Fight for Famine

http://flic.kr/p/cegwqU

Over 200 million people face starvation in the Sub-Saharan African region. Which makes us wonder: where is the necessary food to feed these empty bellies? We can possibly find the answer by using agriculture, which plays a valuable role in providing food supply that is safe, nutritious, and affordable. The Nature Publishing Group and some scientists think that chemical fertilizers will solve the famine, but chemical fertilizers can bring negative effects to the agriculture world. Further, alternative methods such as no-till farming and digital soil maps not only increase crop yield, but also do so in a safe manner.

The world population is constantly growing, which means more food is required to feed this population. There are multiple reasons why Africa suffers from famine and widespread malnutrition. One of the reasons is from droughts ruining their harvest and taking away their drinking water. Another main reason is because of their crop soils lacking nutrients. Regardless of the main cause, there are possible solutions to this issue. The only problem is which one is the best answer?

In a recent Nature article, “Food for thought” the idea that chemical fertilizers are the best solution for this problem has been suggested.  The rough times that Africans are undergoing cannot afford to wait for a long-term effect, so in the short-term they need access to chemical fertilizers.  Opposed to the other methods of agriculture, the “quick and easy gains of fertilizers free up farmers' time, and can turn a subsistence existence into a commercial operation, offering a potential way to escape the crushing cycle of poverty.” Africa wouldn’t be the first continent to benefit from chemical fertilizers; Europe, North America and Asia have all seen a positive boost to their agriculture enterprise as well. “Food for thought” points out that there are alternative agriculture methods, but using chemical fertilizers could make the difference of a starving child.

Even though chemical fertilizers¹ is a short-term solution we must be aware of the long-term effects that chemical fertilizers bring forth. First, we will start off by the question: what is a chemical fertilizer? A chemical fertilizer is a quick-acting, short-term soil amendment used to increase plant growth. Yes, chemical fertilizers do help boost crop yield, but in the process of doing so they also harm your crop fields. Chemical fertilizers cause deterioration of soil friability and create hardpan soil, destroy beneficial soil life, alter vitamins and proteins contained in the soil, prevent plants from absorbing needed minerals, and put crops at a higher risk of disease. Since acids are a main component of chemical fertilizers they tend to increase the acidity of the soil, which affects what kind of organisms can live there as well. Not only does the use of chemical fertilizers ruin the crop soil, they also harm the environment around you. Their use can pollute water supplies and generate significant greenhouse-gas emissions. The most surprising harmful effects associated with chemical fertilizers can even link back to affecting your health. For example, the use of nitrogen fertilizers and lack of elements have been related to fungal and bacterial diseases. Using chemical fertilizers might also affect the amounts of vitamins you are receiving in your daily intake. One case in particular is using large amounts of chemical fertilizers, lowering the amount of vitamin C in oranges. So even though chemical fertilizers can bring an increase to food production, the effects on the crops, environment, and your health is an issue within itself.

Just because chemical fertilizers are unhealthy for many reasons, doesn’t mean all agricultural methods fall under the same path.

No-till farming² should be considered as an alternative method. “Food for thought” states that no-till farming can be cheaper than the use of chemical fertilizers, which is obviously an advantage. Although this is true, no-till farming is still rarely used because it adds to the farmers’ hard labor. Although scientists have found that switching to no-till farming increases crop yield, it also helps the environment. Unlike fertilizers, which are converted to nitrous oxide potentially creating a greenhouse gas, no-till farming, which does not cause soil disturbance, will decrease the Global Warming Potential. The reason why chemical fertilizers have this effect and no-till farming doesn’t is because soil disturbance stimulates the activity that converts fertilizers into gases. No-till farming, on the other hand, doesn’t disturb the soil, meaning it doesn’t release any harmful gases.

