Dear President-Elect-Obama-
I am writing to inform you about an environmental issue that is threatening our nation. The United States of America is a great nation. Its people are intelligent and hardworking, however, they are also extremely wasteful. This nation produces about 1,609 pounds of garbage a year per person making the US the top garbage producing country in the world. To put that another way, 5 percent of the world’s population produces 40 percent of the world’s garbage (Solarflair). That is an outrageous percentage that has to be changed. I think with the change in leadership of this country can come a change in disregard for the environment. There are many reasons the people of America do not recycle. Some are unaware of the problem while some are aware but recycling places are inaccessible. These problems have very real solutions. As president, it would be unfortunate if you chose to ignore this issue.
Many people are just purely uneducated and unaware when it comes to waste verse recycling. As president, you have the power to bring the spotlight on this issue. Running public service announcement and starting a nation wide recycling movement would defiantly bring it to the forefront. Bring the statistics to the average American would influence the amount of recycling that takes place. Letting people know that if each person recycled one tenth of their newspapers then America would save on average 25 million trees (Solarflair). It would be even better if people were able to access the news through other outlets than even more trees would be saved. Newspapers are just one example of how something so small can affect the environment so much. If we applied this to paper, plastic, metals, and other recyclable materials, our environment would not be deteriorating at such a fast pace. Educating and making people aware of the situation would greatly improve at least the probability of recycling, if not actually recycling.
Many people understand the effects of not recycling however, places to recycle are not very accessible. Helping states to get better recycling programs is a very real solution to this problem. Having a reward system to states that implement these recycling programs up to a certain set standard may make recycling a higher priority. When the government makes recycling a higher priority would help to encourage more people to think the next time they drink a bottle of water. When a recycling bin is right next to the garbage can, it is just as easy to throw the bottle in the recycling bin, as it is to throw it in the regular garbage. The decision is much easier to make when no extra effort is involved. Also in this time of economic recession many more people would recycle if they knew that it would save them some money. To have garbage incinerated or taken away to landfills cost on average more than to recycle it. If recycling were made easier, more people would participate.
President-elect-Obama, I know that you have very strong environmental policies that you plan to put into action once you are sworn into office. I am asking you to look into recycling. This issue could help to solve some of the bigger issues that are affecting our environment. Educating people and making recycling more accessible are just some suggestions that might help to get recycling into the mainstream public of America. I look forward to what you are going to be able to accomplish when you are president. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Liann Correia
Works Cited
"Environment." Barack Obama: US Senator for Illinois. 17 Nov. 2008 .
"Recycling Facts." A Recycling Revolution-Solarflair. 17 Nov. 2008 .
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Humans Exploiting Animals Due to the Difference Between Instincts and Intelligence
People and animals interact on many different levels on a daily basis. People respond to these animal interactions in different ways. Some people think that the way animals react are based on one of two things, either instincts or intelligence. Animals have both instincts and intelligence with each species determining the ratio. Instincts are based on natural tendencies to react a certain way in a specific situation, while intelligence is based on knowledge learned. Instincts also represent the very primal being, the caveman, where the goal is to survive. Intelligence often represents the ability to understand, use logic, or even feel emotions. Humans put these ideas on animals to justify certain actions. Humans are more likely to exploit animals that depend on instincts than animals that depend on intelligence.
When animals react to their environments in a way that was not learned, they reacted out of instinct. Instinct comes from a scientific background. These instinctual behaviors are often linked to genes that are hereditary or passed down from the parents to the child. The genes that control instincts change to allow the animal to survive in its environment and compete with other species. Instincts are not about thinking, but rather about a programmed response to protect the animals’ survival. Rachel Carson wrote about instincts in her essay “Tides." In one section, Carson writes about the Grunion and how it adapted to the tidal rhythm. “It has so adapted its spawning habits to the tidal cycle that the very existence of the race depends on the precision of this adjustment. “ (Carson, 344) The Grunion uses its instincts to lay its eggs on the beach and continue its race. Another species that relies heavily on instincts for spawning is
Salmon. Salmon are hatched from eggs in rivers. They travel downstream to the sea and wait until they are sexually mature to travel upstream where they were hatched to lay and fertilize eggs. This is a very instinctual behavior. The reproductive cycle depends on the salmon making the trip upstream to lay its eggs using their sort of homing device to lead them back to their birthplace. This is their reaction to their environment that is not learned and therefore an instinct.
