1. In 150-200 words, describe an area that’s protected by an international conservation organization and the importance of the protection that is provided. What would have happened to it if it had not been protected? What does the future hold for the site?

2. In your own words, what do you think will come of the human species in one thousand years? Will we still be on Earth? Will we have spread to other solar systems? How will maintaining bio diversity, sustainable development, on the planet affect our survival?

3. Using a system diagram, illustrate the effects that the area has on bio diversity and sustainability.

In central Colorado there are 30,540 acres of mountainous forest called Mount Massive Wilderness Area. The IUCN classifies it as ‘Ib’, which means it’s protected to ensure that biodiversity and other natural functions of the ecosystem can flourish[1]. Human presence is heavily restricted, and ‘leave no trace (pack it in/pack it out) practices are enforced. It designated a wilderness area in 1980 by congress and has been managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service ever since. The Leadville national fish hatchery is located within the boundaries of the area and serves to rear several different species of trout to ensure populations of remain sustainable in the rocky mountain area. Without services like this, humans would’ve fished the rivers dry of trout and many of these species would’ve most likely gone extinct. Instead, because of the hatcheries, sportsman can enjoy fishing while the population stays sustainable. As long as current practices are enforced into the future, and barring any natural disaster, this wilderness area will remain pristine for many generations to come.

The human species has proven itself to be an extremely dominant life form. Though we are still relatively new to the planet, we are amazingly adaptable and durable. We exist in every climate. We have a presence on every major body of land. We even maintain a human presence that orbits the planet. We have survived extreme natural disasters, extinctions, famine, plagues, pandemics, wars, etc. Every test that has been thrown at us since the dawn of our existence has been survived. Even with everything that was against us, we’ve flourished to the point of overpopulation that’s depleting our natural resources and polluting our environment. Our biggest hurdle in our evolution is proving to be ourselves. I truly believe that we can and will overcome the challenges us. Collective action will take hold when the effects of climate change become apparent to all. We will apply sustainable ethics to our thought processes and develop appropriate methods of living. We will ensure our own bio diversity as well as our environment’s because without it we won’t be able to survive here long enough to develop the knowledge and means to survive on other worlds. In 1,000 years, I think that we will have learned to live off the planet and will leave this solar system in search of other habitable places for the continued growth of our species.

[1] (wikipedia/ IUCN protected area categories 2016)

1. 

2. Once climate change and the idea that civilization is mostly responsible for it gained enough traction, the world began to take action. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol were adopted,
among other initiatives throughout the world. The United States realized that
the targets set forth in these deals were going to end up being extremely bad
for the economy, a short term effect in the grand scheme but something that
would be very significant to the American way of life especially considering
the state of the national economy at the time. Even though a global deal wasn’t
reached at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, they were able to create the
Copenhagen Accord. The U.S. knowing that this was beneficial to us economically, as well as politically, backed this and began to diplomatically seek support using economic aid as encouragement to back the accord. The E.U. knowing the accord wasn’t the best deal for the state of climate change in the world but realizing that having the majority of the world’s greenhouse gas contributors on one page would be extremely beneficial for possibilities in the future. The United States ends up with 140 countries backing the accord, which would make it seem like the compromises that are made presently could be worth it in the future when a new deal could be negotiated between countries that are already members of the Copenhagen Accord. This seems like substantial progress
to me, especially when it’s hard enough to get some of these countries just to
sit down and discuss things like climate change.   

3. My views on this subject probably make me seem like an extremely indoctrinated American, I am a U.S. Marine currently serving at a diplomatic posting so I may have a unique perspective on this topic when compared to other people that are in more traditional roles as students. These cables should not have been exposed. Wikileaks compromised many lives when they did that and they are arguably responsible for American deaths. The State Department and various intelligence agencies have missions appointed to them by elected government officials that are privy to information that is being analyzed by many extremely qualified personnel. They have to balance consequences and try to make decisions that will be most beneficial to their constituency (also known as the American people). I can assure you that Julian Assange didn’t have consequences in mind when he released these to the world. As an American voter you should trust the government to make decisions on policies that affect the world and leave those kinds of things to those people that have resources, like the CIA, at their disposal. If you as an American don’t like the foreign policy of the government, that’s your cue to vote for changes. All of that being said, things like climate change and the processes behind the policies that the world’s governments are are adopting affect all of us. There should be more transparency so that if interested, people can have access to appropriate information to educate themselves on the goings on of the world and form educated opinions. 

