42 Top 10 Countries Killing the Planet Breyer, M. (2010). Top 10 countries killing the planet. Retrieved from Care2, http://www.care2.com/greenliving/top-10- countries-ruining-the-planet.html “The environmental crises currently gripping the planet are the corollary of excessive human consumption of natural resources. There is considerable and mounting evidence that elevated degradation and loss of habitats and species are compromising ecosystems that sustain the quality of life for billions of people worldwide,” says Corey Bradshaw, leader of a new study by the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute in Australia that has ranked most of the world’s countries for their environmental impact. The study, Evaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countries, uses seven indicators of environmental degradation: natural forest loss, habitat conversion, marine captures, fertilizer use, water pollution, carbon emissions and species threat. Unlike existing rankings, this study deliberately avoided human health and economic data, and instead focused on environmental impact only. Other variables– bushmeat harvest, coral reef habitat quality, seagrass loss, freshwater habitat degradation, illegal fishing, invertebrate threat patterns, and some forms of greenhouse gas emission–were excluded due to a lack of country-specific data. Two rankings were created: a “proportional” environmental impact ranking, where impact is measured against total resource availability, and an “absolute” environmental impact ranking which measures total environmental degradation at a global scale. Listed here are the top ten worst offending countries for absolute environmental impact, those that are just doing the most damage, regardless of per capita calculations. The study, in collaboration with the National University of Singapore and Princeton University, found that the total wealth of a country was the most important driver of environmental impact. “We correlated rankings against three socio-economic variables (human population size, gross national income and governance quality) and found that total wealth was the most important explanatory variable the richer a country, the greater its average environmental impact,” Professor Bradshaw said. “There is a theory that as wealth increases, nations have more access to clean technology and become more environmentally aware so that the environmental impact starts to decline. This wasn’t supported,” he added. 10. Peru Although Peru hardly seems capable of the harmful environmental impact that larger industrialized countries are capable of, the South America country ranks number 10 overall of countries creating negative environmental impact. Of 179 countries, Peru ranks 2nd for marine capture and 7th for threatened species. Over fishing and illegal trade of endangered species seem to be the culprit: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITIES) lists ten animal species as critically endangered (like the short-tailed chinchilla pictured above) the last step before extinction, 28 as endangered, and 99 as vulnerable in Peru. 9. Australia About 11.5 percent of the the total land area of Australia is protected, which leaves a lot left (although much of it is arid desert) for unbridled usage, which is how the country
43 ranks 7th worst in habitat conversion. It also ranks 9th for fertilizer use, and 10th for natural forest loss. 8. Russia Less than half of Russia’s population has access to safe drinking water. While water pollution from industrial sources has diminished because of the decline in manufacturing, municipal wastes increasingly threaten key water supply sources, and nuclear contamination poses immense problems for key water sources as well–landing Russia in 4th place for worst water pollution. Russia ranks 5th in worst CO2 emissions–air quality is almost as poor as water quality, with over 200 cities often exceeding Russian pollution limits. The country ranks 7th for marine capture. 7. India According to the Wall Street Journal, in an effort to boost food production, win farmer votes and encourage the domestic fertilizer industry, the government has increased its subsidy of urea fertilizer over the years, and now pays about half of the domestic industry’s cost of production. The overuse of urea is so degrading the soil that yields on some crops are falling–landing India is 2nd place for environmental impact due to fertilizer use. India ranks 3rd for water pollution as increasing competition for water among various sectors, including agriculture, industry, domestic, drinking, energy generation and others, is causing this precious natural resource to dry up–while increasing pollution is also leading to the destruction of the habitat of wildlife that lives in waterways. India comes in 8th for another three areas: threatened species, marine capture and CO2 emissions. 