1. Draw a system diagram for one of the letters in H.I.P.P.O. and explain what you are trying to illustrate.
2. Look up an invasive specie in your hometown area. What kind of impacts do they have? Include information on how they were introduced to the environment, and ways to control them/it.

For my systems diagram, I chose Habitat lose (H).  I applied it to the deforestation of a Rain forest.  When the forest is over harvested, three things occur.  Animals of course lose their habitats.  The majority of life in a rain forest lives in the canopy section of the trees.  The soil in a rain forest is actually rather poor, and so the forest struggles to make any kind of comeback.  Lastly, rain forest produce a large amount of the worlds oxygen supply.  If we continue to remove them, we are going to reduce the world oxygen supply, and increase the worlds carbon dioxide levels, which contributes to greenhouse gases.  When animals lose their habitats, they are either forced to move, or they die.  If they are a keystone specie (one that other animals rely on), then other animals in the environment will suffer.  These animals in turn will most likely die out.

One specie that is considered invasive in my hometown area is the Kudzu Vine.  When we hear the words “invasive species,” we typically think of animals.  However, plants can be just as invasive and damaging to the environment.  In the case of Kudzu, it can kill or damage other plants by completely covering them and potentially uprooting them.  Another issue with Kudzu is the rate that it spreads.  Once Kudzu is fully established, it can grow at an extremely fast rate – up to one foot a day (lightning fast for a plant!).  Kudzu was first brought to the U.S. at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition.  Rather unfortunately, farmers were misled into planting kudzu between 1935 and the 1950s in order to prevent soil erosion.  To remove Kudzu, one must completely destroy its root system, and constantly monitor it.  It may take several years to fully remove it, making it a lengthy process.

Source: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/forests/explore/kudzu.xml

The core ideas behind my system diagram is how the U.S. used espionage and funding’s (which I called bribery since that’s more or less what it is) to get countries to join the Copenhagen Accord, which was mostly written by the U.S.  When countries heard that about 30 billion dollars in financial aid would be available to help assists in projects that would reduce their climate change impact, they jumped on board almost immediately.  Some countries did not take the deal, but not nearly the same amount that joined the accord.  One person from Brussels asked if the money would be in the form of cash, which I found to be sort of sketchy.  The second part is making use of espionage.  For example, the U.S. sent secret cables to Meles Zenawi, who heads the African Union for climate change.  In the cable, the U.S. lays out an ultimatum stating that they “sign the accord or all discussion end now.”  In my diagram, you can see that whatever course the U.S. took to get countries to back the Copenhagen Accord, more often than not, the countries joined.  It would make sense to join if you are being offered money, but if you are being forced to join, you might show some resistance, like how the Netherlands found it hard that one of the conditions to receive any financial backing was to join the accord.  As you can see from the diagram, the Copenhagen accord has been accepted by about 75% of the countries within the United Nations.

In my opinion, I think the cables should have been made public.  My biggest problem with the Copenhagen accord is how the U.S. went about getting countries to join it.  The cables probably should not have existed in the first place, as it can and has sparked some controversy.  Also, the U.S. had the biggest hand in creating the accord.  I’m sure that it is written in a way that can only make the U.S. reap the benefits to the maximum.  I think that the U.S. should have went about this in a more diplomatic matter where each country helps to contribute to the accord.  If the all the countries worked together to work towards a common goal or agreement on how to control the climate, it would probably be a much more powerful movement.  What the Copenhagen accord really illustrates is that countries want money so that they can continue developing.  There is a chance that they will not use the money properly, and that it may go towards something else.  It also shows that the countries that were pushed into the accord don’t think that it is a good document to control the climate.  However, they do not really have a choice, because its either there in and receive help, or they are left behind.  Forcing someone into a cause without them understanding the cause almost never works.  They are either there for something else, or because they have to be there.  Unfortunately, this is often how politics works out.

Many of the natural disasters that are on the maps can occur in my hometown (Northeast Pennsylvania).  They include tropical cyclones, hailstorms, winter storms, tornados, and wildfires.  One of the metrics that I was surprised about was the tornado zone that my area is in.  I would have to disagree with the zone that my hometown is in (it’s hard to tell, but it looks like zone 2 or 3).  Although tornados have happened in Pennsylvania, they are extremely rare due to the climate conditions and the type of terrain that most of Pennsylvania consists of, which is hilly and mountainous.  For the tornados that have occurred in Pennsylvania, they are typically very weak and do not last long.  The rest of the metrics on the maps I feel are pretty accurate.

