和环境有关的英文论文题目

What Environmental Disaster? We have developed a huge and thriving society; and in the process we deforest huge sections of land for living and livestock grazing. This decreases oxygen and increases carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; possibly adding to global warming though the greenhouse effect. This mass population produces mass amounts of waste, so to deal with that we just throw it into the ground, which in turn contaminates our water supply and contributes to further deforestation. We develop motorized transportation; and then burn non-renewable fossil fuels that put lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, ozone, excess carbon dioxide, and other harmful particulates into the atmosphere (Skjel & Whorton 95-108). This produces dangers like smog and cancer and contributes to global warming. In the production of fuel we exhaust oil reserves and pollute the oceans through spills from tankers. This endangers wilderness and wildlife. We produce an inert, easily producible propellant for aerosols; and then realize it's only inert on the ground. Once it's bombarded by UV ray in the upper atmosphere it releases a highly destructive ion that wreaks havoc on the protective ozone layer shielding us from those same deadly UV rays, creating a hole in the layer allowing the radiation through, increasing cancer and other genetic defects. We build rockets capable of going into space and breaking the earth's gravitational pull; and then immediately start to pollute this new environment with spent rockets and boosters along with other miscellaneous particles of debris (Curran and Haw 3). Michael Crichton writes, "What we call nature is a complex system of far greater subtlety than we are willing to accept. We make a simplified view of nature and then botch it all up. ...You have to understand what you don't understand. How many times must the point be made? How many times must we see the evidence? We build the Aswan Dam and claim it is going to revitalize the country. Instead, it destroys the fertile Nile Delta, produces parasitic infestation, and wrecks the Egyptian economy" (Jurassic Park 91). To the common person our current situation contains little hope. All the advancement and improvements have done little to further our species. With each one has come a new environmental issue. You almost need to evaluate each situation in terms of positives and negatives. However, at the root of all this chaos you'll find anthropocentrism, a human centered way of thinking. This way of thinking as an attitude, and moral theory, centers on humans as the highest of the significant beings. The theory views nature and the environment in terms of their use value for humans only (Michaels 7). So all of the above developments with costs can be justified through their usefulness for humans. The human centered ethic is deeply rooted in the past through the ancient Greek and Roman societies. To pursue further development based on this ethic would be disastrous. With our current numbers of population and rate of growth we're just asking for an environmental catastrophe of the highest magnitude to act as a wake up call. Granted that a great deal of the population realizes that unless action is taken today then we'll have to face that disaster tomorrow. The principle question is how to go about alleviating and repairing the damage we've already caused. We also need to address how to prevent doing further damage for the sake of future generations. The only problem with this view is that it is still a human centered ethic. It still sees the environment as a thing to be utilized by humans for their own pleasure. It doesn't do enough. The problems aren't getting fixed. Better ways of doing things are being researched, but the underlying problem is not receiving any attention. So the environmental downward spiral is only slowed down and is not fixed. We've still got the same problems. To take the conservationist attitude further you would see all sentient beings as holding moral standing and due consideration. This includes most of the animals in the world; any animal capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. Through these experiences you form the basis for the extended moral theory. If the animals perish through their habitat's destruction or outside influences, then their future pleasures will no longer be. When you take into account whole societies and communities of animals then the added value to the environment increases exponentially as you combine their happiness with the happiness never experienced by their future generations (Singer 275-276). So by taking this viewpoint you place even more intrinsic value on the environment through the experiences of all sentient animals involved. But at a time when our behavior may well lead us to extinction, I see no reason to assume that we have any awareness at all. We are stubborn, self-destructive conformists. Any other view of our species is just a self-congratulatory delusion" (The Lost World 7-8). Granted this does not present a case for sentience on the basis of pain vs. pleasure, but it does present an interesting way to think about classifying sentience. So you can see drawing the cut off line for even lower animals could present considerable challenges. You have trouble reaching an adequate definition of "sentient." You are now facing how much awareness a creature has to perceive pain and pleasure along with joy from anticipation of future events to consider it morally significant. If a cat is significant, but not a fish, what makes the cat a moral patient while the fish is not? Where is there a difference? There is a problem of arbitrarily assigning moral value when actual feelings and emotions are beyond description. To go a step further away from human sentience you would hold all living thing to be of moral value. This would then bring plants and non-sentient animals into the picture. This view holds life as the ultimate intrinsic value. Beings have moral value in just being alive. So life is viewed as an intrinsic good, and no verifying pleasures or pains being experienced are needed to allot this worth. Anything living is held with a reverence for that life (Singer 277-278). 