Progress Verses Protection in Turkey

The constant battle between economic gains that push countries into the  twenty-first century and the environmental concerns in preserving natural landscape continues to develop in Istanbul Turkey.  At the national government’s announcement to turn Gezi City Park into a new commercial development space, mass uproar rose from environmentally concerned citizens on the desolation of some of the only remaining green area in Istanbul.  Concentrating on economic and industrial progress, the government is faced with a choice to either continue the urbanization of its natural landscapes or protect its green space and animal habitats.  Though there are no concrete solutions at this point, there are several options to be considered. The Gezi Park could remain as it is to preserve the natural habitat and green space, but then the potential loss of economic revenue holds back the growth and modernization of Istanbul, modernization that is greatly needed. Another solution would be to go ahead and industrialize the Gazi Park but leave various green areas intact while creating environmentally friendly buildings. Unfortunately, Turkey as a whole is not as environmentally conscious as other nations due to its focus on first developing, then refining, their economic and environmental policies. Creating environmentally friendly buildings is therefore a difficult task.  The balance of progress and protection, along with the restrictions of green technology in Turkey lead me to personally believe that the Gazi Park should be left as a natural habitat and environmental oasis until a way to build environmentally friendly buildings can be achieved. If Istanbul continues to grow economically it must remain conscious of its impact on nature and if the environment can be considered in future affairs it would limit the amount of discord between economist and environmentalist.

A link to the article that served as subject matter for the blog can be found at

http://www.pri.org/stories/business/global-development/environmental-concerns-at-the-core-of-turkish-protests-14213.html  

Oil Spill in Thailand

     In Thailand, a very recent oil spill caused evacuations of one of its beaches, which is a prime tourism and fishing spot. Not only will this accident damage the environment, but it will also damage Thailand's economy. Roughly 50,000 liters worth of crude oil leaked from an offshore pipeline off the island of Koh Samet on Sunday, which led the government to evacuate tourists from the oil-blackened island. To try and clear up the mess, dispersant was used which causes the oil to sink to the bottom of the ocean, which may damage marine life and will have a long-term effect on the environment. It is also suspected the company responsible for the oil spill lied about the amount that leaked, and 75,000 to 100,000 liters of crude oil may have actually spilled into the water.

     This is a terrible tragedy, and to stop things like this happening permanently, humans must stop using oil as fuel and move toward cleaner alternatives, like solar and wind power. For now, though, Thailand must clean up its oil spill, and even ask for help from other countries if needed.

     Not too much is stopping humans from moving toward cleaner fuel sources, but most predominately, the issue is money. National governments need to realize that putting money into the initiative for cleaner fuel sources will only benefit the entire planet and all of the species living on it.

     This incident resembles what happened a few years ago in the Gulf of Mexico, and Thailand should follow our example and clean everything up the right way to prevent a lasting effect of the oil on marine life. We need to move to cleaner sources of energy in order to protect the planet and us.

Oil Spill Article on CNN 

Is 3D printing an enviromental win?

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/07/19/3d-printing-environmental-win


This article compares the environmental advantages and disadvantages to 3-D printers verses conventional mill production. Right away it debunks the myth that 3-D printers have zero waste, in fact forty five percent of the ink from an ink jet 3-D printer is wasted and that ink is unable to be recycled. The problem that arose when creating this experiment was isolating the different variables and comparing all factors of how the mill and printer impacted the environment. When it comes to the waste of product the mill is inefficient compared to the 3-D printers especially the FDM; this is because with the mill a computer cuts off the unwanted material to form the object; while the 3-D printer makes it from scratch. Injection molding, however, wasted the least amount of material, because it injects the plastic directly into the mold. The energy involved in creating the object was measured and the conclusion was that the operator controlled how much energy was wasted more than the design of the actual machines, if fact the machines utilized more energy when just running then when creating an object. When the points system was utilized to measure the above factors as well as the environmental impact of the creation of the machines itself it was found that the FDM was the clear winner and the ink jet and the mill where closer competitors. While the mill wasted the most materials the ink jet utilized a much more electricity. The main conclusion that can be drawn from this article and even utilized in an average person’s quest to cut down on his or her environmental footprint is the importance of turning of equipment when finished and conserving as much electricity as possible. As shown with this experiment, the main reason for both the ink-jet and the FDM 3-D printers from matching the environmental standards of injection molding is the electrical waste when not being utilized.

