From Freshwater to Mining Waste

            In the article titled Canada’s lakes slowly being converted to mining waste dumps, Stephanie Dearing explains how mining corporations are attempting to dispose of their chemical waste. She mentions various occasions where these companies have done the same things in the past. Not one of these stories has a happy ending for the environment. We are taken through the process of passing legislation for waste disposal. What she fails to show is hard evidence as to why our lakes are so important, and what these mines do to them. There is also the point that after so much destruction of freshwater resources, why aren’t they being treasured and protected by the government?

            Toward the beginning of the article, Dearing mentions pesticides. She states that:

“It was only 30 - 40 years ago when scientists realized that pesticides and other industrial chemicals were accumulating in Canadian fresh water fish, severely impacting animals that live on fish, such as Osprey. The realization that pesticides not only traveled through the environment but also accumulated in some species led to a concerted effort to reduce the amount of chemicals entering the food chain. Today many fresh water fish species are still not safe to eat, being contaminated with furans, mercury and other chemicals.” (Dearing, 2009)

It is necessary to point out that we still use similar chemicals in daily life. Whether it’s to get rid of an infestation or a bothersome flower, they are ever-present. Our society realizes that harm is being done, but it is much easier to keep on doing what we’re doing. Even though this revelation came decades ago, we haven’t eliminated these toxins from our lives. At this rate they will most likely stay for longer than we can guess.

            The same principles translate to the mining industry. The article mentions a couple of mining projects at various stages of development. The most prominent proposal is Sandy Pond, Newfoundland. There is a reported 28.9 million tonnes of ore available for mining. This is one of the world’s finest areas for nickel and cobalt (cbc.ca, 2008). Since the mining company must get permission from the government, they must meet the government’s demands. It would make sense for the government to require the most stringent environmental procedures available. Instead, they are prepared to allow a much cheaper alternative. What Dearing doesn’t mention is that there are other waste disposal options currently open to the mining company. Burying sulfur under the Sandy Pond is simply the most economical option for everyone involved. If the mining company were prepared to spend more money (or the government were prepared to demand it) there would be no need to use one of our few surface freshwater resources.

            The article also mentions a proposal by Taseko Mines to use Fish Lake (in British Columbia) as a “mine waste impoundment area.”(Dearing, 2009) Taseko Mines has offered to create an artificial lake to make up for what is being destroyed. It should be mentioned that this replacement lake would have to be put somewhere. This would end up being in the middle (or taking up the entirety) of another ecosystem. Even if the lake was recreated perfectly, the ecosystems in and around the new lake would never be the same as the original lake. In total, at least two ecosystems would be destroyed, and an imperfect one would be created.

            Dearing constructed fairly decent article, but it lacked elaboration. There are many examples that prove to the reader that these issues are current and important. This would have been much more informative and solid if there had been fewer items mentioned. Then there would be room for more detailed explanations of each point.

-Jesse Murray

References:

Dearing, Stephanie. (2009) Canada’s Lakes Slowly Being Converted into Mining Waste Dumps. Digital Journal, 27 Sept 2009. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279767#tab=comments&sc=0&contribute=&local=

Accessed 28 Sept 2009.

CBC. (2009) $2B hydromet plant to be built in Long Harbour. 12 Nov 2008.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/12/inco-hydrome.html

Accessed 28 Sept 2009.

The Truth Behind Climate Change and Freshwater

Some possible long-term effects of climate change are seen in “Implications of climate change for northern Canada: freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems” (Prowse, Furgal, Wrona, Reist, July 2009). The authors suggest that climate change is a source of wildlife-related problems, particularly with aquatic species, and will negatively influence human economy.

The first thing I would like to elaborate upon is the way the authors seem to be viewing climate change as a bad thing. Climate change is and always has been a natural occurrence, and to modify it would be messing with the earth’s evolutionary process. Of course, the human influence on climate change is a well-discussed theme, and it could very well have the possibility of being slowed down. Yet, the article vaguely states that “As the climate continues to change, there will be consequences” (Prowse, Furgal, Wrona, Reist, July 2009) with no mention of human impact. To make this statement more clear, it would have been helpful to include numbers based on the influence of humans, or to explain why the authors think natural climate change is wrong if that's what their opinion is. Due to this lack of clarification, we are led to believe that climate change by itself is something that should be stopped, without any knowledge of its causes.