6. Mexico Mexico holds more species of plants and animals than just about any other country: 450 mammals (Brazil, which is more than twice Mexico’s size has only 394 mammals); about 1000 birds, 693 reptiles; 285 amphibians, and more than 2000 fish. As of the mid-1990s, many species were known to be already threatened: 64 mammals, 36 birds, 18 reptiles, 3 amphibians, and about 85 fish. Mexico did not join the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), the chief international agreement to stop trade in threatened and endangered plants and animals, in effect since 1975, until 1991, the last Latin American nation to do so. It is perhaps because of these factors that Mexico ranks 1st for threatened species. One of the many reasons? The country ranks 9th for natural forest loss. 5. Japan Japan ranks 4th for marine capture. By 2004, the number of adult Atlantic bluefin tuna capable of spawning had dropped to roughly 19 percent of the 1975 level in Japan, which has a quarter of the world supply of the five big species of tuna: bluefin, southern bluefin, bigeye, yellowfin and albacore. After the moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986, Japanese government started its “whaling for research purposes” the following year, which has resulted in documented cases of “scientific” whale meat ending up on sashimi platters. Japan ranks 5th for both natural habitat conversion and water pollution, and 6th for CO2 emissions. 4. Indonesia According to Global Forest Watch, Indonesia was still densely forested as recently as 1950–yet 40 percent of the forests existing in 1950 were cleared in the following 50 years. In round numbers, forest cover fell
44 from 162 million ha to 98 million ha2. For this, Indonesia ranks 2nd in natural forest loss, which probably has some to so with their taking 3rd place for threatened species. Indonesia is ranked 3rd for CO2 emissions, 6th for marine capture, 6th for fertilizer use, and 7th for water pollution. 3. China China’s coastal waters are increasingly polluted by everything from oil to pesticides to sewage, helping China earn its 1st place ranking for water pollution. In China, 20 million people lack access to clean drinking water; over 70 percent of lakes and rivers are polluted; and major pollution incidents happen on a near daily basis–the World Health Organization recently estimated that nearly 100,000 people die annually from water pollution-related illnesses. China isn’t doing much better in terms of overfishing–they take 1st place for marine capture. Add to that 2nd place for CO2 emissions and 6th place for threatened species, and we can see how China takes the bronze for most environmental impact. Chinese environmental protection agencies lack sufficient authority, financial resources and manpower. When there are conflicts between environmental protection and economic development, the former often loses to the latter. 2. USA You’d think with all of the smarts and resources this country has, it would rank a bit better than Number 2–afraid not. Although it did rank a respectable 211 for natural habitat conversion–that honor is pretty much negated by the country’s abysmal ratings in other areas. Ringing in at 1st place for fertilizer use, this country’s excessive application of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (NPK) fertilizers can result in the leaching of these chemicals into water bodies and remove, alter or destroy natural habitats. The USA also ranks in 1st place for CO2 emissions, 2nd place for water pollution, 3rd place for marine captures, and 9th place for threatened species. Not feeling all that proud to be American at the moment. 1. Brazil In all seven categories considered for the report, Brazil ranked within the top ten for all but marine capture: 1st place for natural forest loss, 3rd place for natural habitat conversion, 3rd place for fertilizer use, 4th place for threatened species, 4th place for CO2 emissions, and 8th place for water pollution. What’s to account for these areas of intense environmental impact? A large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to the expansive Amazon rain forest (pictured above) land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, misguided government policies, inappropriate World Bank projects, and commercial exploitation of forest resources. Soy and cocoa crops, as well as cattle ranching, have had a farreaching effect. While in the Atlantic forests of Brazil, some of the world’s most diverse ecosystems have been converted to fast growing plantations (mostly non-native eucalyptus) for paper pulp. The proportional index, which takes into consideration the impact as proportional to the resources available in the country, ranks these as the top ten countries creating the most negative environmental impact: Singapore, Korea, Qatar, Kuwait, Japan, Thailand, Bahrain, Malaysia, Philippines and Netherlands. According to the study from which both of these rankings were taken, “continued degradation of nature despite decades of warning, coupled with the burgeoning human population (currently estimated at nearly 7 billion and projected to reach 9 to 10 billion by 2050), suggest that
45 human quality of life could decline substantially in the near future. Increasing competition for resources could therefore lead to heightened civil strife and more frequent wars. Continued environmental degradation demands that countries needing solutions be identified urgently so that they can be assisted in environmental conservation and restoration.”
