Thursday, April 14, 2016

A Song About Feminism

First, some definitions not found in the dictionary:

Feminist. Noun.
A big word, often wrongly defined as “man hating women”.Feminist shouldn’t be a derogatory, or hateful, term. In fact, the label ‘Feminist’ means that you believe in equality of all sexes and genders.  

Egalitarianism. Noun.
A trend that favours equality of all people

“Traditional Marriage”. Noun.
A term usually associated with marriages between a man and a woman, where the woman doesn’t work. In 5 studies, 993 heterosexual married males in so called “traditional marriages” were found to be more likely to not to favour women being in the workplace, think that organizations with more female employees run less smoothly, find organizations with female leaders less attractive, and are more likely to promote male employees over equally qualified female employees.

Feminism. Noun.
The belief what all people deserve equal rights and to be seen as equals. Often ignored and still a pressing issue not to be passed off as “stupid women being greedy”or “not an issue at all. If you want equal pay, get a better job.”

Gender Wage Gap. Noun.
A thing that, yes, exists. The difference in pay between genders for work of equal value. The average yearly income for women in Canada has been decreasing at an even greater rate than the yearly income for men is increasing.

Pay Equity Act. Noun.

Equal pay for equal work. An act that requires employers to pay female employees at least the same as male employees for jobs of comparable value. This act was legislated against by the Stephen Harper Government in 2009, removing this responsibility from all levels of Canadian Government.

Now, without further ado:

Works Cited

Desai, Sreedhari D., Dolly Chugh, and Arthur P. Brief. "The Implications Of Marriage Structure For Men's Workplace Attitudes, Beliefs, And Behaviors Toward Women." Administrative Science Quarterly 59.2 (2014): 330-365.Education Research Complete. Web. 9 Mar. 2016.

WATSON, EMMA. "Be The He For She." Vital Speeches Of The Day 80.11 (2014): 348-349. History Reference Center. Web. 10 Mar. 2016.

Mitchell, Penni. "Mind the Gap." Herizons 2009: 5. Canadian Reference Centre. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

Wherry, Aaron. "Is This The Quiet End To Pay Equity?." Maclean's 122.7 (2009): 22. Canadian Reference Centre. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

Pay Equity." Pay Equity Commission. Government of Ontario, n.d. Web.

Government, Canadian. "Bill C-10." THIRD REPORT (2009): 3-5.Government of Canada. Government of Canada. Web.