Another problem is that the article is filled with ideas that are addressed as occurrences that will happen, however these ideas remain unexplained and therefore sometimes hard to believe. The word “will” is used six times in the article for mere predictions with no information to back them up. When mentioning the transmission of diseases through animals, the only reasoning provided is the allusion to the shifting of environmental conditions. Near the end of the article, the authors add that “Where these stresses affect economically and culturally important species, they will have significant effects on people and regional economies.” (Prowse, Furgal, Wrona, Reist, July 2009) There is no supporting sentence after or before this explaining how people and economies will be affected; the reader is left to guess what the authors mean by the statement.

Climate change has been proven to have a big effect on many different aspects of life. Animals are in fact already very influenced by its relation to hydrology. According to B.C. Bates, Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof (2008), species in certain countries have already been brought to extinction due to changes in temperature and water; many birds that depend on wetlands during migration can no longer depend on them because the wetlands have dried up; mist is no longer available to some animals that need it to survive in forests; but the main species affected are those that live in freshwater.

Bates, Kundzewicz, Wu and Palutikof also explain that humans are likely to be directly influenced by climate change. An increased amount of precipitation is likely to affect groundwater recharge rates, either by causing the recharge to take more time in humid areas because there is already water in the ground, or less time in dryer areas as the precipitation provides faster filtration before the water evaporates. It is therefore clear that precipitation largely influences agriculture, and significant changes in precipitation can be problematic to economy in that way.

There are many other ways that the impact of climate change on freshwater resources is likely to be troublesome to humans and other living beings. Prowse, Furgal, Wrona, and Reist were not necessarily wrong with their claims; their conclusion actually made a very good point, stating that more research must be made to understand these changes and to protect species and habitats. Nonetheless, the lack of support made it seem like a poor and unknowledgeable article, no matter how much knowledge was actually behind it.

References

Prowse, T; Furgal, C; Wrona, FJ; Reist, JD. (2009) Implications of climate change for northern Canada: freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. PubMed, July 2009. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19714961?ordinalpos=10&itool=EntrezSysem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum. Accessed 28 Sept 2009.

Bates, B.C., Z.W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J.P. Palutikof, Eds., 2008. “Climate Change and Water.” Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 210 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf. Accessed 28 Sept 2009.

Is the Privatization of water the right step in protecting our fresh water resources?

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/03/the-market-solution/

In the Macleans article “Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?” (3 September 2009) the author, Nancy Macdonald, attempts to construct a general understanding of the positives and negatives of fresh water privatization in order to allow the reader to construct their own opinion on the matter. However, several of the points Macdonald details lack validity, are not exceedingly ethical and no set opinion or conclusion of points on the matter is stated in the article by the author. This in turn makes the article extremely contradictory, causing the authors points to be proved and disproved throughout the editorial.

Firstly, Macdonald states that “it has long been assumed that privatizing water services is bad for the poor, bad for the environment, and leads to the inequitable distribution of water…However, new evidence has emerged showing that the opposite may be true. Right now, more than 90 per cent of the world’s local water distribution systems are state-controlled, and in many countries, they’re doing a terrible job”. With this statement comes no evidence to support it. Even though this “new evidence” may state that over 90 percent of the world’s drinking water systems are state-controlled, and that in some countries they are doing “terrible job”, the author fails to inform the reader what a “terrible job” is considered to be. Without this clarification it is hard for the reader to agree with this point, and make an informed decision on the topic. This statement does not address its initial point, which many people believe that the privatization of water services is bad for the poor, the environment, etc.

Another conflicting issue with this article is the fact that economical considerations are not taken into account, which are during these times of difficulty, a major deciding factor in solutions to the world’s problems. With privatization, the price of water is determined by private organizations and water is then turned into a commodity. In order for certain industries, such as agriculture, to produce their products they would need to raise the cost of set product in order to pay for the water used. Therefore in a sense, privatization would hinder the economy greatly due to the fact that it would affect both the price of water and potentially the price of food. In the article it is stated that “some worry that charging market prices for water could lead to humanitarian concerns: the poor, who don’t have the money to pay for it, could be cut off…people living in slums and rural areas do without [already]”. This statement implies that if a market was implemented for the sale of water, that many people who do not already have access to water will not suffer since the implemented price would not affect them.