46 Universidad de Costa Rica Escuela de Lenguas Modernas LM-1230 Oral Communication I V. Alvarado Plastic Disaster: An Ocean Pollution Documentary General instructions: You are going to watch the documentary Plastic Disaster three times. Listen carefully and complete the following exercises. Part I A. Watch the first twenty seconds of the video and predict some possible ideas it will develop. Write them down (at least three). • ________________________________________________________________________ • ________________________________________________________________________ • ________________________________________________________________________ • ________________________________________________________________________ • ________________________________________________________________________ B. Get in groups of four people and share your ideas. Complete the list from exercise A with the new ideas your classmates present.
47 Part II A. What do the following numbers refer to in the film? 1 800 2 6 3 50 4 72 5 15 000 6 30, 40, 50 7 2016 8 13 billion B. Complete the following chart using information from the film. Speakers Organization/Role Issue(s) they present 1. Anita Ballent Algalita Research 2. Nancy Shrodes Heal the Bay 3. Christopher Nagle Marine Mammal Care Center 4. Gilbert Castillion Surfrider Foundation 5. Richard Ohnmachy Local Surfer 6. Kim Tucotte Local Volunteer
48 C. Read and answer the following questions based on the information from the film. 1. What are some activities people do at the ocean? -_____________________________________________________________________ 2. What is the problem with the convenience of plastic? -_____________________________________________________________________ 3. What animals have been affected by plastic? How? -_______________: _____________________________________________________ -_______________: _____________________________________________________ -_______________: _____________________________________________________ -_______________: _____________________________________________________ 4. How does plastic end up in the ocean? Mention three ideas. -_____________________________________________________________________ -_____________________________________________________________________ -_____________________________________________________________________
49 5. What is the The Pacific Garbage Patch? -_____________________________________________________________________ 6. Is it feasible to clean up the Garbage Patch? Why? -_____________________________________________________________________ 7. What are beach cleanups? How many people participate? What do they do? -_____________________________________________________________________ -_____________________________________________________________________ 8. What is another way of preventing plastic from entering the oceans? -_____________________________________________________________________ 9. Why is the single-use plastic grocery bag ban not enough? -_____________________________________________________________________ 10. What is the message to the public? -_____________________________________________________________________
50 D. Read the following quote from the documentary. Discuss with a partner if you agree or disagree with this final remark. Support your answer using sound arguments. “The ocean is a place of peace and harmony. The choices we make about the products we buy and the methods we use to recycle and dispose of plastic wastes will have a huge impact on the future of our beaches and oceans. Hopefully, we'll act responsibly so that future generations can enjoy the natural beauty of our oceans.” Part III. Get in groups of four. Complete and discuss the following ideas. 1. The number of beaches Costa Rica has: _____________________________________ 2. The Costa Rican beaches you have visited: ____________________________________ 3. The environmental problems you have noticed there: _____________________________ 4. The actions that can be taken to solve those problems: ___________________________ 5. The actions you have taken to solve those problems: _____________________________ Video taken from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1acjqraXMhs
51 Longline Fishery in Costa Rica Kills Thousands of Sea Turtles and Sharks Rachel Ewing--October 2, 2013 The second-most-common catch on Costa Rica's longline fisheries in the last decade was not a commercial fish species. It was olive ridley sea turtles. These lines also caught more green turtles than most species of fish. These findings and more, reported in a new study in the Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, indicate that the Costa Rican longline fishery represents a major threat to the survival of eastern Pacific populations of sea turtles as well as sharks. The researchers argue that time and area closures for the fisheries are essential to protect these animals as well as to maintain the health of the commercial fishery. The research was conducted by a team from Drexel University, the Costa Rican non-profit conservation organization Pretoma and a U.S. non-profit working in Costa Rica, The Leatherback Trust. The researchers used data from scientific observers on longline fishing boats who recorded every fish and other animal caught by the fishermen from 1999 to 2010 and the locations of the captures and fishing efforts. Those data provided the basis for a mathematical analysis of the fishery resulting in maps of geographic locations and estimates of the total number of captures of sea turtles in the entire fishery. Stark threats to sea turtles, including nesting populations The most commonly targeted fish, mahi mahi, was also the most common species caught in the Costa Rican longline fishery. But the researchers were surprised by their finding that olive ridley turtles, internationally classified as vulnerable, were the secondmost-common species caught. They estimate that more than 699,000 olive ridley and 23,000 green turtles were caught during the study period (1999 to 2010). Although about 80 percent of captured sea turtles are released from longlines and survive the experience, at least in the short term, longterm impacts are not yet adequately measured. "It is common to see sea turtles hooked on longlines along the coast of Guanacaste in Costa Rica. We can set some free but cannot free them all," said Dr. James Spotila, the Betz chair professor of environmental science in the College of Arts and Sciences at Drexel. "The effect of the rusty hooks may be to give the turtles a good dose of disease. No one knows because no one holds the turtle to see if its gets sick." Spotila, a co-author of the study, has been studying sea turtles on the Pacific coast of Costa Rica with colleagues and Drexel students, for 23 years. The researchers also noted that even a few deaths of reproductive females may have a significant toll—particularly when longline operations are held in shallow waters of the continental shelf close to nesting beaches.