Discussion for a Change to Promote Genetic Engineering

P. 1
Colin P.
Mrs. C
14 April 2016
Discussion for a Change to Promote Genetic Engineering
“With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race” (Hawking). Genetic engineering describes the artificial selection for crops and livestock since we adopted them for our use. We use selective breeding to select desirable traits in organisms and reproduce the traits in their offspring. New alternatives, including gene manipulation, in vitro fertilization, and cloning challenged the conventional process of genetic engineering. However, there is opposition to the new alternatives for genetic engineering. This is a collection of arguments aimed at the positives of promoting the advancement of genetic engineering, using specific subject examples. It will also address points in the opposition. This proposal assumes that the reader had previous knowledge about genetic engineering, specifically the loose understanding of gene editing and insertion methods.
Genetic manipulation through direct genome configuration increases yield, durability, and nutritional value. For example, modern GMO crops have their genetic material modified to resist pests (insect resistant, Bt), tolerate herbicides (HT), and immunize disease. In addition, there had been bacteria engineered to produce human insulin, human growth hormone, and a hepatitis B vaccine (Encyclopædia Britannica). An example of augmented nutrition is golden rice, which is genetically modified rice utilized to reduce vitamin A deficiency in rice-consuming populations (Tang et al.). Genetically modified crops could even eradicate the food instability because of its customizable yields (Collection, Classics). Genetic engineering in animals can increase their productivity for the same space, and genetically modifying humans can overcome infertility (Geneticengineeringinhumans). These examples show that the properties in organisms can be changed to benefit our needs to solve various issues involving health and insects. This is a promising potential that reasoned why genetic engineering should be promoted. As well as the obvious purposes, there is another reason for why GM crops are practical.
Genetically engineered crops are be economically beneficial, if not surpassing conventional crops. Two meta-analyses and a studies review concluded that farmers in developing countries can gain more from their yield from Bt cotton and Bt maize, and since insect resistant crops decrease usage of pesticides, costs from utilizing them are also reduced (AREAL, RIESGO, and RODRÍGUEZ-CEREZO; Finger et al.). A study by PG Economics in 2012 concluded that the global farm income had increased to $14 billion in 2010, and total income from 1996 increased up to $78.4 billion. Bt cotton had $5 billion out of the total income in 2010. It had the most economically positive impact; among others were maize, HT soybeans, and canola (Brookes, and Barfoot). These conclusions have proven that the current GM crops pose economic advantages over traditional crops, especially with developing countries that have a strong national research, national institutional capacity, and regulatory capacity (Raney 3). This is another explanation to why genetic engineering should further develop in research and the economy. Unfortunately, if a big economy has a new GMO released, then there is a debate for its management.
There are regulations to manage the use and distribution of genetically modified foods. Labelling can be helpful to the consumer for focused decision making, although enforcing it to be mandatory can be detrimental to the public’s view of GM foods. The AAAS stated:
[Labeling] efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow "unnatural" and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested.
This can mislead the public’s perception of GM foods as to be more harmful than it should not be. Moreover, the dependencies on these beliefs can negatively affect the GM foods economy, and might spread to other genetic engineering subjects. GM food labelling does not need to be mandated, as popularity myths can skew consumer decision making in purchasing because of perceived “unnatural”, “untested”, and potential competitive advantages in the marketplace. The public needs proper information about genetically modified foods before legally enforced labelling. This should not heavily slow down genetic engineering, and once the disputed issue is solved, then the entirety of it should forward more freely. Aside from the regulations, there are health problems that GM crops face.
An issue that surrounds genetically engineered foods is introducing a protein allergen without warning into the food system. Some people may not be fully aware that there is a food safety evaluation for all GM crops that meticulously examines if there is a possible allergen in a GM crop by assessing its similarity to other allergens, the stability during digestion process, blood tests from allergic individuals, and tests from animals (GMO-Compass). GM crops are actually the most extensive crops tested (Pinholster) despite popular culture beliefs, and that they should not be a major concern for genetically engineered foods. Therefore, it is currently not enough of a problem to stand in the way of the progression of genetically modified foods, and broadly genetic engineering. Other than allergies, there exists a conflict with the environment for GM crops.
Escapes of genetically modified crops are one risk that can damage the surrounding ecosystem of the farm. Fortunately, there are methods to attempt to solve this problem. For example, using Technology Protection System (TPS) “Terminator” kills plant embryos by implementing traits, preventing any seeds that would spread in the wild. The effect of GM-crop crossing to wild plants with TPS varies with the tendency and closeness, so the effectiveness of preventing accidental gene flow also varies. Trait-specific Genetic Use Restriction Technology (T-Gurt) “Traitor” uses a chemical control mechanism to activate certain traits, and unintentional spread to non-GM crops or wild plants would not express them unless the proprietary chemical is used (Sutton). Additionally, transplastomic plants have modified plastids (chloroplasts) instead of nuclear DNA, and inheritance with other crops excludes plastids in pollen. This can potentially facilitate the GM crops and ensure coexistence with conventional ones (Bock, Karcher, and Ruf). The slowly rising amount of methods that can address unintentional escape of GM crops eases the worries of it becoming a very serious threat to the genetically modified crops industry. In the future, this issue would not have a high chance of slowing down genetic engineering with the current improvable solutions. Another problem associated with GM crops is one that counters the purpose of its genetic modification.
A concern related to the GM crops insecticide enhancement is that it could be selecting for insects resistance to the insecticide produced by the GM crops. Luckily, there are potential strategies to counter the evolution to create the insecticide resistance insect by implementing refuge plots ‒ a refuge designed for the insects. This would result in the dilution of the process of insecticide resistance evolution (Understanding Evolution Team). Another method is to create genes that code for fusion proteins that can have multiple ways to attack a target insect, putting difficulty in the selective pressure (Christou, et al.). These strategies could promise a solution for insecticide resistance insects, and reducing stress for the applications of genetic engineering. The next problem, aimed at genetically modifying humans, is a moral argument linked with nature.
The ethics involved in germinal choice technology present the complications of what it means to “be human”. As with the plausibility that one day, parents would be able to choose characteristics for their child that would be “unnatural”, critics may argue that definition of human would be challenged. In an interview with Gregory Stock, he expressed that with many advancements in technology in human history, being “human” now can appear foreign to early human ancestors, for instance: increased lifespan. He said that we alter ourselves in different aspects that can substantially influential. This made the moral and social parts of being human look vague, as there is no strict definition of what we can be. The argument that humans would change their biology in unnatural ways is not any different from social, technological, or health-related progress in human history that early humans can make as well (WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY). This stands against the ethical question of what it means to be human, and it currently would not affect the progress of genetic engineering. Besides ethics, some perspectives consider genetic engineering as a whole is not safe enough.
We need to analyse and learn more about new genetic engineering technologies before we assess the problems. One of the arguments for the opposition of genetic engineering, specifically GM crops and germline choice technology, is that there can be risks that can drastically impose threat to humanity, because there is not sufficient evidence to infer that they are completely safe. Peter Newton described this action as taking the precautionary principle. However, there are consequences to when we do not make pace to research and investigate. We need to know how to solve rising issues in the world today, such as feeding the increasing population. Constraining a possible option such as GM crops can limit our effectiveness of developing a solution to provide a sustaining food system for escalating food consumption. It can also obstruct our progress in researching this recent field of technology, which could better help us understand it so we can circumvent unpredictable dangers that we did not know enough of before. This is a major reason to further progress genetic engineering, because it is very possible to be part of a solution to many problematic topics in the world.
Genetic engineering should not halt because of public resistance who has not acquired sufficient understanding on the subject. In May 2012, a plan for a protest “Take the Flour Back” was led in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England, which planned to destroy the test trials of a genetically modified wheat. The appeal from the Rothamsted Research to the public addressed the destruction of research was not a goal that would achieve much.
[R]esearch never ends, and technology never can nor should be frozen in time (as implied by the term ‘GM freeze’). Society didn’t stop with the horse-drawn plough because of fears that the tractor was ‘unnatural’. We didn’t refuse to develop better wheat varieties in the past – which keep us well-fed today – simply because they were different from what went before and therefore scary. The wheat that we consume today has had many genetic changes made to it – to make plants produce more grain, resist disease, avoid growing too tall and blow over in the wind, be suitable for different uses like pasta and bread, provide more nutrition and grow at the right time for farming seasons. These agricultural developments make it possible for the same amount of food to be produced from a smaller area of land, meaning less necessity for farmers to convert wildlands to agriculture, surely we should work together in this? (Pickett)
Instead, they were willing to discuss their research and their purpose, as well as to release a petition “Don’t Destroy the Research” to stop the violent plan. Over 6,000 have signed the petition. The initial reactions from the public on the subject of genetic engineering, specifically genetically modified foods, were not very positive. Alongside the influence that conspiracy theories could hold on this topic (Goertzel), it may be possible that the same will be for germinal choice technology. It is important to realize that we should correct the public more solemnly about their misunderstandings about genetic engineering-- even if it would take much of an effort to do so (an example of a misinterpretation is that, genetic traits, do not technically exist, because traits are literally entirely genes. It is why the phrase prefix is commonly “genes for”) (Falk). Would resistance to strive for the general positiveness of this scientific research because of public outcry a fair and valid reason? This technology has the potential to combat malnutrition, hunger, cure diseases, and enhance the human biology. It would be better to let genetic engineering get a chance to fulfill that promise than letting it go to waste.