The last issue that arises from this article is the lack of ethical considerations. The question of whether or not access to clean water should be declared a human right (the basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled) or a commodity (a product that is in demand, and supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market) is a major part of the privatization issue, and it is not mentioned by the author in the article. In my personal opinion, I believe this lack of information on the subject matter to be the biggest problem in the article. Without discussing the ethical aspects of the fresh water issue, no sensible solution to the problem can be produced.

The author, Nancy Macdonald, has written a piece about the positive and negative aspects to the solution of fresh water scarcity- privatization. However, most of the points the author has discussed have not been supported with justified evidence, and the author has contradicted herself with beliefs that privatization is a good thing as well as being a bad thing. In conclusion, the argument in this article is not clearly stated by the author, and the evidence that is provided is weak. Not enough is explained by the author for the reader to create their own informed opinion. The article should be read critically by any reader in order to insure that facts without support are not blindly followed.

-Emily Hartwig, 0660947

References:
Macdonald, Nancy. (2009) “Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?” Macleans,
3 September 2009
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/03/the-market-solution/
Accessed September 28th 2009

Oh Where, Oh Where Did the Ancient Glaciers Go?

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ancient-glaciers-are-disappearing-faster-than-ever-1792274.html

In this article “Ancient glaciers are disappearing faster than ever”, the author Michael McCarthy claims that glaciers are melting faster then ever before, I am going to prove Micheal McCarthy’s argument to be false on the basis that he supplies a lack of sourcing and evidence towards his unconvincing argument. Through analyzation of the Micheal McCarthy’s article I will exhibit how strong sources can strengthen a argument, unlike the argument in which this article is focused on.

Micheal starts his article by stating that “Melting ice is pouring off Greenland and Antarctica into the sea far faster than was previously realized because of global warming, new scientific research reveals today.” (McCarthy, 2009). This exert has no validity because his factual statement has no specific evidence to convince his audience that his statement is true. When Micheal mentions “new scientific research reveals today” (McCarthy,2009) he doesn’t explain where the new scientific research is coming from, who wrote it and what it is specifically about. Therefore he does not have any credited sources, which leads to a unconvincing argument.

Another instance of Micheal’s improper use of credited sources, is when he talks about “High-resolution satellite laser measurements have shown that along both the Greenland and Antarctic coastlines, the glaciers and ice streams which for thousands of years have slowly carried ice into the sea are now rapidly thinning, meaning they are speeding up in their flow.” (McCarthy,2009). Once again Micheal has no evidence to prove that his facts are correct. He does not justify what high-resolution satellite laser research has given him his facts. Also he himself has no evidence that the ice streams that have been caring ice into the ocean for thousands of year are now rapidly thinning, because he clearly hasn't been around for thousands of years and has no scientific research or mathematical data referenced in his article to back up his evidence to his argument.

In the Book “The Craft Of Research”, It talks about supporting your claim and how to “back up that claim with two kinds of support: reason and evidence.” (Booth, Colomb, Williams, 2008). Micheal only has reason to back up his argument towards the premise of glaciers melting. Even if his reason is good, his claim has no arguement because with no evidence there is no argument to be made. As “The Craft Of Research” states again “we dont’ base evidence on reason; we base reason on evidence” (Booth, Colomb, Williams, 2008). In the case of this article Micheal’s reason must be false because he has no evidence based on his reason.

After the analyzation of Micheal McCarthy’s article about ancient glacial melting, it is evident that Micheal’s article is false based on his complete lack of evidence and sources to back up his reasoning. With proper sources and citation this article could have been relative to the topic of fresh water resources. However without proper sourcing, citation and evidence this articles argument is unconvincing.

Booth, Wayne G., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. The Craft of Research, Third Edition (Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing). 3rd ed. New York: University Of Chicago, 2008. Print.

McCarthy, Micheal. "Ancient glaciers are disappearing faster than ever." Ancient glaciers are disappearing faster than ever (2009): 1-1. The Independent. 24 Sept. 2009. Web. 27 Sept. 2009. <http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/ancient-glaciers-are-disappearing-faster-than-ever-1792274.html>.

