cyclone territory which means wind speeds up to 212 km/h. Doylestown is also in zone 2 hailstorm territory which means the town gets a moderate not too intense storm. It is in zone 2 for tornadoes as well, so it gets low intensity tornadoes every once in a while. I don’t think this map is a very good fit because I have lived in
   Doylestown for my entire life and have never experienced an earthquake or tropical cyclone.
2. I read about a biological hazard that took place in Georgia. It is level 4 out of 4 on the hazardous scale, so this is a serious issue. Something like this could happen in my hometown, but biological hazards do not happen very often in general. This problem is in a town in Georgia that is a similar size to Doylestown and only one person is currently affected. This hazard is deadly and could spread through the air. If a problem like this happened in Doylestown the people who live in the most urban parts will be the most vulnerable.
3. From my personal experience the only natural hazards that occur in Doylestown, Pa are big snow storms. We have been having bad winters with a lot of big snowstorms. I researched the history of natural hazards in Doylestown and found some more from the past. Doylestown has had 3 earthquakes in the past, so there is a slight chance for earthquakes. There have also been many tornadoes there which are also present in the area. http://www.usa.com/doylestown-pa-natural-disasters-extremes.htm
4. For my town the main natural hazards are tornadoes and snow storms. One thing that the town does already for these is issuing weather warning whenever there is a high chance of either. Another idea is to have people stay away from or out of the main urban part of the town. If a tornado were coming, this could get a lot of people out of an area with many buildings and other structures that could cause harm to them due to the tornado. One thing I think that I can do is to inform others about the causes of tornadoes.  A tornado needs a cold rainy downdraft and a warm updraft, so telling people this might allow people to recognize a tornado before it actually happens.

1. My hometown is Doylestown, Pennsylvania. Doylestown is a rather small town with only about 8,000 residents in the 2.2 square miles that the town takes up. It is a suburb of Philadelphia which is only 27 miles away making it a popular automobile suburb. There are also many jobs in the urban parts of the town which make it somewhat pedestrian- oriented. I personally enjoy living in Doylestown, but there isn’t much to do. One good thing about it is that it is a drivable distance to Philadelphia, New York City, and the New Jersey beaches from there. There are many farms in the rural parts of the town where food is locally grown. It is also close to some big bodies of water such as the Delaware River.
2. The first city that I chose to discuss was Copenhagen. In this city they implemented car free streets that serve as public spaces for the residents. This caused people to start walking or cycling around town instead of driving cars and causing air pollution. This has led to many people walking around the beautiful city and it now has big public spaces for the people to enjoy. I think something similar could easily have the same effect in Doylestown. It is smaller than Copenhagen but still a very nice little town that has many roads going through it and there are small sidewalks that cyclists and pedestrians must share. I think making the two main roads that go through the center of town into public spaces would lead to fewer cars and encourage more bikes and walkers. This will be promoting environmentally healthy methods of urban transportation. I also think doing this will make the town more enjoyable for the residents.
3. The other city I would like to discuss is Bogota, Columbia. What this city does is have car free events. Every Sunday and holiday cars are banned for most of the streets in this city. This forces many people to bike or walk to places on these days which promotes good physical fitness and causes less air pollution due to the absence of car emissions. I really like this idea and I am surprised that it hasn’t gained more popularity in the United States. Implementing something like this in my town is very possible and would be good for everybody. I would love to see Doylestown filled with bikers and walkers instead of cars. It may be hard to do this because people have very different work schedules, but even if this is done once a month it will help with sustainability and may become more popular that way. This is truly a great idea that I think could definitely be successful in my hometown.

1.A personal example of when I made a food choice that was impacted by social norms was the last time I had to decide if I should make food or go out to eat. I was with a group of friends so the social norm in this case would be going out to a cheap restaurant and enjoying a nice dinner. The other option which was making food for me and my friends would have been the more sustainable food consumption. Buying food from a local market and cooking it would have been better for us and the environment than ordering burgers at The Tavern in State College. We ended up going out for dinner because it was more normal to all of us.

