Activity 5.1 – 10 things to do to Save the Planet

 Habitat/ Species Biodiversity:

Work to change attitudes and start questioning what we do, eat, buy, make/ produce, etc. We can work to control the invasive species that harm certain animal populations causing them to go extinct. We must protect these animals so they can all properly coexist with one another and their habitats. There are also captive breeding and seed banks as a solution to producing more of these animals.

Spirituality:

Works along with changing our attitudes about the environment. There are often misconceptions and lack of hope when thinking of ways we could save our environment from total depletion. When we participate in having a more positive mindset instead, we could all work wonders together. It is about our trust, care, and hope.

Habitat Destruction:

Working to recycle and creating composts from organic wastes. Reforestation could also help this issue as well by building these habitats back up again. Planting trees, shrubs, and plants that are beneficial and necessary to our wildlife. Properly taking care of these areas and putting in the manual labor at time when mother nature can't. Such as cleaning the wastes and actively watering the areas. 

Deforestation:

Supporting reforestation and the planting of new plants and trees where there aren't as many. Reduce as much as possible! We can achieve this by using less paper and cardboard, and not excessively burning firewood at a faster rate than it grows. We must catch up and balance out our environment with our animals and production methods. If we produce at a faster rate than were saving our environment, it'll be even harder to replenish any of it for the future. We can use recycled and sustainable (wood) products instead. 

Population Density:

The reproduction rate isn't as balanced as it used to be. There are less and less children as time progresses. It is important that we balance out our population in relation to the environment were living in. If not, there will be overpopulation crowding which could further harm our habitat and throw off our food chain as well. We eat plants and animals, so not only will their own habitat be affected, but so will they. 

Ancestry:

Appreciating and honoring our roots and what our ancestors paved the way for. This must be practiced in order to properly acknowledge our past, but to also carry on for the future. Most importantly, customs and traditions. 

Resource Conservation:

Phasing out fossil fuels for renewable resources. It will lead to a cleaner oceans and cleaner air, as well as reducing our meat consumption. We won't require as much space, leaving more room for grasslands and deforestation reduction. Thus, providing us and our animals with better, more, and safer food.

Consumption/ Production Regulation:

One must not overrule the other. There should be a healthy balance between our production and consumption rates for us to function properly. We shouldn't be destroying more than we can repair. 

Food Chain:

Having knowledge on the food chain and not taking it for granted. If one insect goes extinct, it is important to realize that it throws off the rest of the chain/web. From the soil//plants, to insect, to larger animals, and to us humans, we all rely on one another, and we have to work hard not to jeopardize that.

Collaboration:

None of these topics listed above could effectively be achieved without our population collaborating for this to happen. Together, we must take note of the importance of preservation for the future. If we don't act now, nothing will be solved. Whether it is collaborating physically or spiritually, anything could help if we do so together. That's when we will see a change.

sources:

Attenborough, D. (2019). How to save our planet WWF International.

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Puv0Pss33M

Goodall, J. (2017). Mother Earth. The Inspiration Journey.

    https://vimeo.com/214288898

June, L. (2018). Time traveler. Emergence Magazine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulK_GE9XjO8;

Activity 4.2.1 Applying my environmental policy frameworks

New York is a growing, evolving city that is attracting so many people to the point of causing population congestion issues. With more people, bring more cars and other modes of transportation, causing an even worse case of traffic congestion.  Roads and public transit systems needed to be updated and expanded to meet the constantly growing demand from these residents. The city, however, lack the funds to complete all the necessary projects and/or possible solutions.

• Demographic

In terms of demographics, the provided source doesn't necessarily focus on any polls or questionnaires, but statistics and information provided by the professionals (scientists and experts in these fields). Nonetheless, when addressing the issue of transportation/ population congestion, the source reads, "the city is projected to grow by nearly 1 million people by 2030, adding 20 million tourists per year

and 750,000 new jobs in Manhattan’s central business district (New York 2007a:6). The NYC Health Department estimates that fine particulate pollution in New York City is responsible, annually, for 3,200 premature deaths,1,200 hospitalizations for respiratory conditions, 900 cardiovascular hospitalizations, and 2,400 child and 3,600 adult emergency department visits for asthma.  Ozone levels are responsible, annually, for approximately 400 early deaths, 400 respiratory hospitalizations, 450 admissions for asthma, 1,800 child and 2,900 adult emergency department visits for asthma” (New York 2011a)." So, not only are these projections and statistics contributing to the issue of congestion, but it was determined that this could lead to bigger problems like negative health affects in the future 

• Power

In this case, the power of this source consists of the governments, mayors, and other federal participants involvement with the issues of population congestion. For example, "on July 19, 2007,

New York’s leaders announced that, along with a raft of, congestion pricing would move forward. The federal government made an exception for New York and allowed a draft of the

legislation and an agreement to be sent to Washington that day to allow New York to stay in the running for federal funding."

Furthermore, an individual may only rely on credible references and higher authorities to put any sort of solution in action. Thus, it was mentioned that the state legislature created the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, a seventeen-member commission, to review and revise the mayor’s proposal. "The mayor, the governor, the city council, the

state senate majority leader and the state assembly speaker appointed three members to the commission; the senate and assembly minority leaders each appointed one member to the commission.

The commission was tasked to look for other ways in which the city could reduce traffic without implementing charges. In order to be considered, any alternative plan had to reduce traffic by as much as the mayor’s plan did. The plan put forward by the commission needed to be approved by the mayor, the city council, and the legislature, and then signed by the governor by March 31, 2008, and would be contingent upon receiving a minimum $200 million in federal grants for the program."

• Characterization

    Throughout congestion issues and prices being solved and determined, the mayor was the one who had to face these issues head on. Of course, as the leader of the population, it is inevitable that some will disagree with what you think is best. At such a high position, the mayor can't just think of himself and how his decisions will affect his image, but the bigger picture is within how it effects the community as well. So, in 2007 when the mayor, Michael Bloomberg, began proposing a plan of transit-based initiatives through his long-term sustainability initiative, (PlaNYC 2030), his proposals for congestion pricing faced political and financial hurdles at the state and federal levels. Mayor Bloomberg played an important role in planning the congestion pricing proposal. It was said that he needed to overcome opposition within the City Council and also in the New York state legislature, because it required the approval of both parties. 

• Rhetorical

    The questions asked within the source consist of, why do we have traffic congestion? and why couldn’t a tax on auto traffic in Lower Manhattan be implemented? The value of transportation and the freedom to go wherever we wish are deeply important elements of our American culture and values. They aren't just a given, they are a privilege that we mustn't take for granted.  In the United States, the article states how "mobility is almost synonymous with freedom. We have developed a transportation infrastructure that supports individual rather than mass transport. The difficulty in implementing a congestion fee and the fact of congestion itself reflect those values.  Traffic is caused by too many people exercising their belief that it is better to use private transport than to use mass transit when traveling into the central business district. Opposition to the fee is based on the value that the freedom to drive wherever you’d like should not be limited." The source continues to use the logical appeal throughout the explanation to inform and persuade the reader on the importance of this congestion issue, as well as how we can work to address it. 

source:

Cohen, S., Wannemacher, J., & Weisbecker, P. (2014). Understanding environmental policy (2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.