Impact of Human Activities on Carbon Dioxide (CO<Subscript>2</Subscript>) Emissions: A Statistical Analysis

Summary The balance of evidence suggests a perceptible human influence on global ecosystems. Human activities are affecting the global ecosystem, some directly and some indirectly. If researchers could clarify the extent to which specific human activities affect global ecosystems, they would be in a much better position to suggest strategies for mitigating against the worst disturbances. Sophisticated statistical analysis can help in interpreting the influence of specific human activities on global ecosystems more carefully. This study aims at identifying significant or influential human activities (i.e. factors) on CO₂ emissions using statistical analyses. The study was conducted for two cases: (i) developed countries and (ii) developing countries. In developed countries, this study identified three influential human activities for CO₂ emissions: (i) combustion of fossil fuels, (ii) population pressure on natural and terrestrial ecosystems, and (iii) land use change. In developing countries, the significant human activities causing an upsurge of CO₂ emissions are: (i) combustion of fossil fuels, (ii) terrestrial ecosystem strength and (iii) land use change. Among these factors, combustion of fossil fuels is the most influential human activity for CO₂ emissions both in developed and developing countries. Regression analysis based on the factor scores indicated that combustion of fossil fuels has significant positive influence on CO₂ emissions in both developed and developing countries. Terrestrial ecosystem strength has a significant negative influence on CO₂ emissions. Land use change and CO₂ emissions are positively related, although regression analysis showed that the influence of land use change on CO₂ emissions was still insignificant. It is anticipated, from the findings of this study, that CO₂ emissions can be reduced by reducing fossil-fuel consumption and switching to alternative energy sources, preserving exiting forests, planting trees on abandoned and degraded forest lands, or by planting trees by social/agroforestry on agricultural lands.     

Ethological farm programs and the “market” for animal welfare

Ethological farm programs as they exist in Switzerland are compared with environmental farm programs in respect of demand and supply. Because animal welfare is not a public good but rather a relation that causes psychological externalities, the demand for animal welfare has a different standing in economic theory than the demand for a clean environment. The supply of animal welfare by farmers, however, largely follows the patterns known from the delivery of environmental goods. Farm size, age and education, and also family size and capital intensity are influencing variables. The paper concludes that the design of ethological farm programs should be based on broad public discussions as described by deliberation theorists rather than willingness-to-pay studies.     

The Ethics of Constrained Choice: How the Industrialization of Agriculture Impacts Farming and Farmer Behavior

The industrialization of agriculture not only alters the ways in which agricultural production occurs, but it also impacts the decisions farmers make in important ways. First, constraints created by the economic environment of farming limit what options a farmer has available to him. Second, because of the industrialization of agriculture and the resulting economic pressures it creates for farmers, the fact that decisions are constrained creates new ethical challenges for farmers. Having fewer options when faced with severe economic pressures is a very different situation for farmers than having many options available. We discuss the implications of constrained choice and show that it increases the likelihood that farmers will consider unethical behavior.     

Respecting The Autonomy of European and American Consumers: Defending Positive Labels on Gm Foods

In her recent article, “Does autonomy count in favor of labeling genetically modified food?,” Kirsten Hansen argues that in Europe, voluntary negative labeling of non-GM foods respects consumer autonomy just as well as mandatory positive labeling of foods with GM content. She also argues that because negative labeling places labeling costs upon those consumers that want to know whether food is GM, negative labeling is better policy than positive labeling. In this paper, we argue that Hansen’s arguments are mistaken in several respects. Most importantly, she underestimates the demands of respecting autonomy and overestimates the cost of positive labeling. Moreover, she mistakenly implies that only a small minority of people desire information about GM content. We also explore the extent to which her arguments would apply to the US context, and argue that any discussion of the relationship between autonomy and labeling should include not just considerations of consumer autonomy but also considerations of what we call citizen autonomy.     

Human Diets and Animal Welfare: the Illogic of the Larder

Few moral arguments have been made against vegetarian diets. One exception is the “Logic of the Larder:” We do animals a favor by purchasing their meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not purchase these products, fewer animals would exist. This argument fails because many farm animals have lives that are probably not worth living, while others prevent a significant number of wild animals from existing. Even if this were not so, the purchase of animal products uses resources that could otherwise be used to bring a much greater number of animals into existence.     

The acetochlor registration partnership surface water monitoring program for four corn herbicides

A surface drinking water monitoring program for four corn (Zea mays L.) herbicides was conducted during 1995-2001. Stratified random sampling was used to select 175 community water systems (CWSs) within a 12-state area, with an emphasis on the most vulnerable sites, based on corn intensity and watershed size. Finished drinking water was monitored at all sites, and raw water was monitored at many sites using activated carbon, which was shown capable of removing herbicides and their degradates from drinking water. Samples were collected biweekly from mid-March through the end of August, and twice during the off-season. The analytical method had a detection limit of 0.05 microg L(-1) for alachlor [2-chloro-N-(2,6-diethylphenyl)-N-(methoxymethyl)-acetamide] and 0.03 microg L(-1) for acetochlor [2-chloro-N-(ethoxymethyl)-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-acetamide], atrazine [6-chloro-N-ethyl-N'-(1-methylethyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine], and metolachlor [2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)-acetamide]. Of the 16528 drinking water samples analyzed, acetochlor, alachlor, atrazine, and metolachlor were detected in 19, 7, 87, and 53% of the samples, respectively. During 1999-2001, samples were also analyzed for the presence of six major degradates of the chloroacetanilide herbicides, which were detected more frequently than their parent compounds, despite having higher detection limits of 0.1 to 0.2 microg L(-1). Overall detection frequencies were correlated with product use and environmental fate characteristics. Reservoirs were particularly vulnerable to atrazine, which exceeded its 3 microg L(-1) maximum contaminant level at 25 such sites during 1995-1999. Acetochlor annualized mean concentrations (AMCs) did not exceed its mitigation trigger (2 microg L(-1)) at any site, and comparisons of observed levels with standard measures of human and ecological hazards indicate that it poses no significant risk to human health or the environment.     

Species diversity or biodiversity?

Species diversity and biodiversity are widely used terms in ecology and natural resource management. Despite this, they are not easily defined and different authors apply these terms with varying connotations. The term biodiversity, in particular, has the dubious honour of being widely used but rarely defined. Is it simply the number of species or is it something more? Here I consider what these terms might really mean and their value. I also briefly discuss the rationale for studying and protecting species diversity or biodiversity.