When animals react to their environment in a way that was learned, they reacted using intelligence. Intelligence varies greatly from species to species. Intelligence in animals may not be based on logic like it is with humans, however it is based on observation, imitation, and repetition. Adult animals pass down these intelligent behaviors to the young to not just survive, but also to live better. These behaviors come from more advanced thinking than just instinct. Unlike Rachel Carson, Alexander Petrunkevitch wrote about the intelligence of the Digger Wasp in his essay “ The Spider and the Wasp." Petrunkevitch states, “ The wasp acts like an intelligent animal. This is not to say that instinct plays no part or that she reasons as man does. But her actions are to the point; they are not automatic and can be modified to fit the situation.” (Petrunkevitch, 362) Another species that uses their intellect instead of their instincts are bears, specifically the Grizzly Bears found in North America. These
intelligent creatures have learned to take advantage of a certain time of year. Bears are a hibernating species, which means that they must store up fat deposits in order to survive the winter. In order to do this bears have learned to hunt for salmon during the salmon runs. Many of these bears live near rivers in which salmon lay their eggs. When the salmon make their way upstream, the bears hunt. The salmon are numerous and weakened by their struggle to fight the current allow the bears to gather and eat extraordinary numbers. These bears even distinguish the difference between the fat in the fish and the meat. The bears only eat the fat because the meat burns too many calories when it is digested. The bear cubs learn this behavior from their parents through observation and practice. This behavior is the result of the bears reacting to their environment, the salmon run, and using their intelligence to take advantage.
Humans react to animal instincts very differently than to animal intelligence. Humans are known for using animals in a variety of ways, however an animal with intelligences tends to be treated better. Dogs can be trained to guide blind people through life. Those dogs are treated like people, better than pets and are rewarded for their intelligence. However, animals like chickens are exploited for their eggs. Farmers cram houses full of chickens and treat them less than desirable all the while taking their eggs to sell. Chickens are not the most intelligent animals in the world, however no one ever said that they were brainless and had no feeling. Humans allow dogs, cats, birds, and such to live in the house; yet, cows and pigs and chickens must live outside. Dogs and cats give humans companionship while one could say that cows and pigs give humans something much more useful, food. People tend to justify the eating of animals by saying that the animal is unintelligent and cannot feel or know what is happening. However, using this theory than if there were a higher trophic level in our food chain, it would be just fine to eat unintelligent humans for they could not feel or know what was happening to them. I am positive that they would not agree to this statement. Humans find it completely acceptable to eat salmon by the boatload, but bears on the other hand, not so much. Bears show qualities that humans can associate with while salmon do not. Bears show intelligence while salmon show natural instincts. Connecting to bears as well as accepting their intelligence makes humans much more leery to exploit these creatures. In fact, Grizzly Bears are on the endangered species list in order to protect them. Humans react to animal intelligence by associating with them and therefore are much more likely to not exploit them. However, animal instincts do not evoke the same reaction. Humans tend to view these animals as natural resource but on earth for humans to take advantage of.
Works Cited
Carson, Rachel. The Sea Around Us. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1951.
Petrunkevitch, Alexander. "The Spider and the Wasp." Scientific American Aug. 1952.
Picture Credits:
Salmon Run
Bears Fishing
Bear and Salmon
When animals react to their environments in a way that was not learned, they reacted out of instinct. Instinct comes from a scientific background. These instinctual behaviors are often linked to genes that are hereditary or passed down from the parents to the child. The genes that control instincts change to allow the animal to survive in its environment and compete with other species. Instincts are not about thinking, but rather about a programmed response to protect the animals’ survival. Rachel Carson wrote about instincts in her essay “Tides." In one section, Carson writes about the Grunion and how it adapted to the tidal rhythm. “It has so adapted its spawning habits to the tidal cycle that the very existence of the race depends on the precision of this adjustment. “ (Carson, 344) The Grunion uses its instincts to lay its eggs on the beach and continue its race. Another species that relies heavily on instincts for spawning is
Salmon. Salmon are hatched from eggs in rivers. They travel downstream to the sea and wait until they are sexually mature to travel upstream where they were hatched to lay and fertilize eggs. This is a very instinctual behavior. The reproductive cycle depends on the salmon making the trip upstream to lay its eggs using their sort of homing device to lead them back to their birthplace. This is their reaction to their environment that is not learned and therefore an instinct.When animals react to their environment in a way that was learned, they reacted using intelligence. Intelligence varies greatly from species to species. Intelligence in animals may not be based on logic like it is with humans, however it is based on observation, imitation, and repetition. Adult animals pass down these intelligent behaviors to the young to not just survive, but also to live better. These behaviors come from more advanced thinking than just instinct. Unlike Rachel Carson, Alexander Petrunkevitch wrote about the intelligence of the Digger Wasp in his essay “ The Spider and the Wasp." Petrunkevitch states, “ The wasp acts like an intelligent animal. This is not to say that instinct plays no part or that she reasons as man does. But her actions are to the point; they are not automatic and can be modified to fit the situation.” (Petrunkevitch, 362) Another species that uses their intellect instead of their instincts are bears, specifically the Grizzly Bears found in North America. These