The natural disaster I selected from the RSOE and EDIS was a wildfire that was ignited around Ruidoso in New Mexico early this morning.  My hometown could experience a wildfire.  Fires have actually broken out in a nearby town on top of a mountain in the past.  The risk of this disaster is somewhat high, since much of the population lives in the forest where plenty of fuel for a fire is available.  Although the vulnerability isn’t quite as high as somewhere like New Mexico, where the climate is very dry, and any vegetation is likely to be very dry either naturally or due to the climate.  That being said, in the summer, we have had times where droughts have been declared, and fire watches were put in place.  The scale of the event in New Mexico as determined by the RSOE EDIS is small.  If this were to occur in my hometown, I would probably classify it as a medium scale.  The reason for this is the amount of vegetation that is available for a fire to consume.  The area in New Mexico has some vegetation to consume, but not nearly as much as what my area has.  As for the severity of the disaster if it occurred in my hometown, I would say the people that actually live in the town and not around it are less vulnerable to a wildfire.  Inside the town is all developed, and little vegetation is present due to the fact that buildings are in place.  In order to lower the vulnerability of a wildfire occurring, there is not much you can do.  You can raise awareness of the situation, which may help prevent a fire from occurring from say someone throwing a cigarette butt out of their car, but other than that, there isn’t much one can do from a practical standpoint to prevent such a disaster.  You can add to the fire department, but that doesn’t prevent a fire, it would only help combat one that has already broken out.

Using the internet, I was able to find some information about natural disasters for Scranton Pennsylvania (a larger city near my hometown).  The chances of an earthquake occurring in Scranton is very low.  The tornado level is higher than I would have expected again, but is still about half the national average.  Some other natural disasters which are notably high are hail storms, and flooding.  There have been few times where I can recall a significant hail storm coming through the area, but flooding is certainly one of the most common natural disasters we face in northeast Pennsylvania.  The last major flood occurred in 2011.  Many areas near Scranton and including Scranton were impacted severely by this flooding.

Source: “Scranton, PA Natural Disasters and Weather Extremes.” USA.com. World Media Group, LLC. Web. 29 Mar. 2016. <http://www.usa.com/scranton-pa-natural-disasters-extremes.htm>.

I think the best way to reduce the vulnerability of a natural disaster in any location is to be prepared before it occurs.  As a former Boy Scout, and Eagle Scout, one of the required merit badges is Emergency Preparedness.  While working towards this badge, you learn that the best way to deal with a disaster is to be prepared.  Being prepared for a disaster can include having adequate supplies stocked and having a plan in place.  I feel that there is no single person that is best suited for being prepared, as it is a group effort.  The next best way to reduce the vulnerability is to build up the resilience of the community.  Depending on the disaster, many things can be done to prevent a disaster, such as establishing levees to prevent flooding.  At a smaller level, I mentioned in previous module about culverts in my community that help drain water away.  Maintaining these culverts is up to the house owners, and without proper upkeep, they can eventually lead to water overflowing out of them.

I live in a rather rural area, but the closest city of significant size is Scranton.  Dubbed “The Electric City,” Scranton is located in Lackawanna county in northeast Pennsylvania along interstate 81.  It consists of a city center like an urban downtown, with houses surrounding it on the outside in a somewhat suburban fashion.  Including its metropolitan area, the total population is about 560,000.  My connection with Scranton is that my campus is located within its metropolitan area, and if I ever want to do something, such as go to the movies, or go out to dinner, I have to make my way to Scranton to do so.  Many of you may know Scranton as the city that the television show “The Office” is based in.

One of the cities from the module that I found unique was Curitiba.  The specific aspect I found interesting was their transportation mode – the bus system.  Curitiba has about 2 million people that live in the city.  They were unable to build a subway system due to cost, so they built the city around the bus by making dedicated roads for buses and creating a pay ahead system for speeding the process up.  Scranton does have a bus system, but the buses share the same roads as the car.  Scranton is still mostly a city where everyone owns their own car.  If Scranton could implement a bus system like the one in Curitiba, less people would need their own vehicle, which will in turn improve the overall sustainability of the city.  However, it may be very costly in the beginning since Scranton was not built around the bus from the beginning.

The other city that I found interesting in how they help create sustainable development is Bogota in Colombia.  Bogota is said to be the world leader in weekly car-free events that they call Ciclovias.  This again could be considered as a part of their transportation mode.  During these times, cars are not allowed on more than 75 miles of the city’s streets.  With the streets clear, people can freely bicycle, skate, or walk on the streets.  Not only does this sound fun, but it’s a great way to get people active.  With less cars on the road, the city’s air quality would also improve.  Scranton could probably adopt a similar method like Bogota’s to help create sustainable development.  People already bike and walk in the city, but not on such a grand scale.  I think it would be really interesting to see how it would affect Scranton.

A social norm that I feel influences my food choices is that by being in school, I don’t have the time to make a meal for myself all of the time.  This goes the same for when I am at work.  I would say that at least 60% of the food I eat is prepared by someone else.  Whether it be a restaurant or the cafeteria at my job, my food is usually made for me.  There is a variety or what is available to me, but I know that most of it is not the best for my health (or my wallet).  In addition, a second social norm would be the “I am young” ideology, meaning that since I am so young I can basically eat anything and not worry about it.  For a while this seemed true, but I believe it is catching up to me, slowly but surely (and sadly).