Works Cited
AREAL, F. J., L. RIESGO, and E. RODRÍGUEZ-CEREZO. "Economic and Agronomic
Impact of GM Crops." The Journal of Agricultural Science. Cambridge University
Press, 28 Feb. 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
Brookes, Graham, and Peter Barfoot. "GM Crops: Global Socio-economic and
Environmental Impacts 1996 - 2010." PG Economics. PG Economics, May 2012.
Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
Bock, Ralph, Daniel Karcher, and Stephanie Ruf. "Determining the Transgene
Containment Level Provided by Chloroplast Transformation."Determining the
Transgene Containment Level Provided by Chloroplast Transformation. The
National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 28 Feb. 2007. Web. 04 Apr. 2016.
Christou, Paul, Teresa Capell, Ajay Kohli, John A. Gatehouse, and Angharad M.r.
Gatehouse. "Recent Developments and Future Prospects in Insect Pest Control
in Transgenic Crops." Trends in Plant Science 11.6 (2006): 302-08. TRENDS in
Plant Science. Elsevier, June 2006. Web. 13 Apr. 2016.
Collection, Classics. "Global Food Security: The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology."
Global Food Security: The Role of Agricultural Biotechnology—Commentary
(n.d.): n. pag. Saskatoon Research Centre, Oct. 2010. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
Encyclopædia Britannica. "genetic engineering." Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 19 Mar. 2016
Falk, Raphael. "The Allusion Of The Gene: Misunderstandings Of The Concepts
Heredity And Gene." Science & Education 23.2 (2014): 273-284. ERIC. Web. 5
Apr. 2016.
Finger, Robert, Nadja El Benni, Timo Kaphengst, Clive Evans, Sophie Herbert, Bernard
Lehmann, Stephen Morse, and Nataliya Stupak. "A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level
Costs and Benefits of GM Crops." MDPI. MDPI AG, 10 May 2011. Web. 23 Mar.
Geneticengineeringinhumans. "Pros Of Genetic Engineering." Pros Of Genetic
Engineering., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2016.
GMO-Compass. "The Allergy Check." Food Safety Evaluation: Allergy Check for GMOs.
       Webmotive, 15 Feb. 2006. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
Goertzel, Ted. "Conspiracy Theories in Science." EMBO Reports. Nature Publishing
Group, 11 June 2010. Web. 05 Apr. 2016.
Hawking, Stephen. "Stephen Hawking Quote." BrainyQuote. Xplore, n.d. Web. 13 Apr.
Newton, Peter. "Peter Newton: Food System Needs Options, including GM Crops."
Boulder Daily Camera. Digital First Media, 18 Mar. 2016. Web. 22 Mar. 2016.
Pickett, John. "Appeal Letter to Take the Flour Back." (n.d.): n. pag.Rothamsted
Research. Michael Elliott, 27 Apr. 2012. Web. 4 Apr. 2016.
Pinholster, Ginger. "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels
Could ‘Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers’." AAAS. AMERICAN
30 Mar. 2016.
Raney, Terry. "Economic Impact of Transgenic Crops." SpringerReference(n.d.): n. pag.
Current Opinion in Biotechnology. Elsevier, 2006. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
Sutton, Jason. "Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide."Transgenic
Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide. Department of Soil and Crop
Sciences at Colorado State University, 2 Feb. 2004. Web. 04 Apr. 2016.
Tang, Guangwen, Jian Qin, Gregory G. Dolnikowski, Robert M. Russell, and Michael A.
Grusak. "Golden Rice Is an Effective Source of Vitamin A."The American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition. American Society for Nutrition, 15 Apr. 2009. Web. 23
Mar. 2016.
Understanding Evolution Team. "Refuges of Genetic Variation: Controlling Crop Pest
Evolution." Refuges of Genetic Variation: Controlling Crop Pest Evolution. UCMP,
n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2016.
WORLD FUTURE SOCIETY. "WFS Interview Gregory Stock." WFS Interview Gregory
Stock. Futurist Interviews, 6 June 2002. Web. 09 Mar. 2016.
Should America remain an immigrant friendly society?

