Population Management

Humans are destroying the earth. We are fed this idea by various scientists and environmental advocates who are very much right in their attribution of much of today’s ecological problems to the advent of urban human society. These opponents of humanity’s role in the environment around them have almost always focused solely on the roles of Homo sapiens in disrupting ecosystems, a view that is probably somewhat narrow minded and very limited in scope.

This limited scope can be rather deceptive. Many other populations besides that of the human population have a detrimental influence on the habitat in which they live and even on other species and populations within that same environment (Ross, Pollett, 2006).

Examples of negative population effects include that of the Koala in Australia. The Koala, now considered a pest, had caused damage to the well-being of the native Rough-barked Manna-gum on Kangaroo Island, Australia. A second, more abstract example is the impact that weeds have on their environment. Not only do they compete with other plants for habitat and resources, but they can cause damage to animals such as humans by damaging a source of their nourishment. An estimate of AU$ 3.5 billion (~US$ 2.7 billion) was made to approximate the financial costs incurred by the agricultural community in Australia due to the effects of weeds (Ross, Pollett, 2006).

Understanding the (possibly negative) roles of other organisms on the environment is crucial in allowing us to create a better living standard for humans and also keeping a balance or harmony within the environment we have immediate influence over. As humans we understand the negative impact we are having on the environment and so we are consequentially able to change our actions and change the actions of other humans in order to better coincide with our habitat. However, due to the biological nature of all other populations we are unable to communicate and therefore unable to reach agreements in dealing with other species and their environments.

Because we cannot change the lifestyles and patterns of other, nonhuman populations, we must turn to regulating the size of the populations themselves. Ross and Pollett’s “On Costs and Decisions in Population Management” proposes that the two applicable methods of population regulation are reduction and suppression.

The suppression regime is the process by which a certain population is closely monitored to make sure a certain threshold for the population size is not surpassed. Suppression is exacted through continuous control, where culling of populations is done relatively often until the certain group falls below a pre-determined benchmark. This continuous control is in contrast to culling a population in intervals; relatively fewer and more spread out in nature (Ross, Pollett, 2006).

Before I continue, I think I need to explain what the culling of populations is. “Culling is the process of selection of surplus animals from an animal population” (Wikipedia). While some might argue against culling, the purpose of this article requires it as a necessary practice. There are a multitude of factors that go into deciding on the final population sizes that will be created by culling, the most important of which is finding the minimum number of the population that need to be present in order for the population to be able to persist in spite of their reduction; this comprehensively referred to as “population persistence” (Ross, Pollett, 2006). Throughout their article, Ross and Pollett develop formulas that dictate the scope of culling that needs to take place in observance of the population’s current birth and death rates.

The second regulation method of reduction is fundamentally different from suppression in that instead of stopping a population from growing beyond a certain point, that population is reduced to a pre-determined size and then maintained at this newly created level. However, reduction is also usually more educationally based and better at addressing various genetic issues that arise from a reduced population size. In order to control a population ethically and efficiently special emphasis needs to be made on genetic diversity. Genetic diversity will not only reduce the problems proposed by inbreeding, but will also allow for the species to continue evolutionarily, not being stunted by a lack of variance in the genetic makeup. Also, reduction’s culling intervals are usually more researched and causally more infrequent (Ross, Pollett, 2006).

Even though population regulation is performed in order to benefit the overall environment, there are some costs to its practice. The first cost is incurred by the species that is being controlled. The cost is extinction. While extinction “is contrary to the management objective” (Ross, Pollett, 2006) it is effectively inevitable in many, if not most situations. This may seem somewhat inhumane at first, but we can look at examples such as the koala population on Kangaroo Island to see that it is not. Like I referred to before, the koalas of Kangaroo Island are reproducing at an unprecedented rate. This rate will almost definitely lead to the extinction of the population sooner than an extinction incurred by management because of overpopulation, competition, and resource exhaustion. Resource exhaustion from a certain habitat almost definitely can lead to the extinction or impairment of other species, so even if population management eventually leads to extinction, there is no reason to think that reduction or suppression are inherently malignant for the given population.