Another alternative method that could possibly be a future solution is the new development of digital soil maps. A digital soil map is a tool used to produce digital maps that assist us in predicting soil properties. Scientists have developed the first digital soil map covering 42 countries in sub-Sahara Africa. These maps will come in great use in the increase crop production by providing up-to-date information on properties of soils and improve degradation. “The map will be made from satellite measurements of soil nutrients, moisture and organic matter.” Digital soil maps will come in great use when planning for future crops. Farmers can use these maps to observe predictions of soil in potential cropland by the soil properties predictions made my scientist. While digital soil maps won’t directly increase crop production it will be great help to farms in choosing new crop locations.

As previously stated, the population will continue to grow. Food production has to increase along with population in order for starvation to remain at a low percentage. As the future approaches, technology needs to increase to provide new crop varieties. These crop varieties need to offer higher yields that use less water and fertilizers. These new varieties should be more resistant to drought, heat, and pests as well. As a developing nation full of different research methods we will be able to continually increase our knowledge and provide new high-tech seeds to low-tech farming practices.

After seeing the harmful effects it is easy to say that if sub-Saharan Africa decides to continue the spread of chemical fertilizers they will only be hurting themselves in the long run. Greenhouse gases and depletion of soil can be prevented through several other methods. New methods are being approached everyday with new research and technology. These methods will better the world around us and put an end to the famine in Africa.


Works Cited
1. "No-Till Farming Lowers Global Warming Fears." Southwest Farm Press 31.21 (2004): 23.
2. Miller, Crow and Elizabeth. “Why organic farmers disapprove of chemical fertilizers.” Countryside & Small Stock Journal. (2007): 65-66.

Fracking Compromises Natural Gas As a Clean Fossil Fuel




http://nyaltnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/marcellus-shale.jpg

Earthquakes rattled Youngstown, Ohio on Christmas Eve and then again on New Year’s Eve. Pennsylvanian residents near the Monongahela River were left without clean drinking water during a drought. Children in Texas have increased rates of asthma. Methane emissions are increasing. The force behind these recent tragedies leads to fracking, the process used to obtain natural gas deep within the earth’s crust. New geological research stirs up controversy regarding the fracking process.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process in which high pressured water and chemicals are injected into underground rock to release natural gas. The fracking process uses chemicals such as highly corrosive salts, carcinogens and radioactive elements which pollute water sources when released into the environment without being properly treated. When combined with water these chemicals form a mixture called wastewater. Deep injection wells in Ohio, over the past three years, received about 150 million gallons of wastewater produced in Pennsylvania. However, 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater made in Pennsylvania wells were sent to treatment plants that did not have the technology available to make the water safe enough to be released into the environment.         
The Marcellus Shale is an enormous rock found under the earth’s surface which stretches throughout Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio. Roughly the size of Greece, it could produce 489 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. To put this into perspective, New York uses about 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas a year. Therefore, the Marcellus Shale has greatly impacted the natural gas industry. Fracking brings natural gas that is embedded deep in the earth within shale rock to the surface. Because of the prevalence of this natural gas source, fracking affects Pennsylvania and the other states near the Marcellus Shale.

The New York Times discovered some startling evidence to support the fracking associated dangers. While examining federal, state and company documents, the Times uncovered findings showing that plants, that did not have the necessary technologies to remove the harmful chemicals, received more than 1.3 billion gallons of fracking wastewater from 2008 to 2011 in Pennsylvania. This amount of wastewater could cover Manhattan in three inches of liquid. Another document showed that more than 12 treatment plants across three different US states released only partially treated wastewater back into the environment. When released, wastewater becomes part of a much larger reservoir which makes it much harder to treat. The contaminated water could potentially spread anywhere downstream. Therefore, people all over the country should be aware of the effects of fracking, not just those closest to the operations. Many leading fracking companies, such as Shell, Chesapeake Energy, and Marcellus Shale Coalition and Energy, are denying these claims saying that they do not really use as much water as recorded because they recycle it and that low levels of radiation do not threaten the health of nearby residents. However, wastewater can contain hundreds to thousands of times the allotted radiation levels determined by the federal government for clean drinking water and when mixed with disinfectants at drinking water plants it can form cancer-causing compounds.