Coal Pollution in China Cutting Lifespan

China now discontinued policy gave free coal for heating north of the Hoai River, carving estimably 5 years off life expectancy. There are around 500 million people living North of China who are affected by the air pollution causes by the burning of coal. Researchers from China, the US and Israel shows that the region had a very high rate of lung and heart disease as the outcome of the policy that was enforced in 1980. Burning coal releases fine particles into the air. The concentrations of total suspended particulates were about 55% higher in the north compared to the south of China. 100 micro-grams per cubic meter associated with a drop in life expectancy of about 3 years. In 2001, statistics shows that there were about 400 μg/m3 across china. Currently, china burns nearly as much coal as the rest of the world combined, the US energy information administration has reported. Since coal are widely used in China due to its low cost, the capital of its country Beijing was labeled worse in its air and also hazardous. Chinese government has closed as many as 103 factories and 30 percent of government vehicles off the roads, but the action does little affect.

Coal consumption will not only grow in China but also India. China has reached itself ahead of US in earth pollution. I believe that coal use for energy heating will continue to expand in the future. Our worldwide atmosphere will be majorly contaminated and our lifespan will continue to decrease. Hopefully, energy prices will soon can be compete with coal's price so the use of coal can be decrease as people can now afford energy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324867904578593202873181028.html

Fight for the Frogs

Pesticides have been used for many years to keep insects from eating farmers' crops; however insects are not the only ones being affected by these pesticides. The frog population all throughout the Sierra has been steadily decreasing due to these chemicals. Despite none of the chemicals being sprayed in the frogs' habitat, most of the frogs were poisoned and died. How can this happen you may ask? Wind and rain has carried the pesticides from the farms in the Central Valley over to the frogs' Sierra habitat. I feel there are two possible solutions to this problem. The first is for farmers to use fewer  pesticides on their crops or to utilize integrated pest management. This will ensure that less of it is carried away by winds; the downside, however, is that the crops won't be as protected from bugs. The second is to set up an organization that can research on how to make a pesticide that will affect the bugs, but won't affect the frogs. This will take more time and cost more money, but will be more efficient in the long run. This issue may appear minor to some but it is an important issue. The pesticides not only affect the frogs but also the entire food web. If the frogs become extinct, then all the other animals' populations in the frog's food chain will change as well. The insect population will increase due to the lack of predators while the bird population will decrease due to the lack of prey. It is important that something is done to protect the frog population.  

http://grist.org/news/pesticides-are-blowing-into-californias-mountains-poisoning

Fracking

Fracking is when a mixture of chemical laced water and sand is blasted under the ground at a high pressure to create a crack in the earth to release natural gas. The reason that fracking is such an environmental issue is because when making these cracks or fractures in the ground a portion of the gas is released into the air adding, to the carbon gas in the air.  Also, another problem fracking causes is polluting people’s wells by releasing methane gas into their water supply. It isn’t that the process of fracking is dangerous; it is because the mechanisms used for this process are inefficient. The environment would be unaffected if the machines could keep all the gas from escaping during the fracking process. So, better technology needs to be invented to continue using this method of collecting natural gas. In my opinion, I think fracking should not continue until the technology is available to make it safer for the environment. http://www.nytimes.com

Vertical Farming

As our Ecological Footprint project showed, land is becoming scarce due to our lifestyle.  You hear of all these elaborate ideas to aid in this problem worldwide, but rarely close to home in good ol’ SC. One of these very ideas is being incorporated in Charleston. Clemson University has begun a Vertical Farm Design” Feasibility Study in Charleston. This study is looking into the possibility of re-utilizing many of the old factory buildings all throughout Charleston and converting them into vertical farms.  They are using Intelligent River® cyber-infrastructure network. This is basically just a fancy term saying that this is how they control the “weather” in this biome. They are having to recreate an environment that these plants can thrive in.

Putting this idea into practice is relatively new. A book that introduced this possibility came out in the early 90’s. Also, it would take a lot of money to change the buildings into the state necessary to grow plants.

Yet even though there are these issues, in the end, this is in all likelihood going to be our future. This would be reusing land, transferring growth of our food to state side, you can grow crops year round, so production will increase, you can adapt the building to withstand the floods that frequent that area to reduce “weather-related crop failures”, all in all it has a massive o=amount of benefits. Plus this is a concept with unlimited possibilities, this is just the beginning.