A second, less objectionable cost is that controlling populations is going to cost a large amount of money. This is pretty obvious, as the resources required to intensively regulate a certain population are quite expensive. The only major difference in cost between the two regulation methods are that reduction costs large amounts occasionally (during its culling periods), and suppression costs small amounts at a relatively constant pace.

As the human population continues to increase its sphere of influence we will definitely be coming more closely into contact with local species such as kangaroo. The fact that animal species can be maladaptive in their environments is crucial to ascertain. I feel it is very important that we are able to coexist (and sometimes intercede) peacefully and effectively with nature, and understanding population regulation is an integral part of that.

Sources:

J.V. Ross, P.K. Pollett; “On costs and decisions in population management.” University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Qld , Australia. 7 September 2006. 1 February 2007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBS-4KV3Y45-2&_user=130907&_coverDate=02%2F10%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=a32e7c905ca9d9c77f95a734abc4b8c2#sec18

100 miles/hour : The Science behind this pitch

As you all out there may already know, I am a big surfing fan and jump in the sea at least twice a day to enjoy the beautiful ocean and its waves. However, you probably don’t know that my favorite sport isn’t actually surfing, but rather BASEBALL. Yes you are reading correctly, that is Baseball. Me mates have always made fun of me because baseball is an American sport that is not played very much here in Australia (even though we did participate in the World Baseball Classic last year).

I played baseball as a kid and enjoyed sneaking into the bars on Friday nights to watch the New York Yankees play. I guess I don’t have to do that now since I have my own bar with American satellite channels. Anyways one of the things that has always fascinated me about baseball is not how hard or powerful the players can hit the ball, but rather the speed and accuracy at which a pitcher can throw the ball. After watching last night’s Caribbean World Series between Venezuela and the Dominican Republic, I was impressed to see that the Venezuelan player who was about 170 pounds, was throwing the ball at 99 miles/hour while the Dominican pitcher who weighed about 230 pounds was only throwing it at 87 miles/hour. This completely startled as to how a person 60 pounds lighter could have more strength to throw the ball and led me to think that maybe there is more science involved in throwing a pitch than just pure strength. Well I was right. There seems to be more science, physics, and natural anatomical factors involved than just pure arm force.

The Magazine Current Science contains an interesting article called “Fireball Physics”, that explains how biomechanics and anatomy is the key to a 100 miles/hour pitch, known as a “Fireball” or a “Flamethrower” (Jozefowics 10). According to the article, a ball traveling at this speed will reach the glove of the catcher in less than one second, putting the pitchers through one of the fastest mechanical motions a person’s body is capable of carrying out, and forces his arm to nearly a breaking point. (10).

Even though there is no official record of this statistic, the fastest pitch ever recorded was clocked at an amazing 103 miles/hour in 1995 by Braves pitcher Mark Wohlers (Yes mates, I was watching that game alright). (10). Much more than an arm was involved in this pitch however; muscles, tendons, ligaments, and joints, all the way from the TOES to the tip of our fingers all play a part in carrying out this movement. I understand you are probably confused, so I’ll explain a bit better. The biomechanics begins in our toes, and just like a wave, it starts to gain strength as the force moves from our feet to our leg muscles, than passes on to our pelvis and abdominal areas, and then in a matter of an instant that force is fired from our shoulders to the tip of our index and thumb. (11)

Now listen to this mates. “The fastest pitchers reach a peak arm speed of about 7,500 degrees per second, or fast enough to rotate the arm completely(360 degrees) 21 times in ONE second!”(11). More amazingly, their tendons and ligaments reach a point where they almost completely tear apart, meaning that a minimal amount of extra force could shatter their elbows or shoulders. This clearly explains why we barely see any pitchers throwing a “Fireball”. “That 100 mile ceiling isn’t an illusion; it’s a basic property of human physiology”, states Jozefowics (11).

Researchers however think otherwise. After performing several experiments on cadavers, they found that a well developed arm with strong ligaments and tendons would have enough ability to throw a ball well over 120 miles/ hour. They do agree however, that if some “genetic wonders”(11) are able to throw the ball this fast, they wouldn’t be able to do so accurately and would probably injure themselves after a few pitches. (11).

