ESL Blog: climate change

Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts

Thursday, December 2, 2010

A Message of Life

CLICK ON THE ARROW TO WATCH THE VIDEO.
Tasks after watching:

I. Discuss with your partner:
a. how the young man changes through different phases of his life;
b. a viewpoint of yours that has changed as you were becoming older.

II. Consider the following:
1. What is that that makes this video clip a commercial?
2. Do you think it is effective?
3. How can commercials influence those who watch them?
4. Are commercials more powerful on TV or in the print?

Say your opinion:
1. Do the young people today face more problems in the world than the older generations?
2. Does the individual behaviour impact the future of the world?
3. Does the technology make people happier?
4. What could be disastrous consequences of using too much technology?
5. Have you changed anything in your life that is now more environment friendly?

III. Compare:
1. the way people lived before and after the 4th (internet) technological revolution;
2. the way people communicated in the past and now;

IV. Speculate how people will live in the future if we don't stop the environmental degradation. In a group write a warning message to your Prime Minister.

IV. Listening comprehension / writing / reading
1. Write down the scrypt of this commercial. Ask your teacher for help in difficult spots. Print it out.
2. Cut the text in smaller segments and have your partner re-compose it.

Ocean Acid Test by Oceana

CLICK ON THE ARROW TO WATCH THE VIDEO.

I. Comprehension task during listening:
Circle the right answer:
1. Ocean acidification is due to a. carbon dioxide b. dead fish c.garbage.
2. Eco systems of the oceans are a. fine b. in danger c. dead.
3. Oceans absorb about a. 15% b. 30% c. 50% of CO2.
4. Added carbon reduces a. water b. light c. carbonate in the ocean.
5. Carbonate is a building block of a. ocean water b. ocean ships c. shells.
6. If acidification keeps growing, it could a. grow b. decrease c. disolve shells.
7. Calcification is formation of a. shells b. pebbles c. fish eggs.
8. An eco system is in danger if any one species a. lives b. thrives c. dies.
9. The content of CO2 in the atmosphere should not exceed 450 ppm (parts per million).
10. If it continues at the current rate, at the end of the century the ocean acidity will a. double b. triple c. remain the same.

II. Share your thoughts and information with your group:
1. Why are alternative energy sources good for the oceans?
2. Make a list of everyday things that are carbon dependent.
3. Come up with a list of changes in your life style that can reduce carbon emissions.
4. Find on the internet how you can measure your "carbon footprint". Go to www.carbonfootprint.com

Polar Bears in Jeopardy

Global warming is melting the polar ice caps, robbing the bears of the ice floes they need to hunt prey. Forced to fast for longer periods, polar bears will become too thin to reproduce and many scientists predict they could become extinct by the end of this century. At the same time, their natural habitat is under increasing assault from expanded development

TASKS

1. Discuss:

What are the consequences of global warming on the polar bear?
The polar bear is the most polluted animal. What do you think, is the reason for that?
What is the "development" that harms the polar bear habitat?
If the polar bear went extinct, what would be the consequences?

Rewrite the first two sentences using relative clauses instead of the participles.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

New Ways

Pollution affects everyone. Nobody escapes. The soil must heal. The atmosphere has to improve. Smog must go. The oceans have to be protected. All water needs to be pure. Clean energy sources can and must be found. Biodiversity has to be maintained. Forests will be planted. More forests must be planted. And the trees will smile their oxygen again in the dawn of a brand-new day.

From the book "Global Forest" by Diana Beresford-Kroeger (Viking 2010)

TASK:
Find different words for expressing obligation and necessity. Check your grammar book to find nuances in the meaning.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Facebook | David Suzuki's Notes