Obama's Renewable Energy

Recently, President Barack Obama has presented a plan to double U.S. electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal sources by 2020. The Obama Administration suggested an additional 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy production on public lands; it has already approved twenty-five utility-scale solar facilities, nine wind farms, and eleven geothermal plants on federal lands, that should provide enough juice to power over four million homes in the United States. Obama stated that he was attempting to reduce the negative impact on the environment by using less “dirty energy” and switching to cleaner renewable energy sources. Initially the administration was applauded by environmentalists for its efforts to provide environmentally friendly sources of energy, but recently, environmentalists have expressed objections about the impact on fragile ecosystems, plants, and animals. Many have filed lawsuits, slowing the efforts to dedicate more land to this project. In order to remedy this, precautions can be taken to protect wildlife in the area before minimally-invasive construction of solar and wind generators are constructed. But despite this, many environmentalists will continue to oppose the displacement of animals from their original habitats. Personally, I think that the positive effects of clean energy sources outweigh the negatives of using the land that could be left to animals.

 Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/07/130725-obama-renewable-energy-plan-public-lands/

“South African Rhinos need more protection now!”

                        

According to a report released earlier this month, the population of South African rhinos will dramatically decrease. Last year 668 rhinos were killed and 515 have been already killed this year. Former CEO, Mavuso Msimang, of the SA National Parks said the birth rate exceeded the death rate, and there should be higher measures made in protecting the rhinos. A central funding mechanism to fight poaching, harsher sentences to punish criminals, and investigating the rhino horn trade with other countries, especially in Asia, where the horn is a very popular item will help the population of the rhinos thrive. A solution to the decline in the rhino population is to get the government involved by creating laws and enforcing them. Another solution for the decline in the population of rhinos is to create harsher punishments for the poachers who kill the rhinos and take its horns. Some barriers to the solutions are money and support. If the government will not support the SA National Parks, then the rhinos will continue to decline and even become extinct. Also, if the SA National Parks does not have the capability to protect the rhinos by not having proper funding, the rhinos will then continue to decrease in numbers. In my opinion, I believe the government should do anything in their power to stop poachers and to take control in saving this species.

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/46258

"Long term health of Congo forests threatened by human activity"

The constant hunting of forest elephants, antelopes, gorillas, and other seed dispersers is most likely going to have long-term impacts on the health and life of Congo Basin rain forests. After conducting research, they concluded that unless an able management's plan is put into action, hunting pressure in the area is likely to escalate and have major ecological effects. Many authors warned that "profound ecological changes initiated by hunting... may even exacerbate the predicted effects of climate change for the region." Even though humans have been hunting animals in Africa's tropical forest's for a long time, in recent decades the emergence of large urban markets that specialized in bushmeat have become more common in the rise of commercial hunting in the region. Also, the exploding demand of ivory is only worsening the problem, which is resulting in the depletion of a range of seed-dispersing wildlife that is important in forest ecology. For instance, if forest lost elephants in West Africa it would trigger a dramatic shift toward smaller, faster growing trees that are less diverse and store much less carbon. A possible solution is for an effective management to take on this growing problem and put a plan into place. Some barriers to this solution is money and time, in society today there is so many environmental issues and majority of them don't get resolved until they hit rock bottem. In my opinion, WildLife Conservation and other managements should work on preserving the forest to make the region and animals safe. By doing so, it would have a great impact on the long term health of the Congo forest.

http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/46240  

Pesticides Believed to be Destroying the Bee Population in Europe Banned

Europe has recently banned the use of pesticides called neonicotinoids because of the suspected link between the decimation of the bee population and the use of these pesticides. This ban was proposed by the European Food Safety Authority in January of 2013 due to the suspicion that the pesticides were killing the bee population. Neonicotinoids are the most effective pesticides on the market. There is disagreement among many about whether these insecticides are or are not contributing to the declining bee population but some studies have shown that the chemical can work its way into pollen and nectar, giving rise to the suggestion that the chemicals can harm bees or insects. Further investigation into whether or not the pesticides were the problem went into effect after the EFSA made a warning. The two largest farming countries in Europe: France and Poland backed the decision to ban the pesticides. The selling of these pesticides across the globe totals 22 billion dollars. But the pesticides are not the only cause of death. The lack of nutrition, disease, viruses and loss of habitat are also culprits. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, “71 percent of the crops that provide 90 percent of human food are pollinated by bees”. These crops bring in annually about 200 billion dollars. Without the use of commercial beekeeping these large farms would not be possible. This poses a potential economic problem for countries all over the world. Almond crops in California require the use of a third of all the domesticated bees in the United States for pollination. Starting December 1^st, 2013 Europe is restricting the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiametoxam, three neonicotiniod pesticides. The restriction will last a total of three years and will allow time to re-investigate scientific studies to truly tell if there is a link between pesticides and the death of bees.