It is no wonder then why teams spend so much money on their pitchers and take so much care of them, regularly checking up on their ligaments, tendons, and all sort muscles not just in their arm but throughout their body. One example is pitcher Kurt Schilling of the Boston Red Sox. In 2004, he was diagnosed with tendonitis in his left ankle due to excessive pitching pressure on his foot. He underwent several surgeries and later went on to win the World Series with Boston while pitching with a bloody sock.

The article also explains that, “Team owners prefer a fast pitcher they can keep around for a long time rather than a super-fast pitcher that is always injured” (11). So next time you are flipping through the channels and see a pitcher throwing a nice fast pitch into strike zone, remember all the physics and science that is involved in that split second movement. Good day mates!

Jozefowics, Chris. “Fireball Physics.” Current Science. Volume 91.Issue 2 (September 2005): pages 10-11. EBSCO Host Research Databases. UNC- Chapel Hill. 30 January 2007.

Drilling in the Timor Sea

Charles Scheiner, author of Drilling East Timor: Australia’s Oil Grab in the Timor Sea, had this to say about The Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea (CMATS): “Australia, one of the largest and most powerful countries in the Asia-Pacific region, recently legalized its thievery of tens of billions of dollars in resources from one of the smallest and weakest, according to critics of a new treaty” (Scheiner, 30). How right is he? Thievery?

For those of you that may be clueless: A treaty was signed in an attempt to end our dispute with East Timor (Timor-Leste). CMATS allows us, Australia, to use oil and natural gas under the Timor Sea. However, it is ironic because international law experts say that without this treaty, there is no way we could claim anything in the Timor Sea—oil and gas should belong entirely to Timor-Leste. Under the treaty we are also allowed to develop other undersea oil and gas reserves in previously contested areas; however, until all the petroleum is extracted and sold, Timor-Leste has its right to a maritime (sea) boundary. (Scheiner, 30)

Is this a Reversed Robin Hood Story?! Some say yes, I say partly.

Timor-Leste is one of the youngest and poorest nations in Asia, quite the opposite of us. Many think that if Timor-Leste could have waited longer to sign a treaty, then they could have received a better deal. The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network had this to say, this transaction “may be the best that could be achieved at this time, given the pressures on Timor-Leste from Australia and oil companies and the tremendous economic, political, size and other disparities in an inherently unequal negotiation process” (Scheiner, 30) . Of course there are going to be pressures, we are dealing with oil here!

The oil and gas markets are not going to show less mercy on any country, so countries like Timor-Leste need to bulk up and use this to get ahead. Oil is such a commodity right now that almost any area could make a fortune off a place like the Timor Sea. So Timor-Leste needs to stop throwing the “underdeveloped card” and pull it together to become a strong power. Critics say that we keep them from developing when their negative, depressed attitudes actually keep them suppressed. Some people would argue that you have to reach rock bottom to rise to the top. Here’s your chance Timor-Leste.

Greater Sunrise is the largest area claimed by both countries and is split Timor-Leste, 18 Percent and Australia, 82 percent. We get 82 percent of the revenues since it lies almost entirely on our side of the median line. (Scheiner, 32) However, the operation of Greater Sunrise has not been decided yet. There are three options under consideration:

“(1) Transporting the gas to Timor-Leste and processing it at a new LNG plant in Timor-Leste. An LNG plant located in Timor-Leste would be much closer to the field than a plant in Australia. It would also provide important stimulus to the local economy. Therefore, the Timor-Leste Government is actively encouraging the companies to give serious consideration to this option.
(2) Transporting the gas to Darwin, Australia and processing it at an existing LNG plant in Darwin.
(3) Processing the gas at sea at an LNG plant located on a ship.”



Jeffrey Smith and David Webster wrote an article entitled: East Timor's blood, Australia's oil?