2.Following the social norm in this case caused us to make a poor food choice decision. The beef at the restaurant most likely was not local and neither were the lettuce, tomatoes, and onions. This means that there were resources and energy required to transport that food to the restaurant. Also the vegetable not locally grown could have herbicides and pesticides which have a negative impact on one’s health. If we had made our own burgers, we could have purchased all the food locally and significantly decreased our “food footprint”. This social norm of eating out with others instead of inviting them to eat a meal at home is big in many areas and will eventually cause sustainability problems. If the social norm was to invite your friends over and cook for them there would be significantly less of an environmental impact.  

1. The case study I chose to focus on was air pollution and transportation in Mexico. Mexico City has a problem with air pollution that is attributable to the car use there. This air pollution problem is growing and leading to negative health effects. Transportation contributes to about half the city’s total emission, so they tried to implement a program that would not allow cars to be used on a certain day. Not allowing people to drive their cars one day a week ended up doing the opposite of what it was supposed to. This program was inconvenient for the people because they couldn’t get to wherever they needed to be on certain days, so it would cause them to drive more on the days they were able to drive. A result of this program was increased demand for gasoline which meant that people weren’t driving any less and may be driving more than before. This issue involves environmental justice because the development of cars in this area has caused harm to people through negative health effects of air pollution. http://personal.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/air-mex.html
2. A case study that I researched was one in Greece that tried to solve the problems of putting wastewater directly into the ocean and high withdrawals of groundwater. There are large drink companies in Greece that used to just dump their wastewater into the sea. This led to a cement factory taking the wastewater instead of letting it go to sea. The factory uses this water to de-dust the gases from the cement kiln. This caused the cement factory to use less groundwater because the wastewater can be used the same way. It also offers a more environmentally friendly way for the drink company to dispose of their wastewater. This issue relates to the topic of sustainable development. Water is not an unlimited resource and the less water that is wasted now will lead to more being available in the future. http://www.lafarge.com/en/greece-a-partnership-reuse-waste-water-our-industrial-process
3. I come from a town in the suburbs of Philadelphia called Doylestown. Doylestown still experiences development problems like the ones in Mexico City and Greece, but on a much smaller scale. Being a fairly wealth area, Doylestown has many residents who own a car and in many cases more than one. The emission from these cars has an effect on air pollution, but it does not cause any negative health effects for the drivers of these cars. People in Doylestown are contributing to air pollution, but nothing is being done about it because its effects are not noticeable in the area. If the town decided to restrict which days people could drive their cars it would have similar results to Mexico City because it would be ineffective in decreasing the emissions. Doylestown doesn’t have a drink company that has plants in the area, but does use a lot of groundwater. The town’s main source of water is groundwater and any other source of water would be beneficial to reducing the amount of groundwater needed. If Doylestown reused water from a plant or factory of some kind, it would be benefit the town the same way it was in Greece.

1a. In my hometown of Doylestown, PA the water comes from systems that belong to a group called the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority which operates alongside the municipality. There are three public water systems in my county that stretch for more than 46 miles. These three systems together supply the water for the entire town. Their water comes from many wells and collected ground water. The wells used can be up to 500 feet deep and there are thirteen of them in the area. These systems then branch out to deliver water to homes like mine using underground pipes that lead directly to the water appliances. Once used, the water ends up in the public sewer systems located in Doylestown or surrounding towns that are also owned by the Bucks county Water and Sewer Authority. These public water systems supply there water for my town along with Warrington, Plumstead, Neshaminy, and other surrounding towns.

1b.

-Shower: 75 gallons

-Toilet Flushing: 24 gallons

-Drinking water: 1.5 gallons

-Washing hands/face: 10 gallons

-Brushing teeth:.5 gallon

total: 111 gallons of water per day

1c. In this experiment, I would have to focus on making sure I have enough water to drink. I would use about 100oz of the two gallons as drinking water. Another important use for water is in cooking, so I would need about 40oz of water for cooking uses. The rest of the water (116oz) would go to brushing teeth and washing my hands and face. I wouldn’t be able to flush a toilet or even take a shower because they both would require more than 2 gallons of water. This experiment would defiantly fail because I would use way more than 2 gallons. I try to turn off the sink as soon as I can when using them to save water and I also try to take shorter showers. Only 2 gallons a day isn’t even 2% of what I regularly use in a day. It is hard not to be wasteful and use too much water and water is often wasted by those who have all the water they need.