Federal and state regulators have not stopped the ineffective treatment of wastewater. According to federal law, drinking water plants are only required to test water for radiation every six to nine years. Of 65 plants located downstream from some of the most prominent drilling sites, none of the drinking water facilities have tested since 2008, most not since at least 2005, which was before a majority of the drilling began. Texas, a prominent site for natural gas drilling, contains about 93,000 gas wells. During a hospital study near some of the drilling sites, the results concluded that about 25 percent of children in the area had asthma which is more than three times the state average rate of about seven percent. A mother of a 14-year-old and an 11-year-old, Kelly Grant, noted that since a gas well was constructed about two years ago near her home her children have experienced asthma attacks, headaches and dizziness. Despite this evidence, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not intervened. Hydraulic fracturing processes need to be cleaned up in order to ensure the cleanliness of drinking water for residents near these facilities.
Recent research shows that fracking may leak more methane emissions than previously thought. The fracking process releases natural gas but technology is not efficient enough to collect all the gas, consisting mostly of methane. Fracking operations emit about 40 to 60 percent more methane than traditional natural gas wells. Two Cornell scientist found that sometime in the next 20 years, methane will produce 44 percent of the US greenhouse gas emissions, with 17 percent coming from natural gas operations. New research conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration near Denver, CO at the Denver-Julesburg Basin found that an estimate of four percent of natural gas is lost to the air during fracking. In this particular basin, fracking extracts the gas, located in firm sand. The estimates found in this most recent study are higher than those previously found by Cornell (2.2 to 3.8%) and the EPA (2.8%). More research in the future could help to clarify these results by obtaining a more certain percentage to help to determine the actual effects of fracking. New equipment that facilitates a process called “green completion” collects much of the methane lost during natural gas operations. This technology could significantly reduce methane emissions minimizing its effect on the environment. However, this equipment is not required and because it does not lessen the cost of producing natural gas, companies have no economic drive to invest in it. Obtaining natural gas through fracking increases the amount of methane released into the atmosphere therefore increasing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted.

Switching to natural gas as a fuel source over coal has been a recent trend because natural gas emits about half of the carbon dioxide that coal does when burned. This helps to reduce air pollution and acid rain. When all the facts are examined natural gas may not come out on top with regards to being the cleanest fossil fuel. Switching from natural gas to coal will actually increase the rapidness of climate change. Natural gas traps about 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than coal. When burned, coal releases carbon dioxide along with sulfates and other particles. Carbon dioxide causes warming of the atmosphere but sulfates reflect direct sunlight therefore cooling the Earth’s surface. According to a study by Tom Wigley, an expert on climate change at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, partially shifting to natural gas could increase the rates of global warming for at least the next four decades depending on how much methane is released. Natural gas may not be less harmful for the environment than coal, as previously thought.

Natural gas operations have also been found to be the cause of earthquakes throughout the world. As discussed, large quantities of wastewater are produced through the fracking process. One of the methods for wastewater disposal is through injections deep into the earth’s layers. On December 24th and 31st, 2011 in Youngstown, Ohio, there were earthquakes with ratings of 2.7 and 4.0 on the Richter scale, respectively. Several earthquakes occurred in the same area between March and November of 2011. Wastewater was likely the cause of these quakes. All the earthquakes were found to be located near an injection well operated by Northstar Disposal Services. A team of Columbia University experts, led by John Armbruster, determined with 95 certainty that the epicenters of the earthquakes were located within 100 meters of each other and 0.8 kilometers away from the injection well. The wastewater does not necessarily directly cause the earthquakes, but it facilitates them. The water injected into the well acts as a lubricant in rock faults below the surface making a slip between faults easier and therefore creating an earthquake. Unfortunately, this kind of reaction is not uncommon. Two earthquakes occurred near Backpool, England in early 2011. The earthquakes, with a rating of 2.3 and 1.5 on the Richter scale, were found near the fracking operation site conducted by Cuadrilla Resources. The company has stopped operations since the second quake. European experts found it “highly probable” that natural gas operations caused the earthquakes due to a combination of “extremely rare” factors. But how rare can these factors actually be if there have already been at least two instances of earthquakes directly connected to fracking operations? Not only does fracking affect the quality of air and water but it is also linked to increasing the likelihood of an earthquake.