Australia has received a bad reputation through this whole deal. I do not believe that we make the best decisions possible, but not many countries do—look at America and the war on Iraq. I do believe in making the best out of all situations. Look at me, the whole college thing did not work and I still made it. “Making it” is in the eyes of the beholder however. Some people would not choose the life I live: Waking up at noon to open my bar, surfing from 2:00 to 4:00 then reopening my bar until the last customer leaves. I call this paradise. Timor-Leste should do what I did, adapt. Years after, people are still complaining. If these people were as adamant about developing their countries as they are about protesting us, then they would set. I’m not saying we have the best relations with Timor-Leste, but I think we could use the Timor Sea to establish a friendship. (Scheiner, 31)

Can’t we all just get along? …Probably not.

“The Australian Government has continually and blatantly refused to abide by international law. Instead, it has bullied the poorest country in Asia into a series of dodgy resource sharing deals, to take billions of dollars that simply do not belong to us,” said Tom Clarke of the Australian Timor Sea Justice Campaign (Scheiner, 31). I am not a big fan of government myself but this statement is a little harsh. A better treaty could be constructed but the truth is, no treaty between us and Timor-Leste is going to suffice after everything they have gone through.

La’o Hamutuk, part of the East Timorese Movement Against the Occupation of the Timor Sea, has made an effort to point out that they are the largest foreign contributor to our national budget. Timorese President Xanana Gusmao called it “A question of life or death,…a question of being continually poor, continually begging or to be self-sufficient.” (Scheiner, 32)

Take, take, take and never giving anything back. But is that true? What about the 50 Australian federal police offices we sent to contain gangs in East Timor’s capital on May 27. 2006.


“Australia will assist East Timor to build appropriate institutions and policies for the efficient use of future oil and gas revenues.”

And for kicks and giggles

Scheiner, Charles. "Drilling East Timor: Australia's Oil Grab in the Timor Sea." Multinational Monitor 27.1 ([YEAR]): 30-32. Academic Search Premier. 31 January 2007.

New Shark Science!

The bar was a bit slow on Tuesday, so I decided to go to my local video store and pick up a DVD. Texas Chainsaw? No thanks. 13 Blocks? Yeah, given his film career, I just don’t know what Bruce Willis could possibly be doing in New York City this time. Moving off of the “New Releases” wall and into some more classic footage, I came across JAWS! Now that, my mates, is a film and a half. Needless to say, with that DVD in my hand, I walked out of the rental store a happy man.

So after watching Spielberg’s masterpiece, I decided to look up some cool shark photos on the web and tape them all around the windows for a nice weekend theme. Works well with the Friday Bloody Mary special.

Anyways—while looking for pictures, I came across an article in American Scientist from 2005. According to some paleontologists, shark evolution is still evolving. The piece itself is a little science-y… so I’ll just summarize the cool parts.

It seems that there is a missing link between the development of fish into shark and boney fish. Since shark fossils are rarely intact, paleontologists have a hard time finding the missing few links that takes the species from fish to a creature befitting of a blockbuster film (Turner/Miller 244). However, scientists recently (well, recently as in circa 2005) discovered a well intact early shark fossil and began researching to see what part of the puzzle it fit into.

As it turned out, early sharks were more developed and diverse than paleontologists had originally thought (244). A pectoral spine was found in the fossil, which makes it relatable to boney fish. Worldwide discoveries began popping up, and paleontologists were working to close the evolutionary gap.

After a few mutations, evolutionists believe that fish split into jawed fish and another species that developed into a land dweller. The jawed fish are the species which paleontologists believe morphed into our presently know sharks (244).

Miller, one of the article’s contributors, found a nicely intact shark fossil in Canada in 1997. By examining the teeth (which is the most common way to identify sharks and their timeline), Miller and his team found that a shark going back 400 million years had already developed the kind of teeth that made JAWS! famous (245).

Problems with shark classification and too many hands in the taxonomy pot causes for confusion. However, this article’s other contributor, Turner, was able to recognize that the teeth they were looking at in fact did belong to a shark.

What a team!

Next, the Turner and Miler found the oldest known, most complete shark fossil yet to be discovered—on the shores of Canada! The geographical location is of interest because this is not a place where sharks or boney fish were typical. This must mean that the species was more widespread than originally thought (246).