2】The Environmental Revolution - We Can Make a Difference! Since the first time having blown bubbles in my Open Water class, I've logged over 100 dives. This love for diving has evolved into an intense passion towards protecting the ocean, and all of its inhabitants. I've chosen to put my love for the ocean into action, as an environmentalist. Actually, this passion extends out towards efforts that look to help all the planetary domains gain protection. As such, I appreciate when others take the time educate me on those other realms for which I know less about. To be an environmentalist, one must choose the cause which resonates within ones sole, and run with it. One must be willing to educate people about the environment while being open to education from those people who support other causes. Together we can help each other towards learning how to become a true "Environmentalist". We must all encourage positive collaboration and education as opposed to being against something. For example, sharks are being decimated to near extinction simply for their fins. The fins are used to make Shark Fin soup, a delicacy popular particularly in Taiwan and Singapore. It would be easy to blame these communities for creating the demand. However, in conversing with Asian environmentalists, they liken the culture around eating Shark Fin soup to the culture surrounding Americans eating turkey for Thanksgiving dinner. There are ongoing efforts to educate these people, by members of their own community, on just how dangerous this cultural practice is and the devastating impact this could have on their (our) world if all the sharks were to disappear as a result. Environmentalists everywhere are making a difference! Famous restaurants have taken endangered Swordfish off their menus, these same restaurants are buying wild-caught salmon (and boosting the economy of local fisheries in the process), laundromats have started selling green detergent, this just to name a few of these enlightened changes. This is how the "Environmentalist" can begin the revolution. Just find something you believe in and make a stand. One by one, we can make our planet a cleaner place to live, steeped in healthy bio-diversity for generations to come. 3Giving 1% to Protect Our Environment Though most of the world's surface is covered by water, since the Earth is so large relative to human horizons, there doesn't appear to be a shortage of land. However, when one begins to think of land in terms of a human resource, ., a producer of food, a provider of wood, an expanse for passage, one realizes that many portions are either too lacking in nutrients, too high in elevation, too prone to flooding, or too cold or ice-ridden for extensive use. Furthermore, habitable lands are becoming less abundant due to desertification (the expansion of deserts due to the misuse of land), agricultural expansions and rising sea levels. Since humans aren't the only species that need land, it isn't surprising that this resource is becoming limited for other forms of life too. In part as a result of this added stress on living things, we are also witnessing extinctions of grand proportions-at a rate of many thousands species per year. Since these losses are largely due to human actions, such as deforestation and non-native species introduction, many are beginning to pay attention to how we use and protect land. Recent ecological research has also recently provided a message of hope concerning the future well-being of life on this planet. In the world today, scientists estimate that the Earth is losing at least 1 percent of species every ten years, and the percentage loss may be close to 5 percent. Even if only the lower rate persists, the Earth will have lost near half of its biological diversity by 2070. Can this be possible? Many esteemed scientists think so. While the future appears bleak, several recent insights tell us that we have the potential to significantly reduce what amounts to a biotic holocaust, one not witnessed on Earth for over 60,000,000 years. While there are hopeful signs in the area of human activities (such as increased acreage of nature preserves and national parks), the hope of which I speak of here stems from specific characteristics of the other forms of life which may enable us to mutually coexist in the long term. The Earth's organisms are wonderfully varied in size, shape, function, behavior, and genetic code. One only need to consider that there are ~ 15,000 species of butterflies and ~50,000 species of mushrooms worldwide to begin to fathom the immensity of variety that this planet has. Yet, as different as the species come, the bulk of living things are also similar in a couple of very important ways. Most living things live in relatively small regions and do not travel far from where they or their parents were born. In fact, recent biological and ecological work has determined that most land species are very particular about where they live. As opposed to humans whose choice of home is largely driven by economic and political forces (mobility driven by availability of wealth or forced relocation), flora and fauna find themselves in locations for which they are adapted. We now know that many species of insects and plants have a very restricted range in which they found. Very few organisms are ubiquitous like we are. It goes without saying that you aren't going to find a Great Blue Heron or a Grizzly visiting Antarctica or climbing Mt. Everest; yet you might find the snow bear (recently discovered and previously known as the Abominable Snowman) doing the latter. Recognizing that most living things are rather localized during their lifetimes has profound implications, both hopeful and cautious. On the one hand, it suggests that we can learn a lot about species by parking our scientific minds in specific locations. On the other hand, it means that if we destroy even small areas of the globe we are likely causing great and even irreversible destruction to the species that are found there. We have also determined that there are specific locations on our planet where a disproportionate number of species live. For our species, Asia serves as the homeland for most. In fact more than 60 percent of humans lives on this largest of continents (which only makes up 24 percent of the land surface on the planet). With other life forms, geographic concentrations sometimes defy description. We only recently became aware that the vast majority of terrestrial (as distinguished from oceanic or riparian) species collectively live on just 1 percent of the Earth's land surface. (If humans lived at a comparable concentration