            This is a situation that should be further investigated because economies around the world are in danger as is agriculture, itself. Pesticides are widely used across the world to protect crops. Although they protect crops, their use may come at a huge cost. Alternatives need to be found to protect the environment around us to protect pollinators such as the bees as they are such an important part of providing food all around the world. 

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/business/global/30iht-eubees30.html?_r=1&

Polluted Beaches with Serious Consequences

When enjoying the beaches here in America contaminated water doesn’t tend to cross our minds. Typically when you head back from the ocean one simply returns to their normal routine feeling refreshed and relaxed. This, however, was not the case for Chris Schumacher on a rainy day in November of 2006. Him and his friends like any other surfer went out to enjoy a large swell in Imperial Beach, California. Ignoring the fact that the tubes were a chocolaty brown color they went out anyways to enjoy the waves. The days, weeks, and months following ended up equating to strange symptoms and the majority of his time spent in the hospital. What ended up in the water and later in Chris’s body was a mystery at the time.

The water he was surfing in was actually flowing from the border of Mexico. It originated from the Tijuana River where it becomes contaminated by massive factories responsible for assembling 90% of the world’s TVs as well as the sewer of thousands of people. Needless to say that water was definitely polluted with nothing being done about it. Chris’s story is a testimony to what can happen if we let our beaches go and provides us a reality of how it can affect people.  As a solution the article stated that surfers should chose their waves wisely based on whether or not they’re contaminated. They also said that the most effective solution would be taking the problem to the capital. I agree with both statements. People should have enough common sense to know not to swim in gross brown water. In regards to the situation, Chris should have paid closer attention to the signs warning beachgoers that the water was unsafe. The government could also help by passing legislation dealing with the ocean and pollution. For example, just recently Los Angeles banned the use of plastic bags which should help the environment tremendously. In conclusion, beach pollution is a problem that affects everybody and needs to be stopped soon so we can continue to enjoy them! 

http://surf.transworld.net/1000163655/photos/the-surfrider-series-part-2-eye-sore/

Feds advance plan to kill barred owls in Northwest

Federal wildlife officials are considering a very unethical and unpleasing idea: to hire armed bird specialists to shoot down a species of owl known as the barred owl. This reason, they proclaim, is not in vain though, as they state it is for the "protection" of the northern spotted owl. The northern spotted owl has been labeled a species threatened with extinction and the cause of it is the barred owl. Supervisors and officials state that if the barred owl is not contained properly, the spotted owl will only decline in numbers. The plan calls for the killing of 3,603 barred owls over the next four years in specified locations. Some, however, do not agree with this plan at all. They proclaim that shooting these barred owls will not benefit them in any way. While the idea of preserving an almost extinct species is appealing, the main focus is to protect habitat and animals, and shooting barred owls contradicts this idea. Many opinions have come up as to how to solve this issue, and researchers have attempted at reducing the amount of logging in national forests. This way, the spotted owl will not leave its habitat and will continue to flourish. This idea, however, has not worked out, as the spotted owls' numbers continue to descend. Many have started to kill these barred owls when they are spotted, but the problem with this is its price. It would cost $3 million to kill 3,603 barred owls, and even more to capture them, as it is a very difficult and precarious job. I personally feel that rash decisions often lead to the worst results. There is no exact, definite proof that the barred owl is the cause for the spotted owls' extinction. It is even stated that study areas are still being conducted to see if spotted owls will migrate back to their homes after the barred owls are gone. This simply shows how unethical and immoral we are with our choices. This is not a small matter to be overlooked. This is the killing of nature to preserve nature. How is this any different than humans slaughtering elephants for their ivory tusks? Should humans also be persecuted for that? This balance in nature is unsettling. I suggest capturing the barred owls. We can keep them in a safe environment, away from the spotted owls to truly discover if they are the cause of their extinction, or the forest wildfires are. If it is discovered that they are, there is no reason to kill them. Why not just leave them in a separate environment where they can thrive? While the capturing of these owls is rather pricey, the satisfaction of saving nature and animals defeats that guilt.
Source: Mercury News