Kendra Bester

0667906

A Disappearing Lake

In the article “Nevada's Lake Mead, the water history scare factor” on Digital Journal, journalist Jay David Murphy argues that the current wave of worry and fear about water levels in Lake Mead, which provides “Las Vegas and southern Nevada with 90% of its useable water” are unfounded. He cites historical water levels, as far back as 1937, to demonstrate the natural fluctuations that occur. Murphy claims that this recent drop in level s in merely part of a natural cycle. As he says “Lake Mead has kept consistent water level since 1935. It has fluctuated about a 150 feet up and down, but remained remarkably consistent”. Murphy insists that in fact politicians are encouraging new fears of Lake Mead drying up to hide the fact that there would never be enough water in it to satiate demand, as they had promised.
Murphy does provide a link to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation where water levels for Lake Mead can be found and the fluctuations that he describes can be observed. However, the current level doesn’t seem to be as normal as he insists. Right now, Lake Mead is at 1,093 feet-- its lowest since 1965. According to the government of Nevada’s policy, if the water level drops to 1,050 feet, the authorities will cut off one of the water mains that run to Vegas. Murphy doesn’t seem worried by this stating that “other than pre-1937 (when the Hoover dam that created the lake was built) it has never been that low”. However, this is where the flaw in Murphy’s argument for natural cycles becomes obvious. One cannot base the argument that low water levels now are part of a natural fluctuation on the fact that ‘it’s always returned back to normal levels in the past’. Doing this would be equivalent of looking at Lake Mead as an isolated entity, separate from the rest of the world which is not being affected by climate change, or increased water demands.
Lake Mead is fed by the Colorado River, which in turn is fed by snow run-off from the Rocky Mountains. In their article “When Will Lake Mead Go Dry?” (2008), Barnett and Pierce cite several studies from the last 20 years that proposed that this run-off will decrease in the future due to climate change. This is due to a decrease in precipitation and an increase in temperatures and evapotranspiration. They go on to elaborate on their own study which suggests that if current water consumption habits continue “there is a 10% chance that the live storage (the amount of water that can be taken out of the lake by gravity) in the lake will be gone by 2013 and a 50% chance that it will be gone by 2021” (Barnett and Pierce, 2008). The changes in run-off are ones that have never been seen before, and so we cannot use historical data to determine how the lake’s water levels might be changed by them. This is not part of the normal cycle of the lake’s water levels, this is something new and different. Therefore, Murphy is erroneous in claiming that “the numbers prove” that Lake Mead is in no danger of drying up—this is a weak and poorly supported argument.
-Olivia Mussells
References

Barnett, Tim P. & David W. Pierce (2008). When will Lake Mead go dry?
Water Resources Research, 44:1-10.

Murphy, Jay David. (2009) Nevada’s Lake Mead, the water history scare factor. Digital Journal,
23 Sept 2009. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279596. Accessed 25 Sept 2009.

Ice Breaker

In the Globe and Mail article Greenland, Antarctica ice sheets shrink fast, author Seth Borenstein describes new satellite measurements scientists have recently taken of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. These measurements are far from reassuring; they show that the rate that ice sheets in this area are melting is much quicker than scientists had anticipated. It seems that scientists did not take into account that the temperature of the water surrounding these ice sheets is high enough to aid melting. While the article explains why this is happening, it does not go into detail explaining the effects that this will have on the world. It is already well known that melting ice sheets will raise overall sea levels around the world but this article neglects to answer many of the questions that readers will inevitably have.

The article claims that the ice sheets are melting at an acceleration greater than previously thought, but does not give the reader an estimation as to how long it will take these enormous sheets to melt or how much ice has already been lost. It says that they are melting at a rate of several meters a year but this estimation isn’t really specific enough to know how long these sheets will exist. It also does not mention how this increased melting rate will change projections of sea-level rise. Though it does state that this question was not answered in the study, it is still a very important aspect to consider. Obviously this will worsen rising sea levels, but there are a number of other factors that should also be considered. For example melting of this magnitude continues in the arctic, arctic summers could be ice free by 2030. This alone would impact the many animal species and humans who inhabit the arctic. Having an ice free summer would also open many water passages that have previously been inaccessible which would make the region easily exploitable by both shipping and transportation as well as natural resource exploitation (Arctic Sea Ice Melt and Shrinking Polar Ice Sheets, 2007). The implications associated with the melting of ice sheets are obviously very severe and must be taken into account.

While the article cites recent scientific research and clearly reports the problem, it neglects to state all of the causes and any possible ways to mitigate this damage. It declares that the scientific community has obviously underestimated the melting rate of these ice sheets as well as their sensitivity. While it is obvious that ice is quite sensitive to temperature change, it does not mention any other possible factors that might contribute to this increased rate such as surrounding ocean temperatures, elevation and solar radiation. According to another article by the American Meteorological Society these factors all play a key part in the melting of ice sheets. (Arctic Sea Ice Melt and Shrinking Polar Ice Sheets, 2007).