52 They reported that declines in olive ridley nesting populations in Ostional, where massive synchronous nesting occurs, were associated with these captures. Catching more and smaller fish signals an unsustainable fishery, sharks at particular risk In addition to mahi mahi, other species targeted in the Costa Rican longline fishery were tunas, sharks and marlins. The researchers observed that longlines caught large numbers of mahi mahi, silky sharks, stingrays, sailfish and yellowfin tuna. But the fishing patterns showed that shark populations have declined in numbers and sharks have become smaller over 11 years. Adult sharks were generally small, and juvenile sharks alarmingly abundant, suggesting that some shark species were being overfished: Overall, only 14.6 percent of the abundant silky sharks observed during the study period were sexually mature. In 2010, the last year of the study, average fork length of silky sharks was 97 cm, far below the observed 144 cm average for mature adults. These decreases in size of silky sharks through time indicated a reduction in relative numbers of adults in the population. Additionally, many small blacktip sharks were captured in an area near the Osa Peninsula, indicating that fishing was occurring at a nursery ground for that species. The small size of adult sharks and large numbers of juveniles captured suggest that species are being overfished. In addition to these indicators of overfishing of sharks, the researchers warned of broader uncertainty about the health of the fishery. They said that capture of large numbers of mahi-mahi does not guarantee that that population is sustainable because the available data cannot determine if mahi mahi will remain abundant or decline. Based on these findings, the researchers caution that that populations of fish affected by the Costa Rican longline fishery may be in danger of collapse and that there are insufficient scientific data to predict whether and when such a collapse will occur and in what species. How to manage the fishery and save the turtles To better manage the fishery and protect the threatened and endangered species of sea turtles in Costa Rica, the researchers argue that policymakers in Costa Rica must enforce time and area closures for longline fishing. They criticize both the fishing industry and INCOPESCA, the fisheries management agency of the government, for failing to recognize that the fishery is unsustainable and failing to enforce existing fisheries laws, such as those against landing of shark fins and harming of sea turtles. "INCOPESCA has failed to adequately study and regulate the fishery in Costa Rica for many years. It does not even enforce national laws. Board members have serious conflicts of interest because they are commercial fishermen," said Randall Arauz, president of Pretoma and a world recognized leader in marine conservation. "Until INCOPESCA is reformed in such a way that the Board of Directors is eliminated and its mission is to defend the public interest, neither the fish nor the turtles will be safe."