Though naming the exact date of when fish morphed into sharks is difficult to pinpoint, the first definite evidence of sharks is around 440 million years ago (also written mya) (247).

Prompted by the research of Gary Nelson, Turner began to make a connection between a species named thelodonts and sharks. Nelson’s research showed that sharks had a certain type of scale in their throats. Turner found that the scales that cover the bodies of modern sharks are similar to the brachial scales discovered by Nelson (250).

Turner’s connection proved to be a very important piece to the puzzle. “The accepted model is that teeth evolved from the modification of specialized skin scales that became attached to the jaw cartilages (parts of the gill branches that are believed to have evolved into the lower and upper jaws), and the structures evolved” (251).

Another theory argues that teeth developed from within the throat, not the jaw cartilage as in the above theory. Either way—paleontologists generally have come to accept the fact of the teeth evolving at a particular time due to Turner’s observations.

Turner and Miller concluded that 50 million years ago, it seems as if there was experimentation with different types of fish. Even the modern sharks of today seem to have been swimming around that time (251).

Currently, paleontologists are working backwards. Playing connect the dots, modern sharks are being related to early sharks. This leaves a gap that scientists continually try to close.

Interesting bits of information, eh? I thought so… I hope you did too.

Perhaps I’ll make a special rule this Friday night… just for everyone who has read this post: if you walk into my bar on Friday between 9 p.m. and 2 a.m. and say, “I can connect the dots between thelodonts and modern day sharks through bronchial scales,” I just may have to give you a Friday night special on the house.



Turner, Susan and Randall F. Miller. “New Ideas About Old Sharks.” American Scientist. Volume 93.Issue 3 (May/June 2005): pages 244-252. EBSCO Host Research Databases. UNC- Chapel Hill. 31 January 2007.

Middle Ground in Animal Testing Debate

While going through old magazines, trying to find a few to put in the restrooms of Shark Biscuits, I came across the December 2006 issue of Nature Magazine. Thumbing through it, I saw that an editorial piece shed light on the topic of animal testing. Now, as an appreciator of nature and all things living, I thought this was worth my time. I took a break from “decorating,” fixed a tropical refreshment, and sat down at the bar to read.

Though bunnies, primates, and PETA activists are key players in this hotly debated issue, the editorial feature focused its attention more on the scientists and their right to voice their opinions in the community without being serenaded by the voices of picketers and activists. An interesting perspective, this editorial was supported in a piece by Emma Marris. After reading about how this topic hits close to home for many college students, I cannot wait to see what kinds of posts I get back on this thread. Opinions are bound to vary while the middle ground continues to be left un-trampled.

As the editorial article mentioned, “animal research saves lives” is the campaign cry for those supporting the biomedical turn down animal lane. The thesis of this argument is clear in the piece: “Fear is clearly a significant factor in excluding the voices of ordinary researchers from public discussion of these (biomedical animal “research”) issues” (Nature Editorial, 789). The article also points out, early in the piece, that this issue is more complex than it seems at first glance (Nature Editorial, 789). According to the article, animal testing can prove to be both beneficial and not beneficial. In one example, testing on the primate brain led to discoveries and breakthroughs on for paraplegics. Then again, models of cancer in mice are not relevant replications of the disease in humans; therefore the research is not as fruitful (Nature Editorial 789). With these discrepancies, the argument has taken a clearly black and white form—you are either for or against it, and the middle ground remains untouched because no one wants to give in. This presents a problem for scientists looking to share and discuss research both among themselves and in public forums. “As one HIV researcher said, “I personally feel uncomfortable with primate research yet I realize that without primate data, vaccine candidates are rarely forwarded to human trial” (Nature Editorial, 790). Legislation in both the U.S. and Britain are being formatted to protect scientists while universities are working to give researchers a more open platform to discuss their work (Nature Editorial, 790). With all the facts and figures presented in the editorial, I felt that it left out a key element in making most any argument: the human element. For this reason, I advocate that Marris’ article is more all encompassing by default.