"Give me tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door". These are the famous words written by Emma Lazarus, a famous poet in 1883, and engraved on the Statue of Liberty. When immigrants first came to America they saw the Statue of Liberty, a mighty woman with a motherly smile. It creates an emotional mood. The statue and the poem encourages immigrants to come to the new world and makes it clear that she welcomes everyone with open arms. The torch symbolizes the beacon hand that "glows a world-wide welcome".

Now there is a debate brewing in America about their immigration policy. Immigrants, who have lived in the States for many decades, having a job, paying their share of taxes, and having their children being born here. But because, they have been in the states illegally, many politicians in the house and senate want to deport them. The president, Barack Obama wants to make these immigrants, citizens of the United States. There are eleven million immigrants who are now in limbo, roughly the size of the province of Quebec.

I believe America should make these loyal  immigrants citizens of the country. The Statue of Liberty has given us a reminder that America is a nation of immigrants. The lamp and the golden door means the opposite of barbed wire, a border fence, and a wall against bigotry, racism, and hatred. Liberty is the opposite of tyranny. If America ever closes its gates in the name of safety and becomes a police state, then we should remove the statue from the harbor and place it in a museum. Tony Blair once said, "To measure the greatness of a country is simply to look at how many want in... And how many want out. Immigrants have made America, the vibrant, creative, economically robust, and the most freedom loving nation in the world.