Alaska Glacier Leaps

                Scientists have recently become concerned about glacier leaps.  A glacier leap is when melted water from the glacier becomes trapped underneath and begins to build up pressure which causes a rupture in the glacier. Afterwards, the massive surge of water floods the surrounding areas causing damage to people and wildlife. Glacier leaps have increased this year due to higher temperatures caused by global warming. There are some ways to help prevent glacier leaps from occurring such as: limiting the emissions of carbon gasses by carpooling, using fewer aerosol cans, and reducing deforestation. These solutions are more difficult when people in countries around the world are not educated about the devastating effects of deforestation and carbon gas emissions. Even though it is a very debatable subject I feel that we all need to do are parts in protecting the earth by doing the above. http://www.nytimes.com

"Hong Kong Seizes Smuggled Elephant Tusks"

In recent times customs officials in Hong Kong announced one of the largest seizures of smuggled ivory made in the city, in addition to it being the fifth seizure since October.  Conservationists describe the trade of ivory as an “all- out crisis for elephant populations in Africa.” The shipment of ivory contained a staggering 1,148 tusks, worth around 2.25 million dollars. Increasing prosperity in Asia has caused the demand for ivory and other wildlife products to skyrocket recently, putting immense pressure on multiple plant and animal species. Unfortunately, poaching has pushed dome species to the brink of extinction, despite warnings. Solutions to this pervasive issue include enforcement and penalties, but since these remain weak other precautions must be taken. Another solution includes incorporating China’s recently proposed “legal ivory trade.” The legal trade includes sustainably obtaining ivory when elephants die naturally. The legal system that China has begun to implement includes a unique photo identification tracking system that that keeps up with each piece of ivory. Regrettably though, much of the illegal ivory comes from regions of political and social unrest in western Africa, not China. In Africa tens of thousands of elephants have been killed for their tusks, and it is believed that money obtained from the poached ivory is promoting conflicts across the continent. Ultimately, the huge demand for ivory from China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines serves as a barrier to the legal ivory trade since there is a demand for massive amounts of ivory from Africa to bring in revenue. Personally, I believe that the smuggling of ivory is an economic, political, and social issue. Disappointingly, since the demand for ivory is so high, more of it must be obtained at a quicker rate and waiting for elephants and rhinoceroses to die naturally would not be efficient enough. The politically stable regions of Africa need to take legal actions to protect the endangered rhinoceroses which play a major role in their culture. With both Asia and Africa on board, the precious lives of these species will be preserved, but a successful solution will require strict legal actions, economic compromise (rather than a complete ban), as well as a little less selfishness and greed and more consideration for the species whose existence is in jeopardy.  

Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/world/asia/hong-kong-seizes-smuggled-elephant-tusks.html?ref=earth&_r=0

Building Design that "eats" Smog

Building Design that "eats" Smog

                In Mexico City, on the side of a hospital stands a very peculiar design. This design, though, serves a higher purpose than just abstract art work, because it helps eliminate smog. Every day, this structure helps eliminate the emissions of 1,000 cars per day by breaking down pollutants into other forms, like water or carbon dioxide. This device was originally designed in Berlin, Germany, with a coral-influenced blueprint where a metal called titanium-oxide is treated with a special pigment to neutralize harmful pollutants in the air.

                Putting this device on buildings in urban areas around the globe can significantly help the air quality and help clean the earth, but the problem is mostly cost and legal obligations. The structure is expensive, and not very much of the treated titanium-oxide is being made. To make it cheaper, more must be made, but if more is made, who will buy it? Many companies will not willingly put this on their buildings, so if governments made it a law for certain buildings in certain areas to put this device on their property, then air pollutants will decrease tremendously. If laws were made to enforce the placing of these machines, then the price will decrease with the higher need for them, and all of this ultimately results in a cleaner earth.

                Personally, I want this to happen. I would very much like to see this design in cities around the globe in order to neutralize the harmful effects of cars and other machines. We don't need this in every location, but putting it in pollution hot spots like New York City or Beijing will encourage other cities to do the same and help get the planet's clean air back.