1. Casablanca, Morocco is located on the Northwestern side of the African continent. Casablanca’s propensity for earthquakes falls into Zone 0. For cyclones, Zone 0. Hailstorms, Zone 1. Extratropical Storms, Zone 0/1. Tornadoes, Zone 1. Finally the highest risk event: Wildfires falling into Zone 2. Casablanca suffers no anomalies during El Nino or La Nina, observed no real change in mean temperature, and observed very little change in precipitation since 1978. All of these natural disaster risks fall into the lower, if not the lowest, sections of each scale. This indicates Morocco as a safe place to live with regards to propensity for major natural disasters
2. On 31 March, 2016 at 1938 (UTC), Sinabang, located on the Indonesian archipelago, experienced an earthquake that was a 5 on the Mercalli scale. It happened off the coast at a depth of 38.74km. This caused everyone in the affected area to feel movement. Though it didn’t seem too violent, dishes broke, smaller objects moved and things were spilled. The risk for Casablanca experiencing an earthquake of similar magnitude is pretty small, there’s a history of earthquakes not very far away to the North. Sinabang only has a population of 20,000 whereas Casa has almost 3.5 million packed into a much more urban sprawl. I would assume that the chance for injuries would be much higher based on the population density. The people here haven’t experienced any major natural disasters in recent history and are most likely very complacent in regards to any kind of immediate actions for personal safety.
3. My assessment of Casablanca is that it would be extremely vulnerable to a major earthquake. The architecture is obviously not suited to any kind of earthquake whatsoever and would most likely crumble during any major seismological activity. The city’s emergency response is slow at best and traffic would hamper the movement of emergency response vehicles and other first responders, which would only serve to exasperate any casualty causing conditions. There is no type of emergency education or preparation made available to the general populace so there would be mass confusion during anything serious which would also only serve to complicate emergency response.
4. To reduce Casablanca’s vulnerability to a major earthquake, there would need to be some sort of push to educate the populace in regards to emergency preparation and appropriate response to perspective disaster scenarios. The city’s government should implement evacuation plans and routes for all of the major neighborhoods and then tailor their first responder’s plans to fit those needs. The best people to perform these actions would include the King, because in this society you’ll never get anything done without his approval first. Then you would have to rely on the heads of the appropriate ministries within the government to implement these changes. Hopefully they would reach out to other places and people with real world experience in dealing with disasters.

Downtown Casablanca, this is just a taste of some of the structural engineering that can be found here.

Currently I’m living in Casablanca, Morocco. It’s Morocco’s biggest city located on the western coastline. It’s a major port city and home to almost 3.5 million people. The types of neighborhoods that you can find here cover the entire range, though it’s dangerous to use any of the popular modes of transportation. From my perspective, enforcement of traffic laws is almost completely nonexistent, making it very dangerous to be a pedestrian, cyclist, or fellow motorist on any of the streets here. Morocco has vast amounts of farmland outside of the cities that provide their cities with year around produce that is cheap and affordable. Many people that do have jobs within the Metropolitan area work in trade/shipping, banking, and government. This place is full of different culture, it can be very dirty and sometimes dangerous, but it can also be beautiful.

Copenhagen is a much smaller city but Casablanca could learn so much from them. Casablanca could emplace and enforce strict traffic laws that facilitate travel by pedestrians and cyclists and much of the day to day traffic would go away. Changing Casablanca to a ‘bicycle-oriented’ system would be the easiest sustainable change to make because of how little the existing infrastructure would have to change. Morocco also already has great weather that would ease this type of travel. This is a difficult comparison to make though, because the differences in socio economics between the two countries are vast; average household size in Denmark is much smaller than in Morocco, Denmark has a much more favorable GDP, and education standards here aren’t nearly as high as they are in Europe; most of these people aren’t remotely aware of the carbon footprint they leave by living the way that they do.