Friday, December 26, 2008

Faster Climate Change Feared

Published on Friday, December 26, 2008 by The Washington Post
by Juliet Eilperin

The United States faces the possibility of much more rapid climate change by the end of the century than previous studies have suggested, according to a new report led by the U.S. Geological Survey.
Ice sheets in the Antarctic and Greenland, above, are losing 48 cubic miles per year, pushing up sea level worldwide. (By John Mcconnico -- Associated Press)The survey -- which was commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and issued this month -- expands on the 2007 findings of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. Looking at factors such as rapid sea ice loss in the Arctic and prolonged drought in the Southwest, the new assessment suggests that earlier projections may have underestimated the climatic shifts that could take place by 2100.
However, the assessment also suggests that some other feared effects of global warming are not likely to occur by the end of the century, such as an abrupt release of methane from the seabed and permafrost or a shutdown of the Atlantic Ocean circulation system that brings warm water north and colder water south. But the report projects an amount of potential sea level rise during that period that may be greater than what other researchers have anticipated, as well as a shift to a more arid climate pattern in the Southwest by mid-century.
Thirty-two scientists from federal and non-federal institutions contributed to the report, which took nearly two years to complete. The Climate Change Science Program, which was established in 1990, coordinates the climate research of 13 different federal agencies.
Tom Armstrong, senior adviser for global change programs at USGS, said the report "shows how quickly the information is advancing" on potential climate shifts. The prospect of abrupt climate change, he said, "is one of those things that keeps people up at night, because it's a low-probability but high-risk scenario. It's unlikely to happen in our lifetimes, but if it were to occur, it would be life-changing."
In one of the report's most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea level rise could be as much as four feet by 2100. The IPCC had projected a sea level rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the past two years show the world's major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are now losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice that exists in the Alps.
Konrad Steffen, who directs the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder and was lead author on the report's chapter on ice sheets, said the models the IPCC used did not factor in some of the dynamics that scientists now understand about ice sheet melting. Among other things, Steffen and his collaborators have identified a process of "lubrication," in which warmer ocean water gets in underneath coastal ice sheets and accelerates melting.
"This has to be put into models," said Steffen, who organized a conference last summer in St. Petersburg, Russia, as part of an effort to develop more sophisticated ice sheet models. "What we predicted is sea level rise will be higher, but I have to be honest, we cannot model it for 2100 yet."
Still, Armstrong said, the report "does take a step forward from where the IPCC was," especially in terms of ice sheet melting.
Scientists also looked at the prospect of prolonged drought over the next 100 years. They said it is impossible to determine yet whether human activity is responsible for the drought the Southwestern United States has experienced over the past decade, but every indication suggests the region will become consistently drier in the next several decades. Richard Seager, a senior research scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said that nearly all of the 24 computer models the group surveyed project the same climatic conditions for the North American Southwest, which includes Mexico.
"If the models are correct, it will transition in the coming years and decades to a more arid climate, and that transition is already underway," Seager said, adding that such conditions would probably include prolonged droughts lasting more than a decade.
The current models cover broad swaths of landscape, and Seager said scientists need to work on developing versions that can make projections on a much smaller scale. "That's what the water managers out there really need," he said. Current models "don't give them the hard numbers they need."
Armstrong said the need for "downscaled models" is one of the challenges facing the federal government, along with better coordination among agencies on the issue of climate change. When it comes to abrupt climate shifts, he said, "We need to be prepared to deal with it in terms of policymaking, keeping in mind it's a low-probability, high-risk scenario. That said, there are really no policies in place to deal with abrupt climate change."
Richard Moss, who directed the Climate Change Science Program's coordination office between 2000 and 2006 and now serves as vice president and managing director for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund-U.S., welcomed the new report but called it "way overdue."
"There is finally a greater flow of climate science from the administration," Moss said, noting that the report was originally scheduled to come out in the summer of 2007. "It really is showing the potential for abrupt climate change is real."
The report is reassuring, however, on the prospects for some potentially drastic effects -- such as a huge release of methane, a potent heat-trapping gas, that is now locked deep in the seabed and underneath the Arctic permafrost. That is unlikely to occur in the near future, the scientists said.
"It's unlikely that we're going to see an abrupt change in methane over the next hundred years, but we should worry about it over a longer time frame," said Ed Brook, the lead author of the methane chapter and a geosciences professor at Oregon State University. "All of these places where methane is stored are vulnerable to leaking."
By the end the century, Brook said, the amount of methane escaping from natural sources such as the Arctic tundra and waterlogged soils in warmer regions "could possibly double," but that would still be less than the current level of human-generated methane emissions. Over the course of the next thousand years, he added, methane hydrates stored deep in the seabed could be released: "Once you start melting there, you can't really take it back."
In the near term, Brook said, more precise monitoring of methane levels worldwide would give researchers a better sense of the risk of a bigger atmospheric release. "We don't know exactly how much methane is coming out all over the world," he said. "That's why monitoring is important."
While predictions remain uncertain, Steffen said cutting emissions linked to global warming represents one of the best strategies for averting catastrophic changes.
"We have to act very fast, by understanding better and by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, because it's a large-scale experiment that can get out of hand," Steffen said. "So we don't want that to happen."

Monday, December 22, 2008

Meat Production and Climate Change

"Livestock production accounts for 30% of the entire land surface of the planet - equaling 33% of all arable land, and an even larger area devoted to grazing!"
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Toronto Vegetarian Association wants meat consumption to become a higher priority environmental issue given its proven link to climate change. A growing body of research supports the grave environmental costs of meat production:
Raising livestock for food emits more greenhouse gases than all of the world's cars and trucks.
The UN FAO calls the meat industry "one of the most significant contributors to the world's environmental problems", including acid rain, deforestation and water and land pollution.
Going vegetarian would eliminate 1.5 tonnes of CO2 equivalent gas emissions per person, per year - an even bigger difference than switching from a SUV to a hybrid.

EXERCISES:

What do the following eat: 1. carnivores, 2. omnivores,3. fructivores, 4. localvores, 5. pescavores, 6. vegetarians, 7. vegans,8. flexitarians, 9. freegans, 10. raw foodists, 11. slow foodists?