To conclude, while this article accurately conveys the results of the study, it does not answer many important questions that the reader will undoubtably have. This problem could be easily solved by some additional research. Readers are not only interested in the fact that these events are occurring, they want to fully understand why and how it can be mitigated.

-Elisabeth Shapiro

Sources:

American Meteorological Society. (2007), Arctic Sea Ice Melt and Shrinking Polar Ice Sheets.

URL: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10046080/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Melt-and-Shrinking-Polar-Ice-Sheets

Seth Borenstein. (September 23, 2009) Greenland, Antarctica ice sheet shrink fast.

URL: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/greenland-antarctica-ice-sheets-shrink-fast/article1298691/

Will There Be Enough Water in the Next Century?

The blog posted on blogcatalog by Jo Gabriel Tulio asks a startling question: “Will There Be Enough Water in the Next Century?” (Tulio, 2009) According to Tulio, the world is heading into a decline of available fresh water, worse than seen in recent years. This reduction of fresh water could have varied, but undoubtedly devastating effects on the human population. He claims, “The world is facing the prospect of water shortages caused by population growth, uneven supplies of water, pollution, and other factors.” (Tulio, 2009) Also, with the assumption that there will be war, Tulio states, “The wars of the next century will be over water not oil.” (Tulio, 2009) However, there is some hope offered in the last paragraph, a saving grace for humanity, because we “have not yet crossed the line of no return.” (Tulio, 2009) This is a statement to initiate action, to start conserving our fresh water before it is too late. Overall, Tulio makes a very general claim, with very little supporting evidence. He believes that fresh water is becoming scarce, will be the source of contention between countries, but is still salvageable.

For all three points, contradiction exists in Tulio’s evidence. Firstly, we must accept that pollution and climate change are causing a shortage of fresh water. Pollution is mainly described as the leaching of nitrates and fertilizers into the water, causing blooms of algae that ruin water quality. Although this process is described, no reports of it are mentioned or studies made that prove the toxic effects of these algae blooms. Climate change is the other factor said to be affecting water quality, yet contradiction is woven in to the argument with the statement, “Scientists disagree over the extent to which global warming might alter the Earth’s climate…but most experts agree that elevated global temperatures could change the world’s rainfall patterns.” (Tulio, 2009) It is unclear what experts believe, but seemingly if weather patterns do change, the overall quantity of fresh water won’t, only the location.

Both factors leading to a shortage of water come back to development. Unfortunately, Tulio has stumbled into a circular argument. Pollution is produced through farming: animal waste and the use of fertilizers and pesticides is needed to produce more food on less land. Climate change is the result of global warming: the increase of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels. Yet if unindustrialized countries are going to improve their standard of living, they have every right that industrialized countries did to pollute and burn fossil fuels in the process. The price of industrialism has always been the environment, including fresh water.

The second part to this claim is that wars between countries will begin due to the limits of fresh water resources. This one statement has a large impact, but it is not supported in anyway throughout the rest of the article. Yes, clean water is limited and impossible to find in many areas, and perhaps it will become worse, but we can not predict how society will respond.

Lastly, the allowance of hope is given. Tulio states that measures must be taken to improve water quality, and that it is not too late. Such comforting statements are always nice to hear, but it leaves the reader thinking, “Great, there is something that can be done.” Not, “Now I know what I can do.” One option for the production of more fresh water is desalination, but the energy expenditure to evaporate all of our water would be huge, increasing fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and ultimately fresh water depletion. If this technology is “economical for desalinating brackish well water” (Tulio, 2009) then our problem seems to be solved.

Tulio’s claims concerning fresh water are as circular as the water cycle. They depend on various factors and the cause and effects are intricately, but not always directly related. Water is a finite resource and is certainly worth conserving, but it can be purified. Evidence of a worsening water shortage has not been given

- Amy Adair 0660106

References
Tulio, Jo Gabriel. (2009) Will There Be Enough Water in the Next Century? blogcatalog, 8 July 2009. http://www.blogcatalog.com/search/frame.php?term=freshwater+resources&id=98f14dd058e7cc6a2651a4e93945b4. Accessed 25 September 2009.