Curitiba’s population and size is very comparable to Casablanca’s. A mass transit system based on principles established by Curitiba would be perfect for this place. It would cut down on traffic which would in turn cut down on air pollution, providing a healthier environment for the residents. It could save people money in a place where money is already very tight. A reliable mass transit system could even help provide opportunities for people to seek employment in places within the city that they wouldn’t have been able to travel to before. Getting children to education centers would also be streamlined, which would also be good for Morocco’s future. Transitioning from the automobile oriented to a mass transit or streetcar oriented system would be very challenging because of the associated expenses, as well as the major changes and modifications that the existing infrastructure would require.

Social norms have influenced my food choices in several ways: Birthday cake, eggs for breakfast, milk or cream in coffee, coffee not tea, etc. One particular social norm in particular stands out in my opinion and that would be turkey on Thanksgiving. Since I could eat solid foods to last year’s holiday, I have had turkey for the holiday meal. It’s accepted that turkey was served on the first thanksgiving that was shared between early settlers and Native Americans, and ever since it has been a staple for all Thanksgiving meals in the United States, it’s also celebrated in other parts of the world just not as universally. All of my friends growing up, all of my family, and my neighbors all make turkeys for their families on that particular day.

According to the National Turkey Federation, approximately 46 million turkeys are eaten on Thanksgiving in the United States. Given the massive demand for a single type of animal on one day of the year, it is unlikely that the current practices for most people could be supported without massive turkey farms that are supported with unsustainable and industrialized agriculture. The conditions in which these birds are raised are unhealthy and most likely require regular doses of antibiotics to keep them healthy, contributing to problems with antibiotic resistant bacteria. The conditions are also conducive to epidemics for example, last spring in the United States, 8 million turkeys died due to an outbreak of avian flu. I fully support eating turkey on Thanksgiving and, even though it would affect prices drastically, think that more sustainable methods of raising turkeys should be in place. Open pasture grazing, minimal feed, and minimal use of antibiotics.

The first case study that I’ve chosen is from IRIN News and is about climate change and its possible effects on disease throughout the world. The article can be found at https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog030/node/355. The goal of this piece is to shed light on the fact that the world’s epidemics have been changing in ways that our healthcare might not be able to keep up with. These changes have ties to warmer temperatures and other changes that could be due to climate change. If humans are to blame for the climate changes that the Earth is experiencing, than the idea of sustainable development that isn’t compromising to future generations is already being forsaken. Major changes would have to be made to avoid some of the problems that have occurred in history. A farmed out piece of land is maybe just as bad as a disease infested wasteland. Changes in our current development may be able to curb the rising temperatures of the Earth, possibly avoiding some of the consequences that are being described and predicted in the article.

The second case can be found at http://earthjustice.org/features/the-case-of-the-vanishing-honey-bee#. I found this because I’m already familiar with the problems that the world’s bee population has been facing for the last 10 years, and some of the points in the article described above, draw very similar and parallel points with bees. The bee population in the world has dramatically decreased and this issue should be of concern to all. According to this article and many others like it, it’s estimated that every third bite of food in the world is made possible by the pollination of bees. This article draws specific attention to neonics used in plants today. Neonics are systemic when taken in by the plant and persist always, not like conventional pesticides that wear off at some point. This poses serious hazards to bees as these plants will poisonous to them for their entire lives. This again calls into question the absolute need for sustainable development, specifically in regards to agriculture.

California has been facing some of the most severe drought conditions in living memory. Many crops have already failed and many ecosystems have been forever changed because of this. Already, many farms in California rely almost solely on domesticated honey bees to pollinate their crops because there is not enough local and native pollinators available. If climate change persists and conditions do not improve California’s agriculture could suffer egregiously and could slip so far as to not recover. In regards to the first case study; what would happen if some new disease that effected insects proliferated and killed all of the local bees? Even if eventually moisture returned to the area you wouldn’t be able to get bee keepers to truck their bees in for fear of the new epidemic, effectively ending agriculture that relies on pollination in the state. Sustainable development applies to agriculture the same way as it does to burning fossil fuels. If our current practices are killing the world’s leading pollinator, we need to re-think them. If are current practices are altering the climate of the world, we need to re-think them.

