Governments are forcing society to produce biofuels to combat global warming but production of biofuels require an enormous amount of water and conventional fossil fuel to produce which greatly diminishes the offset. Diminishing ground water systems causes local warming because the lower levels of ground water reduce the ability of the surface to cool naturally. Then there are the slashing and burning of rainforests to make land for biofuel production. Deforestation such as this actually increases global warming and destroys entire ecosystems.
Considering that AGW cultists and governments and the UN demand biofuels to be used they are actually causing more damage to the environment by trying to save it.
There are some good answers but I'll add some that are more accidental such as the accidental introduction of foreign species into an environment. Preserving wooded areas without allowing for the natural burn cycle which many forests go through this doesn't allow the dead material to be destroyed so it limits the growth of younger plant life. Having a large amount of available food for wild animals near cities this causes the population to grow larger than it would under normal circumstances. Almost everything we do will have an impact on the environment around us, but whether it is good or bad is argueable.
When we plan the infrastructure of our cities we always take into account the ability to control the influx of water from 100 year rain events, or basically just storms that produce record breaking amounts of rain. We build storm water systems that are designed to take this water and remove it quickly so to eliminate the potential threat of floods or other adverse effects. This is a necessary and good idea, however the rapid discharge of this water does not allow for natural absorption, or recharge of surface and groundwater supplies. This can have a detrimental effect on biological life within the watershed by reducing the time available to absorb the water and stimulate growth.
If the "Theory of Human Evolution" and that everything started with a "BIG BANG" is true and accurate, then nothing we do on this planet is out-of-character or unintentional. Science contradicts itself all of the time. The same science that is telling us that we are destroying the planet is the same science that teaches evolution theories. We fail to remember that we are all hypocrites in the ways we think and do.
A major one that we're just starting to understand is drugs, especially endocrine based, affecting other species. Birth control drugs, as an example, pass essentially unmodified through the human body, through sewage treatment, and end up in rivers and lakes, where they can play hob with fish and amphibian reproduction and development.
Eating Palm Oil. They burn down the rainforest killing all the orangutans in order to grow more palm oil plants. Palm oil is found in Girl Scout Cookies, Nutella, Make Up, Mcdonalds, etc.
The construction of wind farms on peat bogs can cause some of the carbon locked in to the peat to be released. This is because the of the draining that takes place for the construction of the turbines and the roads to each one for access.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...
The turbines can also reduce the numbers of raptors (e.g. eagles) and bats.
I don't intend to release CO2 emissions into the air when I pick my children up at school.
Many things that we do have an impact on ecosystems, here are one or two examples:
? FARMING AND AGRICULTURE
The conversion of land to that which is suitable for crops and livestock is the greatest single cause of land-use change, far more than the amount of land we use for our towns and cities. For millennia this practice has seen the widespread destruction of ecosystems, much of which occurred at a time when people had no inclination of the consequences. Many species of plants and animals have become extinct as a result, others have been forced into peripheral or alien environments where they struggle.
? HYDROLOGICAL CHANGES
Water is essential for us, we use vast quantities of it. Since prehistoric times man has devised ever more elaborate means of moving water around to ensure it’s available to population centres and agriculture.
We’ve constructed dams and reservoirs, extensive irrigation systems, national distribution networks and more. This has had a very significant impact on the natural hydrology of extensive areas such that we’ve turned deserts into productive land whilst at the same time have brought drought conditions to other areas.
Lake Chad for example, used to be one of the world’s largest lakes but now it’s all but gone, extracted from the feeder streams and rivers by hopelessly ineffective irrigation systems. Lake Chad provided water for millions of people and large animals, but that’s all stopped. The people manage by getting water from elsewhere but the fauna and flora in the area has been decimated. There are many, many other similar examples.
? PESTICIDES, EXFOILIANTS, INSECTICIDES ETC
We now know more about the consequences of using such chemicals but until a few decades ago their use was widespread. It was thought that controlling unwanted pests would help boost crop yields and reduce disease risks but the often symbiotic relationships involved were little understood.
A typical consequence would be that the widespread extermination of insects would have consequences that would spread throughout the entire foodchain of which the insects were one part. Controlling the unwanted pests inadvertently caused the collapse of the foodchain and the death of everything in it.
Similarly, attempts to control a particular pest could indiscriminately kill other insects and sometimes larger animals. In places for example, this led to a significant decline in the bee population and thereby a corresponding decline in pollination and a loss of crops and other plants, such losses being far in excess of those caused by the insects that were deemed to be the initial problem.
? EUTROPHICATION
Eutrophication is the spread of algal and plant growth as a consequence of changed environmental factors. Sometimes these changes have natural origins but frequently the cause is us.
A typical scenario would be the introduction of nutrients into the water, perhaps from fertiliser or manure run-off, discharges from sewerage and industrial processes or even by planting trees nearby. The increased availability of nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates can cause extensive algal blooms and the rapid establishment of aquatic plants. This can be to the exclusion of other species and in some cases the contamination of the aquatic environment can kill most other species.
? OVER FISHING
This is something people are becoming more and more aware of as realisation dawns on just how much we have affected the marine environment by over fishing. In some places fish species are now extinct, in common fishing areas the decline in fish numbers is about 90%.
The removal of such large numbers of fish has a knock-on effect throughout the foodchain with consequences for everything from the smallest cyanobacteria to the largest sharks and whales. It can also affect things such as the formation of corals, this in turn can affect tidal flows and movements which can then lead to higher tides and the associated flooding, erosion, salination of potable water etc.
None , only the liberal falls expression is the problem .If you would leave industry alone ,it would come up with the solution .
Describe some unintentional ways in which human activities affect ecosystems and how they affect ecosystems.