After comparing all the research, it is clear that fracking threatens serious risks that impact the environment and people. Much of the potential hazards are not being monitored by the government which is only making matters worse. By delaying the realization that fracking is harmful we are only going to make the problems worse for everyone in the future. Most companies are too caught up in the economics of the situation to care about the effects that natural operations could have on the environment. Although there are benefits to using natural gas to produce energy, such as the fact that it releases less carbon dioxide then coal, it is evident that the methods used to obtain natural gas also inflict negative effects on the environment. With all the evidence pilling up against hydraulic fracturing, hopefully efforts will be made to end the process until safer, cleaner methods of obtaining natural gas are found.

To Be or Not To Be: The Regulation of Genetically Modified Wheat

http://flic.kr/p/8Zhbbh

I first gained interest in GMOs in high school while taking a biotechnology and genetics class. GMO stands for genetically modified organism, meaning an organism (usually a crop) that is genetically engineered to contain desired traits, such as pest-resistance. Our honors credit required us to do projects on specific topics relating to what we studied. My favorite was the FlavrSavr Tomato project. When picking out tomatoes, you always search for a perfect tomato: bright red color, firm, not too soft, and that garden fresh smell. This wasn’t just some average tomato you buy at the farmers market; this tomato was THE perfect tomato. Genetic engineers gave the tomato its desirable red color and firmness that lasted longer than the average tomato, all while keeping a fresh taste. The expectations associated with the FlavrSavr Tomato should have revolutionized the agricultural industry; however, it did not live up to all the hype. The tomatoes ran into roadblocks when it came to the overall acceptance of the GMO and segregation from non-GMO tomatoes, taking them off the market after a short-lived success. Genetically modified crops like the FlavrSavr tomato, including most prominently genetically modified wheat, could provide a sustainable food supply worldwide. However, because of big chemical business’ true profit motive, the contamination of non-GM crops, and the consumers’ health, GM wheat growth should be strictly regulated.

Mistrust when it comes to businesses and corporations behind GMOs presents itself as a major source of opposition, especially in Europe. Of course part of the business world includes making a profit for economic gain; however, a problem arises when it is believed that this interferes with the health and safety of consumers. The seed of mistrust was planted in the nineties when the media spread their disapproval of GMOs. During this time, it appeared that biotechnology companies procrastinated with their rebuttals. These “turnarounds” led the general public to believe that “they’re hiding something from us.” Due to lack of answers, questions and unknowns grew to a wall of resistance, making it nearly impossible for present-day scientists and companies to ease skepticism.

Unanswered questions aren’t the only thing that built up to such strong dubiety. Future promises of a sustainable food source through GMOs are accompanied by pressure to live up to such expectations. Private biotechnology companies put the government under pressure to accept GMOs and approve research grants. With evidence that the ever-growing population of the world will someday need to rely on an alternate food source, scientists and researchers continuously push to adopt GMOs now rather than later. While the world may need to rely on genetically engineered crops, there isn’t any rush to push the citizens of the world into something they still have concerns about. Personally, it sets off a red flag that so many questions remain unanswered. If the reason these big businesses and corporations are not answering questions is because they don’t feel like they have a concrete answer, they need to come out and say that. I could have a lot more confidence if they are open with me about where they are in their research and the predictions for GM wheat as of right now. If scientists open up about their research, then people will feel more comfortable supporting their cause. This constant urge for deeper research within field of GMOs is yet another source of mistrust between private chemical companies and the consumers they affect. A study with surveys found that 95% of Europeans said that they want to have an active role in deciding the outcome of GMOs. In the same study, 86% desire to know more about genetically modified foods in general before they decide whether or not to consume them. This leads to the conclusion that Europeans are not all about completely banning GMOs, they just want to regulate them because they trust themselves over big businesses. I 100% agree with the Europeans. Researchers expect these citizens to just stand by and let them do their thing; however, it doesn’t work like that. GM wheat is something that could significantly impact the agricultural market all over the world; people have the right to know more about what they are getting into before they dive in headfirst.