1A.

Water Supply in Colorado Springs

Colorado Springs’ water supply starts out mostly as snow pack but also consists of rain and mountain springs. There are also several wells tapped into major aquifers around the state. The majority of the water supplied to the city is snow pack though. Once the snow starts to melt it ends up in reservoirs. The city’s water begins its long journey from these reservoirs on the western slopes of the Rocky Mountains. It’s transported via pipelines, pumping stations and several other reservoirs before it enters into the city’s water treatment facility and then into the water system that feeds residences. From the tap the water drains into the sewer system where it is transported to the city’s wastewater treatment facilities. After the wastewater is treated it flows into Fountain Creek, a tributary to the Arkansas River. The Arkansas River is a major tributary to the Mississippi River which will eventually flow into the Gulf of Mexico.

1B.

20160209- Water Usage for the day.

1000: Washed hands and Flushed toilet @3gpf≈ 3.5gal

1010: 16oz used for cooking breakfast and 16oz glass of water with breakfast≈32oz

1130: Filled water bottle≈48oz

1230: Showered for about 10:00 @2gpm≈20gal

1240: Brushed teeth≈4oz

1330: Made coffee ≈18oz

1530: Washed hands and Flushed urinal @.5gpf≈1gal

1630: Washed hands and Flushed urinal @.5gpf≈1gal

1800: Meal that required ≈ 16oz

2030: Washed hands and Flushed urinal @.5gpf≈1gal

0030: Washed hands and Flushed toilet @3gpf≈ 3.5gal

0035: Filled water bottle≈ 48oz

Total: ≈31.25 gallons

1C.

The single largest are of usage for me (and I suspect many others as well) is the shower. Without my shower, I only used 11.25 gallons that day. If I would’ve utilized nature and not toilettes I would’ve only consumed 3.25 gallons of water through drinking, cooking and washing my hands. I could’ve forgone washing my hands and saved another 2.5 gallons which would’ve put me way under the theoretical 2 gallon limit. I’m pretty conscious about my daily water usage and do my best to conserve as much as possible, my priorities would always be drinking and cooking if having to deal with sever water shortages. I think my experiment would be a success. If there wasn’t a requirement to interact in a socially professional environment where hygiene is important, I think I would be just fine, although I’d be at a much higher risk for disease and infections. Geography is very important when it comes to water use. In Colorado Springs, without modern technology, there would be no way to support the current population BECAUSE of the geography! Some of the alpine reservoirs are on the opposite side of the continental divide. Geography is the major component in water availability in the world.

Question 1: Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts?

I would say that it is more important to make ethical decisions than it is to be a good person. These kinds of things are all relative; If I own an oil company that employs 100,000 people, where the ability to produce and distribute product influences governments and economies all over the world (much like today’s world), I want my CEO to care as much for the environment as POSSIBLE, however he/she needs to focus on keeping the company operating at an efficient capacity and that WILL involve unethical decisions that have major consequences in the environment. If I’m an environmentalist that forces legislature that shuts down said oil company, there’s going to be major economic consequences that include 100,000 people possibly losing their jobs, not very ethical in regards to the human side of things (pretty terrible, actually) but very ethical in regards to the environment. The ‘terrible’ CEO and the ‘terrible’ environmentalist are both bad people making ethical decisions, and both of them wouldn’t be able to make these important decisions if they were ‘good’ people. Without these types of individuals there would be endless debate about what is right is wrong resulting in no progression, but if you had ‘bad’ people that stayed in their lanes of focus and make ethical decisions, you would at least have progress towards whatever ends await.

Question 5: Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans?

