Bradley's IB Geography

Alaskan Oil Debate:

2011-03-06T07:15:00.000-08:00

It is well documented that the world has an unnatural dependency on oil, one which could well result in changing the face of the planet. The imminent exhaustion of the worlds supplies have been postponed by the discovery of new oil reserves and extraction techniques, but the rates of which the reserves are being found against the rate that they are being used up is causing huge environmental and economic problems.

This is being exacerbated by the fact that the globe is now using 94,000,000 barrels of oil a day, an unfathomable amount. The IEA predict that this level of production will only be sustainable for another 10-15 years, and after that the production would decrease due to a lack of reserves.

Not only are the levels consumption terrible, but also the distribution is. The USA consumes 25% of all the worlds’ oil productions, with Europe using 20% and Japan 8%. However, the main issue is with distribution of resources, as the countries that use the most don’t have the resources themselves. This is shown by statistics such as the Persian Gulf nations having 64% of the resources, and North America just 8% of all the resources. Europe has just one tenth the amount of oil in reserve as it uses, having just 2% of the reserves in the world. This doesn’t take into account countries with rapidly increasing demands, such as Brazil, Argentina, India and China. These newly industrialising countries are trying to develop their economies by developing industries which are highly reliant on fossil fuels, resulting in a greatly increased demand. Currently, India uses just one barrel of oil per person per day. In comparison to the USA, at 41, this is very low. However, the figure for India is constantly increasing, highlighting the major issues that could arise in the future.

To understand why the oil in Alaska should not be exploited we have to look at all the environmental effects it could have. First of all there is the disruption and destruction of natural habitats, something Alaska has vast swathes of. Next, transporting it becomes an issue. It could be by pipeline, but to make it across to another part of the USA it would have to travel either by sea (bad for the sea’s habitats) or across Canada, causing further environmental disruption. Every year approximately 3,000,000 tonnes of oil enters the sea because of a multitude of reasons, be it spillages or tankers flushing their tanks. Cleaning up after these spills can take months or even years, depending on the severity. Finally, there are the issues with the general transportation in that it burns fossil fuels and therefore releases CO₂into the atmosphere, causing further global warming.

Recent developments in the Middle East have resulted in a drastic rise in oil prices, meaning that Alaska is in a prime place to be exploited for its oil. The government are estimating that there is a 50% chance that 10.1 billion barrels of oil are available in the area (1.5 million acres), suggesting that it is one of the last large underdeveloped onshore oil reserves, although the extraction will come at the costs many environmentalists want to avoid.

The US government have put forward the case for developing the area in that they would only develop 2000 acres of the plain. It would produce 235,000-735,000 jobs, boost the economy and boost the environment (as Caribou population increases have shown). However, these would be overshadowed by the possibility of irreversible environmental damage through spillages and the disruption caused by pumping it from the ground.

All in all, it should be a last resort, as there figures which state that 50% of the oil still remains in existing oil reserves – it just hasn’t been removed yet. It would also be much more environmentally friendly to develop internet technologies, to prevent businesses having to travel in the first place.

Egypt Riots: Food Supply Issues

2011-02-01T12:34:00.000-08:00

With the current riots in Egypt, there are increasing concerns with the countries food supply. They do not have a large agricultural sector which they can then fall back on, and with lots of people flooding particular areas (such as Cairo), food supplies are running low and suppliers are struggling in the damaged infrastructure.

It is mainly with the supply of raw materials where issues are arising. People are still able to work in factories and things, but the raw materials such as wheat and oil just cannot reach them. Add to to this the continuous closing of banks and trading is slowly stopping in the country.

Caused by political unrest, the protests are calling for the President to step down from power after 30 years of ruling the country. However, to try and hold onto power many extreme measures have been put in place - Internet services have been all but stopped and curfews put in place to name just a few. However, it is the bank closures which are doing the most long term damage, as food importers cannot pay for the imports, meaning that no new supplies are entering the country, meaning that there are going to be long term impacts after the demonstrations are over.

I feel that the protesters have got the higher moral ground in that they are standing up for helping the poor and stopping corruption. However, even if they do succeed, I think that there will be repercussions long after the current government has gone.

The Epidemiological Transition Model

2010-11-23T11:44:00.000-08:00

In 1971 a new Population Model was put forward, covering Population, Health and Disease. The model states that societies undergo three 'ages' of health:

1) An age of famine: Mortality is high, with deaths usually being caused by infectious diseases and conditions associated with nutritional deficiencies.

2) An age of receding pandemics: Improvements in medical sciences and healthcare result in less pandemics and an increase in life expectancy.