#1. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?

I think it is more important to be a good person rather than to preform good acts. It is possible for anyone to donate money to a charity, but it isn’t possible for just anyone to be a good person. Good people are characterized by how they treat others, carry themselves, and act. This means that a good person is likely doing good acts because that is the type of person they are. Even the worst people in the world could do a good act, but it doesn’t make them any better than they were before. There may be some scenarios where someone who isn’t a good person should do a good act rather than try to become a better person. This could be seen when certain countries need the help of a dictator from another country. In these cases, the dictator shouldn’t try to become a better person; they should do a good act and help the other country.

#2. Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs. means ethics)?

I think the ends justify the means more often than not. As long as the end result is good, the means to get there shouldn’t really matter. Even if the means to get to the end result are bad or unethical, the end result should make up for it. An example of this is the US government. Our government does many covert acts that the citizens do not know about because we may not agree with what the government is doing. In the end, the end result will be positive and it will be better that we didn’t know about what was going on. If the end result and means to get there are both negative, then the ends would definitely not justify the means in any way. In my opinion, even if the means are bad, the end result can make up for it by being very positive and beneficial.

#6. Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)?

I view my own life as more important than the lives of others and I think this is the way most people should think. As humans, our main goal every day is to keep ourselves alive, not others. We live in a dog-eat-dog world and everything is competition, even survival. It is important to value your own needs before the needs of others. This doesn’t mean the lives of other people aren’t important; however, it means that my own life is the most important to me. I still think the lives of others are important and value the lives or certain other people highly. The only time I would value other’s lives more than mine is if I was fighting in a war and serving my country. In this scenario, the lives of the people in the U.S. would be more important than mine cause that is who I am fighting for and willing to give my life for.

My system diagram shows how the biogas generators in India affect people and the environment. The biogas plants use dung from humans and animals and turn it into methane gas. This methane gas is used as clean fuel for women to cook with, and this eliminates the use of wood burning stoves that require wood from trees and pollute the air. Without wood burning stoves, the negative health effects from the smoke are eliminated and children no longer have to spend their study time collecting wood. The biogas generator also produces a byproduct called slurry that people turn into fertilizer. They then sell this fertilizer to farmers to make money, and the farmers use this fertilizer on their crops. Using this fertilizer leads to bigger crop yields and better crops for farmers who then sell this food to other people. In the end, there is a positive feedback loop in which the more dung produced leads to more food being produced. There is also a negative feedback loop where the more methane used leads to less wood burning. My system diagram and the one in Marten’s article both illustrate for the biogas generator produces clean fuel for humans and byproducts that can be used for fertilizer. In the article’s diagram, it includes the demands for cooking fuel and how that leads to the creation of biogas generators, which mine does not. Another difference in the diagrams is that mine points out how the biogas generator reduces environmental problems like air pollution and deforestation, which cannot be seen in the article’s diagram. Since both diagrams illustrate the same ecosystem in India there are many similarities, but there are also difference because I chose to focus more on some aspects of it than others. By observing these similarities and differences, I learned it is helpful to separate the human and environmental aspects of the diagram to clearly show their effect on each other.

Hi everyone. My name is Bryan Cammon and I am a freshman at the University Park campus. I currently live in a dorm in East Halls. I am from Doylestown, Pennsylvania which is about an hour north of Philadelphia and 3 hours from state college. My intended major is kinesiology and I hope to later pursue a doctoral degree in physical therapy. I plan on becoming a physical therapist and work in the orthopedic field. I chose to take this course because I wanted to try an online class and have always been interested in smaller scale geography. This is my first geography class and I would like to know more about the field and its importance.

One environmental issue that interests me is the drought taking place in California. I have never experienced a drought before and did not really know the extent of its effects. This has negatively impacted the marine life in California while causing the land to become dry and prone to wildfires. While impacting the environment, this issue is also a human environment interaction. Those who live in California must deal with this water shortage and live with limits on how much water they can use. This also affects the economy of California because it has led to agricultural problems along with decreased tourism.