You are on page 1of 7

Question 5

Would you favor building more nuclear power plants to reduce CO2
emissions? Why or why not?
I personally do not favor building more nuclear plants to reduce CO2 emissions. As we all
know, building a nuclear power plant can cost a lot to be built and if something goes wrong
in the plant, it also would cost a lot to be repaired. Besides to acquire the minerals and fuels
to power the nuclear plant can also be costly. Besides being costly, if a nuclear plant is built
to reduce the emission of CO2, we do not know the proper way to recycle or dispose the
waste from the plant. If the waste is not disposed in a proper way they might cause other
damage which might be more severe than the carbon emission to the environment. And to
build a nuclear power plant, it requires a huge area as it need to be built in a place far away
from cities. If the place available is not sufficient, some part of the forest have to be cleared
in which can increase the cost of building and also can increase the global warming by
replenishing the forest area.
If something goes wrong at the nuclear plant, the damage caused will be more severe and the
whole place near the plant could not be used for a few years as most of the nuclear power
plant fuels are radioactive. And if people near the plant are affected, the effect caused by the
radioactive substance can affect the next few generations of the affected person. It would be
also costly to recover the damaged place. Even though building a nuclear power plant is
effective to reduce the CO2 emissions, I disagree to build a plant since it would be costly and
for now we do not what other damage can be caused by the nuclear power plant to the
environment and to the people.

Question 4
What is Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol was an agreement negotiated by many countries in December 1997 and
came into force with Russia's ratification on February 16, 2005. The reason for the lengthy
timespan between the terms of agreement being settled upon and the protocol being engaged
was due to terms of Kyoto requiring at least 55 parties to ratify the agreement and for the
total of those parties emissions to be at least 55% of global production of greenhouse gases.
The protocol was developed under the UNFCCC - the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
Participating countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol have committed to cut emissions
of not only carbon dioxide, but of also other greenhouse gases, being:
Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
If participant countries continue with emissions above the targets, then they are required to
engage in emissions trading; i.e. buying "credits" from other participant countries that are
able to exceed their reduction targets in order to offset.
The goals of Kyoto were to see participants collectively reducing emissions of greenhouse
gases by 5.2% below the emission levels of 1990 by 2012.
While the 5.2% figure is a collective one, individual countries were assigned higher or lower
targets and some countries were permitted increases. For example, the USA was expected to
reduce emissions by 7%.
India and China, which have ratified the Kyoto protocol, are not obligated to reduce
greenhouse gas production at the moment as they are developing countries; i.e. they weren't
seen as the main culprits for emissions during the period of industrialization thought to be the
cause for the global warming of today.

This is a little odd given that China is about to overtake the USA in emissions, but take into
account the major differences in population and that much of the production in these
countries is fuelled by demand from the West and influence from the West on their own
culture. As a result of this loophole, the West has effectively outsourced much of its carbon
emissions to China and India.

169 countries have ratified the agreement. Of the signatories, only 2 refused to ratify Kyoto
up until December of 2007 - Australia and the USA.
Australia negotiated hard when the Kyoto Protocol was being developed; in fact it was to be
allowed an 8% increase in emissions. Even so, Australia refused to ratify the agreement until
a change in government in late 2007. The excuse - it will be bad for Australia's economy, the
same reasoning the USA uses.

Question 3
Sometimes the quickest and the easiest way to restore a stream is simply to
reconstruct it with heavy equipment. You might even create something more
interesting and useful (at least from human perspective) than the original. Is it
okay to replace real nature with something synthetic?

In my opinion, replacing the real nature with something synthetic has both its pros and cons.
It also depends on the geological factor whether that either that particular place can be
restored or have to modify it.
1. Can attract tourist if a theme park or scenery is created.
2. When something interesting like a theme park is created, it creates job opportunities.
3. More people will visit the place more frequently

1. Loss of real nature value
2. Could not get the real environment scenery
3. Ecosystem might be disrupted
4. When the real nature is replaced with something synthetic, the animals might not be
able to adapt to the changes and might extinct.
5. Loss of natural medicines.

Even though replacing the real nature with something synthetic has both its pros and cons, I
would say that is it not something that I would prefer. Replacing the real nature will have
great consequences for the future generations and the environment will not be the same as it
was if replaced with something synthetic. Instead of replacing it, it would be better if we
could just restore the damage done without completely replacing it.
Question 2
Paper and pulp are the fastest-growing sector of the wood products market, as
emerging economies of China and India catch up with the growing consumption
rates of North America, Europe, and Japan. What should be done to reduce paper

There are a few things that can be done to minimize the usage of papers in our daily lifestyle.
Minimizing the usage of paper can help to save a lot of trees which can be used to make the
environment greener.
1. Buy hemp paper as often as you can. We lose an estimated 37.5 million acres of trees
annually most of which are used for paper. Only 1 acre of hemp is needed to produce
the same amount of paper as three acres of tree, and while one tree takes hundreds,
even thousands of years to be replaced, hemp plants can be replaced in around one
hundred days.
2. Replace your paper napkins with cloth napkins, and your paper plates with regular
dishes or if want to use for any functions, Styrofoam plates also can be used instead of
paper plates.
3. Sign up for e-statements and pay your bills online. It saves you the physical and
mental clutter as well as money because you won't have to buy as many envelopes,
stamps, and checks, plus its way more convenient and safer as you dont have to bring
a lot of cash when paying.
4. Sign up for online magazine reading if you are a magazine lover.
5. Instead of using Post-It Notes or notebook paper in order to remember things, save it
in your cell-phone, or onto your computer.
6. Don't print out documents from your computer unless it's absolutely necessary.
7. Dont print receipts from ATM since you can check them online.

8. If you're at a fast-food restaurant, tell them to keep the paper bag, and bring your own
to carry your food in, and don't take the paper napkins they give out bring your own
cloth one.
9. You can also reduce paper usage by re-using the one-sided printed paper for taking
notes instead of using a new paper and also try to maximize the paper when using by
using both side of the paper.
10. Use rags instead of paper towels.
11. Try to use handkerchief instead of paper towels.

Question 1
Some captive breeding programs in zoos are so successful that they often produce
surplus animals that cannot be released into the wild because no native habitat remains.
Plans to euthanize surplus animals raise storms of protest from animal lovers. What
would you do if you were in charge of the zoo?

If I were in charge of the zoo, i would take a few steps to help the surplus animals as there is
no natural habitat remains for them.
1. Modify the current environment so that more animals can be kept without any
disturbance to the other animals
2. Have plans to enlarge the area of the zoo so that more animals can be kept
3. Try my best to train the surplus animals to adapt to new environment so that they can
be released into the wild.
4. Exchange some surplus animals between zoos and give to the animals to the needing
5. Give some surplus animals for adaptation by the animal lovers.
6. Release the old animals into the wild as they can survive and there will be more space
for the young animals.

The surplus animals also have the right to share the environment with us and since there is no
native habitat remains for them, we are the only one who should prepare the habitat for them
as we are the one responsible to destroy their native habitat. This responsibility does not only
belong to the zoos but for all the involved people.