Another large concern when it comes to the integration of GM wheat is the ability to segregate it from other non-GM wheat and crops. This exposes the biggest disadvantage of adopting GM wheat. A prediction from agricultural economist Robert Wisner states, “there is a high probability that GMO wheat would be rejected...by a substantial segment of the international market...[GM wheat] would create a high risk of accelerated foreign investment in the agriculture of former Soviet republics and Eastern Europe.” Wisner finally predicts that if the U.S. were to ever adopt and integrate GM wheat into their agricultural exports, they would lose 33%-52% of its export market. Grain marketing experts say that segregating GM wheat is nearly impossible. Their description states, “Once the GMO genie is out of the bottle, bionic wheat will sooner or later be everywhere--even on U.S. and Canadian farms that never planted it.” And once this “genie” is released, it is irreparable. The damage is done and it is impossible to remove from the system. The thought that there isn’t an “undo” button is a very serious and scary reality. I know that if something like GM wheat is implemented permanently, I want countless research findings and testimonies to back it up. I’m an open-minded person, but I’m sure I speak for a fairly large amount of people when I say a long road lies ahead before I support the implementation of GM wheat into the agricultural market. There is still a long road ahead before I support the implementation of GM wheat.

Looking past the contamination of non-GM wheat, there are additional costs and risks of segregating GM wheat from the get go. Segregation testing has its added costs and risks to both buyers and sellers: for buyers, there runs the risk of “commingling” of GM wheat varieties and non-GM or limited-GM varieties; for sellers, there is a risk that incoming shipments could be rejected because of “false positive test results” regarding the GM material in those shipments. These are risks that some buyers and sellers aren’t willing to take. Helen Waller, a Montana spring wheat grower, states why she doesn’t want GM wheat: “I don’t want it because my customers don’t want it...it’s that simple.” This is a popular response among sellers. They realize the cost of GM wheat may be cheap, but the demand for it is not there, resulting in less profit. In today’s economy, expenditure remains a huge issue in every corner of the world. A budget and a plan are required to try and keep a country afloat in a sea of debt. People will not want or support the spending of money on something that is merely a hypothesis. What if after all of this research regarding segregation, it doesn’t work? Will that be millions, perhaps billions, of taxpayer’s dollars wasted? Of course some tangible evidence is needed to establish credibility and potential. No one is going to risk spending so much money on something that could be worth it.

Overwhelming health concerns top the list of arguments behind the opposition. This links back to the mistrust of companies behind GMO research. People feel as though they do not know enough about GM wheat to feel comfortable safely consuming it. Since the nineties when the media began spreading the opposition of GMOs, food safety issues remain unresolved. Biohazards are often highlighted as a main safety concern, arousing questions centered on what exactly are we consuming and is actually safe. Food safety regarding GMOs has even gone as far as to imply bioterrorism, such as “the intended or unintended creation of virulent micro-organisms...or the creation and escape of new life forms.” Consumers do not know what they are putting into their bodies and they are concerned that human hands genetically modified GM wheat. Genetic engineering is a tricky field. It is weird to think of yourself eating something that was created in a laboratory rather than grown on a farm. I haven’t seen one statement from scientists regarding the possible side effects and/or risks of consuming GMOs. Does the making of GMOs require radiation or some other dangerous component that could result in cancer? Is it safe to consume while pregnant, or could it possibly result in genetic defects of our own children? Even more unanswered questions arise than before, prompting answers before any further research.

As it stands right now, the European population feels misinformed and betrayed by government support of chemical giants, providing justification behind opposition. The fact that GMO companies continue pushing the government for grants towards GMO research results in more distrust on a political level, making the chance of future acceptance slim. If the government refuses pressure from private companies and instead focuses on setting new regulations regarding GMOs, perhaps they could begin to slowly earn the trust of the population. A plethora of unanswered questions surrounding GMOs, and GM wheat in particular, contributes to growing skepticism. Hitting the pause button before this research gets out of control is the only hope of turning the opposition around. Scientists need to answer questions and the government needs to insert its dominance; it is in the best interest of the world economy, the agricultural market, and the health and well being of people worldwide.