Franklin Roosevelt said "Remember, remember always, that all of us, you and I especially, are descended from immigrants". America was a country built on immigration. People came to America with nothing but the clothes on their backs, and they built financial empires, like John Rockefeller, whose companies provided the backbone of American infrastructure. He built railways and oil refineries. Andrew Carnegie, he literally built America in the 19th century during the industrial revolution by supplying steel and other raw materials. J.P. Morgan provided financing for many of the inventions, like electricity. Immigrants, through their hard work and creativity have made America the most technologically advanced country in the world.  

Much of the debate going on is founded on mythology. One of the greatest myths has been that immigrants take jobs away from American workers. Although immigrants make up about twelve percent of the population, they make up fifteen percent of the workforce. This is because the population is aging. Immigrants and their children have accounted for about sixty percent of the population growth since 1980. This is because Americans are having fewer children. As America begins to retire in record numbers and start drawing government pensions, younger immigrant workers will be paying the taxes to support this. Immigrants tend to be in either high or low skilled jobs. They tend to complement rather than compete with jobs held by Americans. Immigrants, who fill the low paying jobs, typically hold jobs that Americans no longer want. Examples are taxi drivers, gas station attendants, and security guards. American born citizen are more likely to hold jobs in management, professional (jobs as in doctors, lawyers, etc) and sales. Immigrant workers are often exploited by their employers. They tend to pay immigrants less, not provide them with benefits, and ignore safety laws. Also on an economic level, Americans benefits from lower prices of food, clothing, and other goods produced by immigrant labor. Immigrants also stimulate the growth of the economy, by creating new consumers. As a result wages for the vast majority of Americans are higher than they would be without immigrants.

Another myth is that immigrants are a drain on society, they tend to be lazy and live off social assistance. Immigrants living in poverty depend less on social assistance and more on family support than impoverished Americans. Only eight percent of immigrant families living in poverty were collecting social assistance, compared to thirty-three percent of American born low income families. This is because immigrants take whatever jobs are available. When my uncle first immigrated to America, he delivered the NY Times early in the morning, he then worked as a courier during the day, and delivered pizzas at night. On the weekend, he worked as concierge at a condominium, working twelve hour shifts. He did this for three years and then started his own messenger business. Some of his clients include General Electric, NY City Pension Fund, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and NY Post.

An additional myth is that immigrants are not integrating into American life. As George W. Bush once said "The truth is; immigrants tend to be more American than people born here." Integration usually takes a generation. Learning English is the key driver to success of immigrants and children is the other. Today immigrants seek English instruction classes in record numbers that the program cannot meet the demand. Also educating their children plays a critical role as this is the one reason why immigrants come to the U.S., to make a better life for their children. It is estimated that close to seventy-eight percent of immigrant children go on to post secondary education compared fifty-four percent of born Americans. As Malcolm X once said "Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today". With education many children of immigrants are now doctors, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, successfully integrated to American society just like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

America should continue its immigration friendly policy as John F. Kennedy said "Our immigration policy should be generous, it should be fair, it should be flexible. With such a policy we can turn to the world and to our own past, with clean hands and a clear conscience". As "We are a nation of immigrants. We are children, and of great grandchildren of the ones who woke up at night hearing that voice, telling them that life in that place called America could be better". The issues surrounding illegal immigrants are wide-ranging and complex. Immigrants reflect the values of the citizens of America. It is a vitally important step that we implement immigration reform. We need a bill that strengthens the borders and protects this great nation, But also makes it simpler for good people to become Americans. Immigrants did not just come in the pursuit of the riches of this country but for the richness of this life. Freedom.


Global Warming and Its Underlying Problems

Global warming can cause many problems. From 1880 to 2010 the average temperature of the earth increased .8 degrees celsius. Now this may not see like much but if it continues on this pattern we don't know what will happen. A mere 1 degree increase could cause catastrophic consequences. wind patterns could change, climates could get warmer in some areas and colder in others, there could be a drought, melting glaciers may release a disease we can't fight off, sea levels could rise, and many more unpredictable things could happen. The question is how are we going to fix it.