ANSWERS:1. meat, 2. all, 3. fruit, 4. local food, 5. fish, 6. no meat or fish, 7. no animal products (like milk or eggs), 8. meat only occasionaly, 9. food they get for free, 10. uncooked food, 11. food that is cooked slowly (as opposed to fast food).

Who are they: gourmands, epicures, connoisseurs, gluttons,orthorexics, gastronomes, chefs? Complete the list with more names for people who eat different foods in different ways. Use a thesaurus.
Debate pro/con vegetarianism.
Share vegetarian recipes.
Count nutritional value of a regular meat-potato lunch as compared to a balanced vegetarian course.
Check http://www.amazon.ca/ for vegan/vegetarian cookbooks.
Check lifestyle magazines for trends in fine dining.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Greenhouse Effect

INSERT A PREPOSITION:

Not long ago the talking ________ weather was mostly just small talk, but these days it's taking a more serious turn. There's something ______ the air.
You can't see it, most of the time you can't feel it, but air _______ us is changing ____ a quiet, but dramatic way.
The way we live is changing the composition ____ the atmosphere and our climate and local weather pattern are changing ______ it.
We burn fossil fuels to produce energy: coal, oil and natural gas and it's increasing the carbon dioxide _____ the atmosphere.
This process is raising the temperature _____ the planet. We call this warming action greenhouse effect.

SOLUTION: about, in, around, in, of, with, in, of

Thursday, November 20, 2008

What The Public Doesn’t Get About Climate Change

This is an abridged article from Time magazine, that can work well as a jigsaw reading material. Each group reads one passage and then members of different groups are put together to retell each other what they read. Different questions/tasks can be devised around that.

1. As I report on climate change, I come across a lot of scary facts, like the possibility that thawing permafrost in Siberia could release gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or the risk that Greenland could pass a tipping point and begin to melt rapidly. But one of the most frightening studies I've read recently had nothing to do with icebergs or mega-droughts. In a paper that came out Oct. 23, 2008 in Science, John Sterman — a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) wrote about asking 212 MIT grad students to give a rough idea of how much governments need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by to eventually stop the increase in the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. These students had training in science, technology, mathematics and economics at one of the best schools in the world — they are probably a lot smarter than you or me. Yet 84% of Sterman's subjects got the question wrong.

2. The study reflects the tremendous gap that exists regarding global warming. On the one hand are the scientists, who with few exceptions think climate change is very serious and needs to be dealt with immediately and ambitiously. On the other side is the public, which increasingly believes that climate change is real and worries about it, but which rarely ranks it as a high priority. A 2007 survey by the U.N. Development Programme found that 54% of Americans have a "wait and see" approach to climate-change action — holding off on the deep and rapid cuts in global warming that would immediately impact their lives. As a result, we have our current dilemma: a steady drumbeat of scientific evidence of global warming's severity and comparatively little in the way of meaningful political action. "This gap exists," says Sterman. "The real question is why."

3. "There is a profound and fundamental misconception about climate," he says. The problem is that most of us don't really understand how carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Increasing global temperatures are driven by the increase in the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. Before the industrial age, the concentration was about 280 parts per million (p.p.m.) of carbon in the atmosphere. After a few centuries of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels, we've raised that concentration to 387 p.p.m., and it continues to rise by about 2 p.p.m. every year. Many scientists believe that we need to at least stabilize carbon concentrations at 450 p.p.m. to ensure that global temperatures don't increase more than about 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. To do that, we need to reduce global carbon emissions (which hit about 10 billion tons last year) until they are equal to or less than the amount of carbon sequestered by the oceans and plant life (4.8 billion tons in the last year). It's just like water in a bathtub — unless more water is draining out than flowing in from the tap, eventually the bathtub will overflow.

4. That means that carbon emissions would need to be cut drastically from current levels. Yet almost all of the subjects in Sterman's study failed to realize that, assuming instead that you could stabilize carbon concentration simply by capping carbon emissions at their current level. That's not the case — and in fact, pursuing such a plan for the future would virtually guarantee that global warming could spin out of control. It may seem to many like good common sense to wait until we see proof of the serious damage global warming is doing before we take action. But it's not — we can't "wait and see" on global warming because the climate has a momentum of its own, and if we wait for decades to finally act to reduce carbon emissions, it could well be too late. Yet this simply isn't understood.

5. If élite scientists could simply solve climate change on their own, public misunderstanding wouldn't be such a problem. But they can't. Reducing carbon emissions sharply will require all 6.5 billion (and growing) of us on the planet to hugely change the way we use energy and travel. We'll also need to change the way we vote, rewarding politicians willing to make the tough choices on climate. Instead of a new Manhattan Project — the metaphor often used for global warming — Sterman believes that what is needed is closer to a new civil rights movement, a large-scale campaign that dramatically changes the public's beliefs and behaviors. New groups like Al Gore's We Campaign are aiming for just such a social transformation, but "the reality is that this is even more difficult than civil rights," says Sterman. "Even that took a long time, and we don't have that kind of time with the climate."

ESL Blog