3) An age of degenerative diseases: As people live longer through better healthcare, degenerative diseases increase in visibility. Diseases of Affluence also begin to become prominent.

It has been put forward that Socio-economic development is responsible for the progression through the 'ages', whilst in other ways it parallels the Demographic Transition Model. These are things such as high mortality levels with young populations and low mortality and birthrates with ageing populations and a surge in non-communicable diseases. Medical Revolutions have taken place in the middle of both the models, with controls being placed on infectious diseases/ being wiped out completely.

In my opinion, this is an ingenious model as it doesn't just look at death rate and birth rate, like the Demographic Transition Model, but also looks at the causes for these deaths and therefore also the birth rate. It looks into how the society exists at that particular time, with its concentration on disease being an easy measure of the condition of the healthcare system and the life expectancy. For me it is also more accurate, as it takes in more conditions, meaning that it can give a more insightful look at a country as it travels through the 'ages'.

Volcano: Eyjafjallajoekull, Iceland

2010-04-16T01:27:00.000-07:00

As you have probably seen on the news, all UK flights have been grounded by the Ash Cloud which is making its way across Northern Europe. But how and why?

The Eyjafjallajökull Volcano is a stratovolcano composed of ash and lava from previous eruptions. It is situated 5466ft above sea level, and had not erupted for over 190 years before its eruptions earlier this month, starting on March 20th.

The eruption was powerful enough to for a 2000ft fissure on the side of the volcano, which then released lava and created hills of rock called "Scoria". But why is it having so much of an affect?

The ash that is released is essentially small particles of rock, and if an aeroplane flies into it it could cause catastrophic damage to the engines which could then result in great danger for the aircraft. Therefore, all flights have been grounded to prevent this from happening (it last knowingly happened accidentally in 1982).

With the Ash Cloud reaching 55,000ft into the air, all necessary precautions have been taken. However, time will tell if this eruption has any long-term environmental affect. Some scientists fear that this eruption may "set off" another, larger eruption in the nearby in Mount Katla. This could create a vast volume of melt-water as it is situated in a glacier. this could then affect an even larger area that this one.

More Info

Ecuador and Texaco: Country vs. Company

2010-02-03T06:22:00.000-08:00

During the period of time between 1964 and 1990, Texaco dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste directly into the Amazon rainforest. It is part of a hotly debated court case and has been referred to as “The Chernobyl of the Rainforest”. But is this justified?

First of all, let’s look at how we can categorise this incident. It could be put either in a “Hazard” category or maybe a “Disaster” category. I personally think that this is still in the “hazard” category, and here’s why. A disaster could be described as a situation which has lead to irremediable damage to an area or people. Yes, the oil spill has and continues to damage the environment and area, but it is still at a stage where repairs could be made to the area and limit the impact the oil has had.

Yet this is not to say that damage has not already been caused to the Rainforest and its people. On the human side many people are claiming that the oil has increased cancer rates amongst those who live closest to the oil dumps. Research has been put into this and the results have been inconclusive, although it seems that only the research funded by Chevron (Texaco’s owner) has been able to say there is no apparent correlation. Even though there are results which show that in areas there are dangerously high levels of cancer causing hydrocarbons. Yet the environmental impacts are even harder to see. Evidence shows that the ecosystem of the forest has been adversely affected. As insects and small animals become rarer due to increased death rates caused by the toxicity of the fuel, larger animals higher up the food chain start to be adversely affected. As they lose food sources the find it harder to survive and the whole ecosystem collapses.

The evidence to support the claims of the people affected seems to carry more weight than that of Texaco’s, with much of their evidence seeming to try and push the blame onto someone else, usually PetroEcuador. Most studies are in favour with the natives, and often the best evidence for Texaco covers an “inconclusive evidence” stance.
Was this predictable? At first it seems that they were just following standard practise and using the same procedures as they do elsewhere. However, it has now come through that these standard practices were not being followed to the letter. In most places they will dig pits to dump the toxic waste into, just like they did in Ecuador. However, in Ecuador, they didn’t line these pits, which is what has allowed the toxic waste to leak and caused all of the problems. If they had lined the pits in the first place, this situation would probably never have arisen.

The victims could be seen as a vulnerable population as well, due to their general existence. Most of the people lead basic lives involving farming and other basic employments. Due to this they don’t have as much money as other people, the people that have caused the problem. They are therefore vulnerable in the way that they cannot afford to repair the damage that has been caused by the toxic waste.

So, what have Texaco done to help repair the damage? They claim to have cleaned and restored over 120 sites around Ecuador. However, there are still over 800 sites to clean, which suggests that what has been done has been highly inadequate. Similarly, to date no action has been taken to help the people who have been affected by this. Charities are trying to help by providing clean water but other than this there is very little else being done. Texaco never even kept a log of where all the pits are, so it is very difficult for locals to avoid them.