53 Arauz, a co-author of the study, has been studying sea turtles and fisheries in Costa Rica for more than 30 years. He directed the at sea observer program that collected the data on longline boats that were the basis for this study. Aurauz and Spotila argue for the need to establish well-enforced marine protected areas where both turtles and fish are safe from longlines. They also recommend targeted seasonal closures to longline fishing in coastal waters close to the main turtle nesting beaches when and where sea turtle interactions with the fishery are highest. They further recommend a general seasonal longline fishery closure for 5 months, from June to November, which can shift, according to the seasonal abundance of mahi mahi. To enforce these recommendations and provide needed data to manage the fishery, they recommend placing observers on at least half of longline boats, as was done in Chile. Education of local artisanal fishermen would improve their fishing techniques and encourage them to release sea turtles unharmed. "There is still time to save both the fishery and the turtles if action is taken soon," Arauz said. In pursuit of such action, Pretoma and The Leatherback Trust are providing leadership for a coalition of environmental groups in Costa Rica who have united for a special marine conservation initiative called "Front for Our Oceans". For fish and turtle populations to recover successfully, Spotila, who is also chairman of the board of The Leatherback Trust, said, "the challenge is to collect good data on the fishery, establish protected areas of refuge for the animals and to encourage or force INCOPESCA to enforce the laws that have been already passed by the national legislature. What is being done up until now obviously is not working." Ewing, R. (2013, October 02). Longline Fishery in Costa Rica Kills Thousands of Sea Turtles and Sharks. Retrieved February 27, 2017, from Phys.org, https://phys.org/news/2013-10-longline-fisherycosta-rica-thousands.html
54 Costa Rica’s Pineapple Boom Unhealthy, Warn Experts Will Ferguson—May 26, 2011 Bringing in close to $700 million in 2010, pineapple is one of Costa Rica’s most lucrative exports. In the last decade, the country increased the amount of hectares it cultivates for pineapple by more than 300 percent. The industry provides jobs for some 135,000 Costa Ricans. However, despite the large economic stimulus the fruit provides, it has a negative connotation for many Ticos. Costa Rica’s pineapple industry has been associated with the deterioration and erosion of soils, the destruction of ecosystems and the contamination of water supplies. Perhaps the most contentious, recent allegations against the pineapple industry came in 2008, when pineapple producers Hacienda Ojo de Agua and Fruitex were accused of contaminating the water of four rural communities with chemical herbicides. Groundwater in the rural Caribbean slope communities of Cairo, Francia, Milano and Luisiana, Siquirres, were found to have traces of the herbicide Bromacil. In 2007, before allegations were made against the companies, the Ministry of Health began supplying local residents of the area with drinking water. Many experts believe the contamination dates back to the 1990s. Bromacil is an herbicide used for brush control on many different kinds of citrus plants throughout the world. It is considered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be a possible human carcinogen because there is limited evidence that it can cause cancer in animals receiving high doses of the chemical over the course of their lifetimes. On Thursday, members of environmental groups, the Costa Rican government and representatives for pineapple workers met to discuss a potential course of action for what they perceive to be 10 years of water contamination in the district. The meeting was held in the auditorium of the Economics Department at the University of Costa Rica, or UCR. “Regulations against pesticides and other agrochemicals exist, however they are out of date and difficult to enforce,” said Moisés Salgado, a UCR representative and one of the conference’s organizers. He said the rapid expanse and widespread nature of the industry makes it difficult to regulate and one of the reasons why little action has been taken to reign in the use of agrochemicals. Experts say the thick outer skin of pineapples absorb residue from fertilizer and pesticides, making the fruit on the inside relatively safe to eat. However, due to large-scale spraying of pesticides, insecticides, fertilizer and other biochemicals by Costa Rican pineapple growers, some of the residue from agrochemicals leaches into the soil. Pineapple cultivation in Costa Rica uses a wide variety of agrochemicals. Pesticides are prevalent in groundwater supplies because they have chemical properties that make them leachable, said a local agronomist, who asked that his name be withheld because he is not authorized to speak on behalf of his employer.
55 “Through infiltration runoff, [chemicals] make it into the watershed. It happens with fertilizers, soaps and a lot of things in households as well,” the expert said. Later, the dirt particles are carried to rivers and groundwater supply by water used for irrigation. Scientists are still trying to determine whether or not exposure to Bromacil and other pesticides over a long period of time will lead to health risks. “How much is enough and whether someone is going to have a negative reaction is very difficult to determine,” the expert said. “There are some studies that have established a link between Bromacil and cancer. Going off those you would expect that if the community consumes this chemical every day, then the risk of developing cancer is going to be higher in that community.” Because medical symptoms from many agrochemicals result after consistent exposure over a very long period of time, it is difficult for scientists to establish a link between the substances and medical illness. “You aren’t going to have people vomiting or passing out,” the agronomist said. “We are talking about really small amounts of this substance being consumed over a long period of time.” In some countries where Bromacil is currently illegal a link has been established between the substance and some forms of kidney disease, cancer and nervous system problems. Ferguson, W. (2011, May 11). Costa Rica’s Pineapple Boom Unhealthy, Warn Experts. The Tico Times. Retrieved from http://www.ticotimes.net/2011/05/26/costa-rica-spineapple-boom-unhealthy- warn-experts