A Whale of a Sale

Far into the frigid Southern Ocean, the Ady Gil strikes a Japanese whaling boat, the Shonan Maru No. 2, shooting butyric acid and shining lasers into the sailors’ eyes. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society members ready their firearms and unleash thick ropes to entangle the Japanese’ turbines. Unthreatened, the Shonan Maru No. 2 smashes the Ady Gil, destroying the multi-million dollar American vessel and triumphing once again in the whaling war. Conflicts like these between pro-whaling countries and conservationist groups are rising due to increasing whaling sustainability concerns. Though commercial whaling is now illegal, countries like Japan and Norway avoid the moratorium and continue their practices as desired. To fix this issue and prevent further violence, United States environmental scientists have proposed a whale market trading system,¹, which would allow countries and individuals to purchase limited whaling licenses. However, a whale market quota-trading scheme would not resolve conflicts between whale conservationist groups and pro-whaling countries nor assist whale conservation. I believe this scheme would fail to solve the current whaling system’s environmental, economic, and moral issues, leading to further conflicts over an organism that the marine ecosystem cannot afford to lose.

The whale market quota-trading scheme idea entails an international body, the International Whaling Commission, issuing a certain number of permits that would allow a certain number of whales to be killed. Individuals and countries around the world would then be able to sell or purchase permits from each other. Whale conservation groups or anti-whaling countries could potentially purchase them too, but the permits would go unused. The idea is controversial, but it is clear to me that the scheme will fail.

A whale harpoon gun
http://flic.kr/p/9hxA5B

The proposed whale market quota-trading scheme's primary mission is to permit sustainable whaling. The International Whaling Commission (IWC), a voluntary international body that works to review and create measures that will govern whaling around the world, works to “provide for the complete protection of certain species,” a goal ensuring sustainable whaling. However, the quota-trading scheme implemented by the IWC would not result in environmental sustainability because the IWC doesn't have the authority to determine or enforce a sustainable number of whale kills. Historically, the International Whaling Commission has found it difficult to determine how many whales can be killed sustainably. According to Holly Doremus, director of the Environmental Law program and the co-director of the Center for Law, Energy, & the Environment at Berkeley Law School, at annual conventions, “the IWC routinely set unsustainable harvest quotas, and whale populations dropped rapidly.” We can’t trust the IWC to set an appropriate whaling level, especially because it failed to prevent more than 33,500 whale killings since it established a moratorium on whaling.

A new market scheme would also fail to make whaling more sustainable because if all the quotas were fulfilled, the number of whales killed would be the same as the number killed today by the Japanese, who currently avoid the moratorium by claiming whales for “scientific research.” Thus, the potential exists that the quota-trading scheme wouldn’t improve environmental conditions. 

http://flic.kr/p/5YvPY3

Finally, the most fragile populations of whales, endangered species, would not be protected sufficiently. The environmental scientists’ proposal¹ suggests a $13,000 minke whale quota price and a $85,000 endangered fin whale quota price. While the endangered whale price is significantly higher, making the quota less attractive for whalers, it also may be too expensive for anti-whaling conservationist groups or individuals to purchase. As a result, fewer endangered whales would be protected, certainly causing more environmental damage than the quota-trading scheme could avoid because any level of endangered whaling is detrimental  The scheme would not fulfill the proposers’ environmental goals, leading to unsustainable whaling, fewer endangered species, and further unrest between conservationist groups and whalers.

The whale market quota-trading scheme is an attempt to solve whaling controversy economically, involving markets across the globe to purchase and trade quotas in a fair financial system. Researchers and economists hope that anti-whaling organizations will purchase quotas to directly prevent whale killings. However, it’s highly unlikely that conservationist bodies could scrounge up enough funds each year to purchase many whales. Anti-whaling groups have already heavily invested in other forms of anti-whaling campaigns and may want to use their funds towards ending whaling altogether, not towards a system that can encourage whale killing.