The pain or pleasure of other animals does not matter as much as humans. If the entire race of human beings thought that the opposite was true, they’d would’ve gone extinct a very long time ago. Humans didn’t start off by eating plants, we started eating meat and if you think that another animal’s pleasure or pain is more important than your own, you’re probably not going to eat very much healthy meat. You can actually ask this question in different context, one where I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO GIVE ME A REASON AS TO WHY I’M WRONG: To any parent; would you rather let a lion eat your baby, or kill the lion?  The bottom line is that it would literally be impossible for humans to exist right now if we had put other species before our own. It does matter though, and should be taken into account. Ethics should be maximized when taking animals for meat, but until a Star Trek style “food synthesizer” is invented, there will be cattle slaughtered for food, hopefully as painlessly as possible. You can even apply this to other humans; If other people’s pain and pleasure was more important to you, how would be able to feed yourself knowing that there’s millions that go hungry? The answer to this question is no.

Question 6: Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less?

This question is very interesting. I’m currently serving in the military, so to answer anything but “all of the above” would be seriously hypocritical. Is my life more important than any civilian citizen of the U.S.? No. Is my life more important than ANYONE other than an American’s? Yes. Is my life EQUALLY as important to my fellow service men or women? Yes. There’s obviously nuances within the military with rank, allies, and whatnot, but basically when it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter what rank a service member is, their lives are expendable when it comes to the defense of citizens. That same service member will (or should) be willing to kill another human in that same defense. To not make myself sound so indoctrinated, you can apply this to any family group in many different species. A parent will most likely be willing to sacrifice themselves in defense of their offspring. They will also be willing to take life in defense of their offspring. There is no one word answer to this question, it just depends on the circumstances.

The diagram below shows that the social system provided the means for someone to innovate and create the biogas generator. Biogas generators provide reduced smoke which facilitates cleaner cooking and less pollution as well as creating fertilizer through using dung. Because there is less wood required, children can spend more time in school and on their studies which will result in higher education, more/different employment opportunities, and (hopefully) future innovations. All of this came about because of fewer health problems which also facilitated higher crop yields and better usage of land. The diagram shows a system that isn’t very resilient, in my opinion. For example; if there was a disease that affected cow/farm animal population drastically, then there would be little or no dung to use for biogas, forcing people to revert back to using wood for their primary source of fuel which would either cause a breakdown of the rest of the system or severely hamper its efficiency. In regards to population this represents both, a positive as well as a negative feedback loop. It reduces the need for the large families to gather wood and work, but at the same time it will provide economic opportunities for people, that will be able to support larger families. Compared to Gerry Marten’s diagram: There are similarities in that they both show causes, effects, and solutions. My diagram shows an overall flow between the ecosystem and social system not just cause and effect. They’re similar because it’s based on the same situation.

My name is Taylor Gunderson. I’m 28 years old and was born in Minnesota. I’ve lived in several different states and even a few different countries. I graduated high school in Colorado so that’s where I claim home to be. Right now I’m living in Casablanca, Morocco assigned to the U.S. Consulate. Before this I was in Lahore, Pakistan (not a very nice place for Americans) and before that I was assigned to the U.S. Mission in Geneva, Switzerland (great place). I’ve been serving with the U.S. Marines for a little longer than 10 years now, and I’ll complete my current my assignment with the U.S. State Department, later this year. I’m not entirely sure about my future as of right now. One of my best friends just finished his bachelor’s in GIS, and he always made geography out to be a very interesting subject to study, so we’ll see how it goes!

Just in my lifetime, the world’s population has increased from about 5,000,000,000 in 1987, to more than 7,000,000,000 today. It doesn’t take a great knowledge of math to know that those are incredible numbers, and barring any of the major existential risks coming to fruition on the planet, this number is likely to double within my lifetime. With that, studying and understanding human impact on the environment will only become more important as time progresses. Humans will need to learn how to grow our population without completely depleting the natural resources that are available to us, or causing major extinctions in other organisms. Establishments of environmental policies will become paramount, and leaders that will be making those decisions will require clear, concise, and accurate information so that the best possible outcome can be facilitated.