Does this make Texaco legally responsible? Well, this may be one of the only parts where their argument stands up to any scrutiny. They were part of a duo of companies in the area who were working together, Texaco and PetroEcuador. As Texaco had the smaller share in the business this does suggest that they are maybe not as legally responsible as people would lead you to believe. However, they are still morally responsible. Even though they had the smaller share (40%) they appear to have controlled almost all of the oil sites around Ecuador. This suggests that they are still morally responsible for the pollution, even if legally they are responsible for less than half of it.

So who should win the court case and who will win will hopefully be the same, although the shear might of Chevron may be enough to overthrow the underfinanced prosecutors. From this statement it may be obvious as to where I stand on this topic, as I feel that there is enough evidence to have the Ecuadorians win, with either company paying resulting in a form of victory. However, this will almost definitely not be the end of the argument. For as long as there is still damage to the environment and the people the conflict will still rumble on.

Is it happening elsewhere? Well, as long as there are companies in the world and a world for them to operate in things will continue to happen. These may be accidents, like the Chernobyl Disaster, or perhaps less accidental, like this (Texaco in Ecuador) appears to be. It appears that companies are going to have to pay for their environmental damage in their production of carbon dioxide, with heavy taxes on the worst polluting companies. This could be seen as the start of a global change as companies become more environmentally aware.

For more information, Please Visit: ChevronToxico

Haiti: How its Unfolding

2010-01-20T09:55:00.000-08:00

On the 12th january Haiti experienced the worst earthquake it has had for centuries. With an initial magnitude of 7 and two aftershocks of 5.9 and 5.5, the damage that has been caused has killed an estimated 200,000 people and left thousands more homeless. However, how did it develop?

Jan 12th:

The quake struck at 16:53 local time, with the epicentre being approximately 10 miles south-west of the Capital Port-au-Prince, with two strong aftershocks quickly following. Chaos soon began as people began to come to terms with the shear scale of damage. Already bodies were starting to pile up as people began to sort through the rubble to find lost ones.

Jan 13th:

Today is the day the Red Cross announced that they fear that up to 3 million people have been affected by the quake, and that perhaps 100,000 people have been killed. Haitian President Rene Preval has been quoted as saying:

"Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed.

Schools have collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed"

The UN announced that at least 14 people had been killed when their building, with a hundred more feared to be buried under the rubble.

Jan 14th:

Thousands of homeless have spent a second night out in the open, with efforts to find people continuing through the night. The first US aid planes arrive in the capital, with the naval ships on their way. Reports say that the situation is getting increasingly desperate and that help is slow with a lack of heavy lifting equipment and medical supplies.

Jan 15th:

With the lack of aid continuing into another day it soon becomes the survivors that are in danger of dying. With official estimates putting the death toll at 45,000 to 50,000, desperation spreads and anger grows at the poor management of the aid distribution. However, some good news does start to appear, as stories of miraculous survivals begin to filter through - such as Mia, the two year old found alive three days after the quake.

Jan 16th:

Reports of looting and gangs preying on residents begin to trickle through, and large numbers of prisoners are unaccounted for after the main prison collapses. People begin to describe the situation as dire, one of the worst disasters people have dealt with. Some people have described the country as "decapitated". The UN launches an appeal for £346 million to help aid three million people for six months.

Jan 17th:

Reports state that the damage close to the epicentre is even worse than in the capital, as almost all of the buildings are destroyed, leaving thousand homeless. The scene is described as "apocalyptic". Desperation and anger continues to rise, although hope is still there as stories of people being pulled out of the rubble alive after all this time spread around.

Jan 18th:

Estimates of the death toll rise to 200,000 and violence and looting break out in parts of Port-au-Prince. UN police have to take action to prevent it escalating. People begin to leave the capital and head out into the countryside to try and find food and water. However, people out in the countryside appear to have been equally badly hit - their food supplies have also nearly run out.

Jan 19th:

UN send in another 3,500 troops to help keep order, as violence and looting become increasing issues as communities break down. Doctors have to make surgeries with basic medical supplies due to the severity and infections of some of the wounded. Planes carrying aid find it hard to land, with on plane carrying 12 tonnes of medical aid being repeatedly refused landing permission. Search and rescue efforts receive a welcome boost as an elderly woman is removed from the ruins of a cathedral seemingly unharmed, one of 90 people to be pulled out of the rubble alive. Food supplies in the markets still open are running low and the prices continue to rise as demand outstrips supply.

Full Article Here