Reporter Christopher Mims of Grist outlines another economic challenge for the quota-market trading scheme. He asserts that the eighty-nine countries in the IWC are unlikely to agree on a global market plan, making the scheme extremely difficult to implement and administrate. The greatest logistical difficulty would be determining the distribution of quotas to the countries fairly; balancing whaling country needs, anti-whaling country desires, and indifferent member country rights would surely lead to heated debate at the annual convention of the International Whaling Commission.

The comparison to current "cap-and-trade" air pollution systems is the most prominent evidence economists provide to make the case for the market scheme. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency issues an overall cap on pollutant emissions, and companies can trade their individual allowances, rewarding industries that pollute less. Though the systems have many similarities, the success of the current cap-and-trade system cannot be translated for whale market quota-trading. For example, sulfur oxides are controlled by cap-and-trade, but they are emitted as the result of an activity that most people agree is necessary, electricity production. Few people argue that electricity production is immoral and should be halted, unlike whaling. Cap-and-trade systems also require intense regulation and monitoring to be successful, a difficult task for the IWC. Whale market quota-trading would be a poor version of a cap-and-trade system that would not be economically viable for reasons including lack of funding by conservationists, logistical difficulties, and the incorrect use of a cap-and-trade system. Therefore, whaling would continue and conservationist groups would continue their warfare.

Using an economic scheme to solve whale violence and controversy is flawed because  it avoids the fundamental issue of morality. The International Whaling Condition’s struggle has always been about the non-economic ethics of whaling, so it cannot be solved with an economic program. Unlike fishing, whaling receives special attention because whales are believed to be intelligent and socially unique. Don’t you agree that whales are majestic creatures to be revered? Conservationist groups will oppose any amount whaling, so a system that requires that they pay whalers to stop an unethical problem will not please them. For example, Greenpeace unkindly refers to the market scheme as just another “attempt to legitimize commercial whaling.” They will not rest until all whaling ends.

At the same time, indigenous people that participate in subsistence whaling argue that their history of whaling gives them the right to continue whaling, unveiling another market scheme moral issue. Indigenous populations have a tradition of whaling and rely on the animals’ meat and materials, so whaling policy should consider them especially because they do not have the resources to purchase quota licenses.

http://flic.kr/p/8RW6BK

Lastly, and most controversially, stands the ethical battle of naming a price on a living being. According to the environmental scientists that proposed the idea, “A fervent anti-whaler will be quick to argue that you cannot and should not put a price on the life of a whale; a species should be protected irrespective of its economic value”¹. The right of humans to sell intelligent animals as a natural resource remains a cause of great debate in the IWC. The moral conflicts between pro- and anti-whaling groups will still be present if a market-trading scheme is implemented, so violence will continue.

If the International Whaling Commission hopes to prevent sea violence and sustain a healthy ocean and whale population, it needs to look past the whale market quota-trading scheme. Such a system would not promote an environmentally sustainable whale population, make sense economically, nor properly address moral concerns. While the market could potentially reduce the number of whales killed, the IWC lacks the authority to properly employ the system¹, and it would not end the continuous “whale wars.” Whales are extremely vital to everyone; they help balance the marine food chain, offset carbon emissions, provide a source of income in whale-watching tourism, and have led to a variety of discoveries and advancements in technology and knowledge about marine ecosystems. Because current whaling is not sustainable and a market trading system would be equally ineffective, the only logical solution is to prohibit all whaling. I believe that only this solution would prevent violence on the sea and damage to the whale population, two issues that are becoming increasingly dangerous and difficult to manage.

Works Cited

1. Costello, Christopher, Steven Gaines, and Leah R Gerber. “Conservation Science: A Market Approach to Saving the Whales.” Nature. 11 Jan. 2012 <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7380/full/481139a.html#/affil-a>.