On earth we have several major glacier regions. Among these regions are Antarctica and Greenland. These glaciers have outlived us for billions of years. The only difference is now they are melting. There are many plagues and diseases we as the human race have faced throughout time and many of these diseases have been frozen in the glaciers, among with many unknown diseases. This is quite a controversial topic among scientists as there are many different opinions on what could happen. Some scientists believe that most of the diseases won't resurrect. Others believe that they won't affect us anymore because we may have antibodies that could fight off these ancient viruses. Some scientists have woken up minor viruses that can still do some serious damage, and other scientists theorize that as the human race has not seen it in so long our bodies will have no immune system for it because we adapted and evolved after many of these harmful viruses were frozen. Whether or not you choose to believe this is important is up to you because scientists are still investigating this subject and what will and won't wake up.
Global warming will also affect the temperature and precipitation around the well… globe. NASA has gathered data and has used it to predict that by 2084 the summers will be 9-12 degrees warmer all over the United States and lower parts of Canada. This may not sound that bad but if you usually get 75.2 degrees fahrenheit (24 celsius) in the summer it will be around 87.2 degrees (30.7 celsius) which may sound wonderful but, how will crops grow? How will all our fresh water not evaporate? People all over will get sunstroke which will make their immune systems more susceptible to colds, flu’s and other harsher diseases. As for how crops would grow, I've done some research and found that rice is the most commonly eaten food in the world, and the hottest conditions rice can grow at is 25-30 degrees (celsius) so we will definitely be pushing the limit if we reach 30.7 degrees (celsius). And if the planet's temperature continues along that pattern how will anything grow? The simple answer is; it won't. If the temperature does increase, many of our fresh water sources will likely evaporate, and then we will have to go to the polluted ocean for water, we will need to disinfect and take the salt out of it which will take a long time and oceans aren't neverending. Due to global warming precipitation patterns will also change in Canada the precipitation will largely increase, and in the USA precipitation will largely decrease, this will likely damage crops greatly, as nothing can grow with too much or too little water.

Global warming will also affect sea level.Since reliable records started in 1880 the sea has risen about 8 inches. This may not seem like a large amount but, due to the increase in temperature it is estimated that by 2100 the sea level will have risen almost 4 feet. This may not seem like a big deal, but for places at sea level or that are along the shore line, it will be devastating as they will likely be in water. Thanks to NASA we have a lot of information on this topic. According to NASA satellite sea level measurements the current rise in sea level is 3.42mm per year. This once again may not seem like a lot but this estimation will only rise as the glaciers continue melting. The other problem with this is the loss of good farmland and areas for housing, and for the still increasing population we need both. The water will continue to increase after 2100 but from this point in time we are unable to predict whether it will speed up or slow down. That is why the rise in sea level is a big deal.

There are many things you can do to help slow the process of global warming. For starters you can manage electricity in your home, switch off lights, change to LED lightbulbs.Another thing you can do is switch to renewable power sources. You can also be careful of what you eat, buy organic foods and more. You can also do the trademark for global warming, that's right recycling! Try  to minimize the waste that you send out. You can change how you get around. For example you can fly less, and do green transportation, like bike or take the bus. Those are some of the many things you can do to help slow global warming.

Here is a poem about global warming:
Who Made A Mess
By Steve Turner
Who made a mess of the planet
And what's that bad smell on the breeze?
Who punched a hole in the ozone
And who took an axe to my trees?

Who sprayed the garden with poison
While trying to scare off a fly?
Who streaked the water with oil slicks
And who let my fish choke and die?

Who tossed that junk in the river
And who stained the fresh air with fumes?
Who tore the fields with a digger
And who blocked my favourite views?

Who's going to tidy up later
And who's going to find what you've lost?
Who's going to say that they're sorry
And who's going to carry the cost?
This photo shows the maximum temperature which the world will reach in 2100 as is predicted by NASA:
Those are some of the many things that make global warming a big problem. I listed many terrible things that can happen although none of this is definite. What I do hope is that my article has sparked your mind to make a change. If you don't believe me do some research of your own! Those are the reasons that global warming is important.

Brianna R

Works Cited:
IPCC 2007, Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 17.

March 7th 2013 National Climate Assessment and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

March 7th 2013 National Climate Assessment and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

March 7th 2013 National Climate Assessment and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio

February 12th 2015 NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio

Data source: Satellite observations. Credit: NASA Scientific Visualization Studio