Building Design Video

“Bay Area sea gull population explodes, bringing flocks of problems”

Fifty-three thousand sea gulls live on a small island in San Francisco Bay. With a 41% increase in population from the past year, this small island has the second largest population in the world, with Utah’s Great Salt Lake being on top. The sea gulls try to eat a small bird called least terns. This endangered species of bird is protected by volunteers and park workers. They whistle, clap hands, blow horns, and call out sharpshooters in an attempt to make the birds fly away. The sea gulls are getting out of hand. The gulls are increasingly colliding with airplanes, even causing aborted takeoffs and some landings at Bay area airports. They're swarming landfills, dive-bombing schools, neighborhoods, and gobbling up shorebirds that public agencies have spent over 300 million dollars to protect from extinction. With no plan to stop the growth of the population the sea gulls are becoming a huge problem. Landfills and garbage cans around the Bay are an endless food supply and help the population thrive even more. Ten colonies around the San Francisco Bay have been set up by the sea gulls. Possible solutions to the population increase of sea gulls are to destroy all the nests and eggs of the sea gulls, or have a mass killing. Barriers to these solutions are if we were to destroy the nest and eggs there would not be results for the next twenty years and the project would be rather costly. If a mass killing occurred many people would be outraged and the project leader would need a proper license to do so. I believe that if these animals are doing this much harm to the environment the nest and eggs should be destroyed or a different solution should be made. Many species of birds are being endangered and even extinct, and if it was up to me I would do everything to stop these sea gulls.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_23680401/bay-area-sea-gull-population-explodes-bringing-flocks

In a changing world, forests may not recover as quickly after fires

It is widely known that fires are a part of the life cycle of forests.  The media makes forest fires seem as though they are only destructive, but there are benefits, as well, such as thinning out forests that may be too crowded.  Some species of trees even rely on wildfires to help them reproduce. There are obviously more benefits when the conditions of the period of time after the fire are optimal for growing, but when the conditions after the fire are not preferable, the results can be devastating. When the conditions are bad after a fire, for example, when there is a drought, the forests grow back much slower. Also, high frequency and intensity of fires may contribute to the stunted regrowth of fires.

Researchers have considered putting back into effect vigorous fire suppression policies that were mandated in 1988 and have come to the conclusion that it is a bad idea, because the fire suppression policy only contributes to overgrowth and the possibility of extreme wildfires.

I feel that the fires should be let go when they’re not harming human life or property, and that there’s nothing we can really do/ need to do when they’re very large and only affecting nature.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/will-forests-flourish-after-fires-warming-world-not-always-6C10534178

Monarch Butterfly Population In Decline

Monarch butterflies migrate South every year between late summer and August. On average, the insects fly nearly 3,000 miles before they reach their destination in November. Gathering in central Mexico, they stay in groups of up to 50 million per hectare. According to the Environmental News Network, the total amount of monarch butterflies engaging in migration have experienced their lowest number in two decades. This decrease is said to be linked to the extreme drought experienced in Mexico in 2012. Also stressing the remaining insects is the decline in their host plants caused by recent climate fluctuation. Unless we experience a more balanced climate this year, the migrating population of monarch butterflies is not expected to rise back up to past averages. Personally, I feel it as if there is no viable solution in regards to monarch migration; the deciding factor lies solely in the hands of mother nature. Article: http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/46215

Protect Kelp Forests by Stopping Marine Pollution

Marine biologists from the University of Adelaide discovered something that could save the marine ecosystems of Australia.  Nutrient pollutions were found in the coastal marine environments.  These pollutions release carbon dioxide, and the rising carbon dioxide could devastate the kelp forests.  The researchers worked to find a way to reduce these nutrient pollutions, and that they did. The biologists manipulated the carbon dioxide and nutrient levels in an experiment, and they had great results.  The project made the discovery that removing the nutrients from the water reduced the rise of carbon dioxide, and it improved the environment for kelp forests greatly.  These kelp forests are so important because of the role they plan in marine ecosystems.  The kelp forests are the basis of food webs for much marine life.  The endangerment of the kelp forests has more than just a small impact of the ecosystem.  In conclusion, the answer to saving the kelp forests is to reduce the nutrients so the rising carbon dioxide impact is reduced.  However, scientists must find a way to reduce the nutrient pollution as well.  The climate change and the higher carbon dioxide levels will serve as a great barrier to this project.  I believe that controlling the nutrients will greatly impact the carbon dioxide, and I believe that something must be done as soon as possible or there will be severe consequences to the ecosystem.  More research must be done in order to save these kelp forests.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130717095215.htm