level, we'd all have to cluster together in an area roughly the size of Antarctica or twice that of Australia.) This mind-blowing realization has prompted those that have been struggling to protect organisms a new way of thinking about such protection. They have concluded that if we humans could somehow find a way to avoid disturbing just 1-2 percent of the land surface, nearly 70 percent of the world's terrestrial species might be able to survive. Recently some conservationists have refocused their attention on these unique locations. The regions of the globe that contain such a splendid array of biological diversity have been named "hot spots," a name that communicates their critical status. In what has to be the most beautiful books I have seen, Hotspots represents the collective work of scientists Russ and Cristina Mittermeier and Norman Myers as well as photographer Patricio Robles Gil. In this oversized volume, these four scholars have assembled more than three hundred vivid photographs of some of the world's endangered species and threatened ecosystems. These absolutely breath-taking images come from the what they refer to as "the 25 most critically important regions" in the world. These regions originally constituted almost 12 percent of the world's land surface but now, due to human pressure at many levels, only a little more than 1 percent remains intact. What makes these locations, which are found on all continents except Antarctica, so "hot" is that they are home to hordes of the Earth's plants and animals and they face imminent danger from a variety of human activities. The Hotshot authors and others strongly believe that the global community can do wonders if these areas move to the top of our priority list. But what will have to happen for these spots to be protected? There are no simple answers to this central question. Unfortunately, those of us in the United States who have the luxury of time to even ponder such questions, face many obvious difficulties. First, nearly all of the hotspots are located outside of our territorial boundaries, exceptions being the forests of Oregon and California as well as portions of Southern Florida (namely the Keys and the Everglades). Key hotspots are found in New Zealand, Madagascar, and Indonesia as well as the continental parts of south-east Asia. Obviously we cannot expect that we will be able to force other countries to enact and enforce laws that will greatly reduce biological degradation. Yet, while many other countries have ratified the Biodiversity Treaty that was drafted at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, it has never reached the floors of the . Congress for a vote; Canada, Japan, and the European Union are among those to ratify it. By this inaction our nation apparently lacks the wherewithal to support global conservation efforts as a matter of principle. However, given that the wealthy nations in concert with international banks promote unsustainable extraction of resources in the world's developing countries, it would appear that we have an obligation to do so. If our national policy makers are unwilling to commit themselves to the protection of global ecosystems and species, we still have ourselves to look to for sources of positive change. All of us have tremendous purchasing power, especially in comparison to the majority of the other human residents on this planet; Barry Bearak, a Pulitzer Prize-winner journalist who recently spoke at Knox College's convocation, referred to the residents of the United States as "filthy rich," a conclusion he came to after spending a great deal of time in the poorer regions of the world, particularly Afghanistan and India. What we buy makes a difference. The environmental campaign to support shade coffee rather than sun coffee is just one of many attempts for the consumer to support sustainable practices in regions of great ecological diversity. According to the Northwest Shad Coffee Campaign, shade coffee agricultural allows for the extraction of a desired resource but at the same time allows between 3-8 times as many birds species to persist not to mention many more mid-size mammals as well as amphibians and beetles. Coffee is also a particularly important commodity in terms of the health of ecological systems because the countries that produce the bulk of it are precisely the same countries that are home to the majority of the world's species; the countries of Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia, Vietnam collectively produce ~40 percent of the 17 billion pounds of coffee that are harvested each year (folks, that's more than 3 pounds per person!). Burdensome debts also force many developing countries to endlessly delay infrastructure investment. Debt-for-nature swaps, an idea proposed by Dr. Thomas Lovejoy of the World Wildlife Federation in the mid-1980s, have enabled poor countries to relieve foreign debt and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to increase commitment to conservation programs both at the same time. In these swaps, NGOs pay off a poor country's debt to a bank or well-to-do country at greatly reduced costs in order to establish agreements for investment in national parks, for example. While not a cure-all, these efforts have begun the paradigm shift from unabated expansion and unhealthy extraction to one supportive of saving natural ecosystems and securing the health and welfare of all human populations. Threats to these locations represent massive scale intrusions taken by societies found on every continent. Unfortunately, there is so much that will be lost if these "special" places aren't quickly protected from future degradation. On the bright side though, so much of the world's genetic diversity lives in just a couple handfuls of "hotspots" that if these locations were saved hordes of species would be able to persist into the next millennium. The time is now to respond to this fairly recent observation and insight. It is time for the world to begin to act like a civilized 21st Century society. It is incumbent upon us, those with time and wealth, to maintain the momentum that others have started. The masses of life forms are relying on us to make the best attempt at this daunting yet critical task. Hopefully our species will be sensible enough to leave at least 1 percent of land alone, so that other life forms may continue to exist. Do we need all 100 percent? 写不下了，如果觉得不够，邮箱可否留一下，我继续补充