As I said in my first paragraph, a significant amount of the food I consume is prepared for me.  In most of these cases, I am willing to bet that the food I am eating is genetically modified in some way.  For example, the beef on my burger from say Burger King, is probably from a cow that has been either bred to produce the most beef or is feed a special diet to make it produce more beef.  Even the lettuce on my burger is probably from a head of lettuce that has been modified to fight against pests that may want to eat it in the fields.  Genetically modified food may be controversial, but it does help to keep a sustainable food supply going for us.  The downside of eating out and genetically modified foods are the societal issues.  Eating out often can cause unwanted health issues, it is expensive, and it is widely believed that Genetically Modified foods can harm us as well.

For my first case, I selected a Land Care System that arrived in the Philippines in the late 1990s.  In order to make a more sustainable environment, the new Philippine constitution of 1987 added specific provisions for the management of natural resources and the environment.  This case specifically focuses on Barangay Ned in the province of South Cotabato.  For Barangay Ned, erosion was an issue to due logging and cultivation.  The Land Care System helped to create groups of farmers who could learn from each other in order to manage their lands, but over time, has decreased in popularity due to a decrease in training.  For those who used the program, they did learn a lot about erosion and ways to prevent it.  The conclusion of this case is that a program must take the time to understand the livelihoods of the people involved, otherwise it will fail to achieve its goals.  This case study relates to a sustainable development because Barangay Ned was in need of having a sustainable environment that they can continue to harvest from.  Link: http://personal.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/Smith.htm

My second case study is of a smaller scale, but still important.  A company called Lafarge built a new river crossing at one of its quarries on Reunion Island (off the coast of Madagascar).  The crossing in question was rebuilt to use better pipes, which aided any species such as migratory fish and crustaceans (even some endangered ones) move along through the river.  What makes this river crossing even more effective is the continuation of monitoring it. The monitoring efforts involve a number of engineers, local fishermen, and stakeholders.  The monitoring has shown that the new river crossing is proving to be effective for the species that live in the area.  As I said before, this is smaller in size, but is still important to contributing to a sustainable environment.  In this case, the local aquatic species.  Link: http://www.lafarge.com/en/reunion-innovative-project-protect-unique-local-biodiversity

To relate these cases back to where I live, relatively close to my house there is a small “dam” as we call it (no more than 15 feet wide) with a small bridge to walk over.  A few years ago, the “dam” was in need of repair.  Behind this dam was a small lake that many fish and other creatures occupy.  On the front end of the damn, a small stream that makes its way down to an even bigger lake.  If this dam were to have been allowed to crumble away, the creatures that rely on the lake would be in trouble.  In addition, erosion would occur along all of the stream as well as flooding due to the high amount of water being added to the stream.  Just like the other two case studies, this dam helped to keep the environment more sustainable for the people that live near it as well as any species that occupy the lake.

Part A:  In my hometown, I live in a community called The Hideout.  Inside of The Hideout is an independent water company called Roamingwood Sewer and Water.  They operate five wells inside of The Hideout where they extract the water from.  From there, it is piped into my house where it is ready for consumption.  After being used, the water is sent back to the sewage plant, across a 40-mile network.  This network contains over 1000 manholes, and 29 lift stations, which pumps the water.  The sewage plant treats the water, and sends it back into the system for use again.  In addition, along the sides of the roads in The Hideout are culverts.  These ditches are thoroughly maintained and allows us to capture rain water which then makes its way into the sewer system and is sent to Roamingwood for treatment.  They also provide a defense against erosion and help to keep the roads intact.

Part B:  

Part C:  While attempting to live on only two gallons of water, I found that simple things like a glass of water have to be considered.  An eight ounce glass of water may seem small, but it would be a significant amount when only looking at two gallons.  I set limits for myself to reduce the amount of water I used.  I did not take a shower, brushed my teeth being cautious with the amount of water I used, and found alternatives for washing my hands (like hand sanitizer).  I suppose you can say that my day was successful, but in reality, I doubt I could repeatedly do this.  Short term, it was successful, but in the long term, I would be sure to fail.  Compared to my table of water use, many of the activities I use water for I can’t even accomplish with two gallons of water (even flushing a toilet would use too much!)  The way geography matters for water use is significant.  Probably the most significant way it influences water use is physical location.  If you are in a desert, you are unlikely to have much water to begin with, and as such, you would probably be more conscious about how it’s used.  If you lived near a river or lake, the amount of water you can use would be greater.  But this raises other issues, such as if the river or lake were to become contaminated.  Efforts would have to be made in order to protect these water sources.