In Marris’ article, “Animal Research: Grey Matters,” the author seems to ally with Nature’s editorial piece. Marris describes the argument “depressingly black and white,” referring to the lack of room for discussion (Marris). By reflecting on a poll taken by Nature, Marris summarized, and issued her main thesis, that biomedical professionals have multi-faceted views on the topic and are in fact encouraged to not express their thoughts for fear of backfire. “Some of this is directly due to fear of animal-rights extremists; some is an indirect effect of the polarized atmosphere that surrounds the issue” (Marris). Through her article, Marris accounts for several interviews with professionals and dives into not only their research, but also their emotional connection to their work. With this strategy, I believe her argument is more grounded. While exerting a human element in her writing, she still, in my opinion, sides with the researcher and scientists over the animal activists. Even at her strenuous attempts to ride the journalistic fence, it becomes more and more clear how this topic is very black and white, no matter how neutrally the issue is meant to be presented.

In a related matter, college students at UNC- Chapel Hill, Emory, Harvard, John Hopkins, and Columbia have earned a dishonorable mention. On their website (http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-worstlabs.asp), PETA lists the 2005 winners of a frightening prize: their names included in the “10 Worst Laboratories” (PETA). Video and accounts of inhumane treatment of lab animals can be viewed on this website.

As a lover of animals, I strongly encourage you to contact these and other universities, local governments, and media to alert the public. If we do not shed light on the problem, it continues to grow in the darkness of ignorance.

- Desmond

“An open debate: Researchers who work with animals should join the discussion on animal experimentation.” Nature 444.7121 (14 December 2006): 789-790. E-Journal Finder. UNC University Libraries. Chapel Hill. 29 January 2007. < http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7121/full/444789b.html>

Marris, Emma. “Animal research: Grey Matters” Nature 444.7121 (14 December 2006) . E-Journal Finder. UNC University Libraries. Chapel Hill. 29 January 2007. http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061211/full/444808a.html

PETA’s ’10 Worst Labrotories’ List. PETA. 29 January, 2007. http://www.peta.org/feat/unc/vid.html

America and Its Dependency on others in Research and Development

Welcome back, lads. As I was bartendin’ the other day, I overheard a couple of locals talking about the states and how it’s not like it used to be. Not being from the states, and bein’ the person that I am, of course I was interested in what they were sayin’ ya know? The discussion got quite heated and one lad, just to prove his point actually pulled out a paper that had been written by a good friend of his, who was locally known for having extraordinary opinions. Here’s the essay below. I thought I’d give you all a chance to look at it and see what ya think! Be sure to post your thoughts because I want to know your opinion. Until next time, good day mates!

United States was once a place where people from all over the world clamored for the opportunity to get a great education and make significant advances in all areas of their life. There were some areas that international students favored more than others. One area in particular that attracted a high volume of students throughout the world was research and development. Students were given the opportunity of a life time to come to the United States and do cutting edge research that was perhaps not offered in their country due to underdevelopment. Today the number of international students wishing to come to the States has dropped dramatically, so much so that it has fellow researchers and scientists worried.

Since the terror attacks, foreign policy has changed dramatically. Such changes have affected many aspects but the one of most concern is the inability for international students to come and participate in research. An editorial in Nature described the decreased interest as potentially detrimental to future research in America. Furthermore, the editorial attributes the declined interest to the procedure that foreign exchange students have to go through to even be able to participate in research. As of late, it now only takes 10 days for a student from Beijing to obtain a visa whereas it used to take months. Researchers are urging the government to remove all of the red tape or potentially sacrifice future research.

Researchers and Scientists alike feel as though it is necessary to have foreigners involved in research because they provide a different view on things. There are others however who feel differently. According to an article titled Is America Losing its Edge? by Adam Segal, America needs to take several measures to ensure that other countries don’t over take the US in research and development. As of right now, the US is currently planning to spend less money each year on basic research and focus more on development in weaponry homeland security, and the space program. By doing so, as noted by Adam it would leave basic research under funded which would essentially “deprive the economy of the building blocks of future innovation.” If the US went forward with their current plan then it would allow for other competitive countries to gain the edge in research and development, if not surpassing the United States.