One Vaccination for Life

  Flu viruses (gold) grown in dog kidney cells (green)
http://flic.kr/p/aZ6Fs

In 1918, one physician wrote that patients experiencing common cold-like symptoms would rapidly "develop the most viscous type of pneumonia that has ever been seen" and “struggle for air until they suffocated." Another physician recorded that the patients "died struggling to clear their airways of a blood-tinged froth that sometimes gushed from their nose and mouth." In this 1918 flu pandemic, fifty million people died and the average American life expectancy dropped more than ten years. The primitive technology available at the time meant doctors could not combat such a widespread, fatal disease. While some argue that the world remains ill-prepared for a flu pandemic, recent breakthroughs in flu virus structure ensure that laboratories will soon have a universal vaccine and faster methods of producing this vaccine in order to protect the world in the next flu pandemic.

New findings regarding the virus’s surface proteins provide a loophole in the fight against influenza. Since the flu virus constantly evolves, it is particularly hard to combat. We may contract the disease multiple times because the virus’s proteins change, and consequently the antibodies that fought the virus the first time cannot effectively kill the virus the second time. Therefore, we need a vaccine every year. However, scientists have uncovered a novel idea that will allow laboratories to construct a universal vaccine. Instead of stimulating antibodies to attack the parts of the virus that constantly change, target the parts that don’t change.¹

Upon further investigation of the virus’s proteins, scientists have a greater understanding of how to create the universal vaccine. The virus’s main surface protein is called hemagglutinin and it allows the virus to attach to and enter a cell. The protein’s “head” constantly mutates and current vaccines focus on this part. However, a study by Wayne Marasco and his colleagues found new target proteins on the “stalk” that barely change between flu strains1. Another researcher, Walter Fiers from Ghent University in Belgium, identified the exact part of the “stalk” that remains stable, the M2 protein. Thus, laboratories can create a vaccine that spurs an immune system attack on the M2 protein, resulting not only in death of the virus but also in lifelong defense from the illness.²

A new vaccine pioneered by Fiers offers broad protection and demonstrates how new vaccine development can prepare the world for a flu pandemic. The British-American biotech company Acambis successfully tested Fiers’ vaccine. In the trial, scientists evaluated the vaccine’s safety and ability to generate an immune response. The results showed that the vaccine does produce an immune response and analysts did not observe any significant side effects. Also, since the vaccine protects against all type A strains and all pandemic strains are type A, the M2-based vaccine will protect against all pandemics.

Another innovative vaccine produced by Marasco offers yet an additional option for universal protection. In an experiment where researchers tested Marasco’s vaccine on mice, the mice’s antibodies attacked the M2 protein before and after researchers infected the mice with viruses such as H5N1 bird flu and H1N1. The antibiotics protected or cured the animals in each case. Therefore, instead of administering annual flu shots, doctors could administer this one shot, offering life-long protection.¹ Following the discovery of this universal vaccine, some question how we would produce the vaccine quickly and in large quantities.

Researchers from Baxter International, an American health care company, have developed a faster method of producing vaccines that will aid in the effort of flu protection. During the past half-century, scientists have used a technique where they inject flu virus into fertilized chicken eggs. However, using the method by Baxter International, scientists grow flu viruses in cultures of animal cells rather than in chicken eggs. The method cuts down on the current six-month wait time to produce a vaccine. The method is also a safer process because companies grow the animal cells in steel tanks, which reduces the risk of bacterial contamination.³ This new method could boost vaccine production speed and supply, resulting in greater preparedness for the next pandemic.

As a result of the world’s long history of flu pandemics, some believe that the world is not prepared for another outbreak. However, scientists have always focused on the fact that flu viruses constantly mutate. Using the understanding that we must focus on the parts of the virus that remain the same, we can protect ourselves from the virulent beast. The discovery of proteins that don’t mutate, an imminent universal vaccine, and a more practical method of producing vaccines all suggest that the world is indeed prepared for the next flu pandemic.


Works Cited
1. "Universal Flu Vaccine Could Be On The Way." New Scientist 201.2697 (2009): 4. Academic Search Complete.
2. Hellemans, Alexander. "Beating The Flu In A Single Shot." Scientific American 298.6 (2008): 104-107. Academic Search Complete.
3. Pollack, Andrew. "Scientists See Success in Flu Vaccine Made by Faster Method." New York Times 16 Feb. 2011: 17. Academic Search Complete.