Other countries are closely trailing behind America. Perhaps due to the lack of interest in research and development in America, it wouldn’t be surprising if other countries soon surpassed the United States. Such could be attributed to the fact that other countries are investing in research like they ought to whereas the United States don’t feel as if they should. Furthermore, there isn’t a renewed interest in research within the United States like there is in other countries. Therefore, before the United States goes forward with investing money in research and development they need to make sure there is sufficient interest in the United States, before going out and recruiting international students to do research for them. In order to promote interest in research, the government should look at implementing programs that do just that. Provide information and various programs for the younger demographic so that when they look at jobs and career interests, it will be in research and development.


“Five Years On.” Nature. 7 September 2006. 26 January 2007. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7107/ful/443002a.html

Segal, Adam. “Is America Losing Its Edge?” Foreign Affairs. December 2004. 26 January, 2007. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-its-edge.html

What We Are Doing in (to) the Air

Aeroplanes are the future of travel. They have become the forefront of trade and industry for all international businesses, covering the globe. Aviation is particularly important for Australia as it provides the means for Aussie international trade, especially with trade partners in Southeast Asia.

While aeroplane technology is crucial, the entirety of this planet, its inhabitants, and their well-being are far more important. In an article by the online science journal group: Nature Publishing Group, the author explains how airlines pose an immense potential for change in global climate, due to their increasingly frequent use and the expansion of world-wide economies (“Off the Rails,” 126).

The article states that aeroplane emissions made by Pommies are increasing by as much as 7 percent a year! That isn’t nearly as astounding as the fact that these English aeroplane passengers will most likely double in by the year 2030. “Progress” being made towards higher aeroplane fuel efficiency is likely to be stunted at only 1 percent increase per year, as aeroplane emission standards are addressed only very gradually (“Off the Rials,” 126).

Many airline companies, here and abroad, may not be keen on complying with emission standards because while emissions reductions and increased fuel efficiencies are great for the environment, they are very expensive and almost always lead to direct costs for consumers.

The International Air Transport Association is a global organization for airline companies world-wide. The name of the group by itself screams “big business,” “capitalism,” and “agenda.” Labels aside, the group’s “Environmental Review 2004” paints a much prettier picture.

The IATA points to past efforts made in order to show that the airline industry, as a whole, is more progressive than liberal media sources depict it. While current emission rates are increasing, they show that over the past 40 years fuel efficiency has increased by a total of 70 percent (“Environmental Review 2004,” 21). At first this seems like a large number, but this is not the case due to both the extended period of time over which the change took place and the fact that aeroplanes are a relatively new technology and are obviously going to change dramatically over the first few years. This fuel efficiency increase is declining rapidly, as can be seen in the Nature article showing how there is a forecast for as little change as 1 or 2 percent increased fuel efficiency in the coming years, a trend that will almost definitely continue. This 70 percent is mentioned with some frequency in the article and also on other portions of their website, leading to the conclusion that the IATA may very well have a single “pretty” number they wave at the environmentally conscious.

IATA also discredits scientists in an attempt to save some face: “While scientific understanding of aviation’s CO2 emissions and their effects is generally considered fairly good, understanding of other aircraft emissions is still considered to be relatively poor.” This is given without much explanation or any linkage to a scientific source (“Environmental Review 2004,” 29).

As I have seen and read from both of these documents I have come to my definite conclusion that aviation and the commercial use of aeroplanes has and will lead to severe environmental problems if dramatic change is not met.

Thought global aviation makes up for a small portion of pollution and climate change on our planet, the corporate response is indicative and representative of a larger issue. The issue is that many businesses will not take the necessary steps in the present to combat the environmental crisis of global warming due to financial cost. This seems to always be the case when ethical decisions face an organization that is purely focused on money.

“Off the Rails.” Nature Publishing Group. 11 January 2007. 26 January 2007.

.

“Environmental Review 2004.” International Air Transport Association. 2004. 27 January 2007.

.