intelligent creatures have learned to take advantage of a certain time of year. Bears are a hibernating species, which means that they must store up fat deposits in order to survive the winter. In order to do this bears have learned to hunt for salmon during the salmon runs. Many of these bears live near rivers in which salmon lay their eggs. When the salmon make their way upstream, the bears hunt. The salmon are numerous and weakened by their struggle to fight the current allow the bears to gather and eat extraordinary numbers. These bears even distinguish the difference between the fat in the fish and the meat. The bears only eat the fat because the meat burns too many calories when it is digested. The bear cubs learn this behavior from their parents through observation and practice. This behavior is the result of the bears reacting to their environment, the salmon run, and using their intelligence to take advantage.Humans react to animal instincts very differently than to animal intelligence. Humans are known for using animals in a variety of ways, however an animal with intelligences tends to be treated better. Dogs can be trained to guide blind people through life. Those dogs are treated like people, better than pets and are rewarded for their intelligence. However, animals like chickens are exploited for their eggs. Farmers cram houses full of chickens and treat them less than desirable all the while taking their eggs to sell. Chickens are not the most intelligent animals in the world, however no one ever said that they were brainless and had no feeling. Humans allow dogs, cats, birds, and such to live in the house; yet, cows and pigs and chickens must live outside. Dogs and cats give humans companionship while one could say that cows and pigs give humans something much more useful, food. People tend to justify the eating of animals by saying that the animal is unintelligent and cannot feel or know what is happening. However, using this theory than if there were a higher trophic level in our food chain, it would be just fine to eat unintelligent humans for they could not feel or know what was happening to them. I am positive that they would not agree to this statement. Humans find it completely acceptable to eat salmon by the boatload, but bears on the other hand, not so much. Bears show qualities that humans can associate with while salmon do not. Bears show intelligence while salmon show natural instincts. Connecting to bears as well as accepting their intelligence makes humans much more leery to exploit these creatures. In fact, Grizzly Bears are on the endangered species list in order to protect them. Humans react to animal intelligence by associating with them and therefore are much more likely to not exploit them. However, animal instincts do not evoke the same reaction. Humans tend to view these animals as natural resource but on earth for humans to take advantage of.
Works Cited
Carson, Rachel. The Sea Around Us. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1951.
Petrunkevitch, Alexander. "The Spider and the Wasp." Scientific American Aug. 1952.
Picture Credits:
Salmon Run
Bears Fishing
Bear and Salmon
Monday, November 3, 2008
Love Hate Relationship: People Encroaching on their Environment
There are many environmental causes in the world that one can support. It is very important for humans to be aware of their environment because of the consequences that can occur if this major issue is ignored. Environmental issues have been brought into the spotlight recently. These issues are talked about constantly in schools, on the news, and even in political campaigns. One important issue that threatens the environment is humans. Humans come with a lot of baggage. People have been encroaching on the environment especially because of population growth. More and more houses, hotels, restaurants, resorts, and other buildings are constructed each year to accommodate this influx. I believe that, as inhabitants of this environment, we should control our building and ourselves in order to save and protect it. However, some people take this too far. I think that we should find a balance and focus on having an environment to enjoy for the future.
People are often responsible for the destruction of the environment. As the population grows, those people need places to live. Houses are built everywhere and anywhere. Excluding the land set aside as either national parks or nature reserve like places, houses can be built anywhere. In order to build houses, the land needs to be cleared, pipes need to be laid and wires need to be hung. All of this is done for just one house. Houses are very necessary and I am not suggesting that they are not. I am simply saying that people need to be aware of where they build their houses and maybe choose a location that is more environmentally friendly rather than a place with a view or a sprawling floor plan.
An aspect of life that people could live without is resorts. Resorts are built purely to make money off of the environment. They bring an enormous amount of people into the specific area but not without consequence. Ski resorts require hotels, ski lifts, ski slopes, lodges, and restaurants. Most ski resorts, that are successful at all, have multiple slopes and usually have multiple peaks allowing for lines to be short. This mentality is what makes it much more profitable for these resorts to cut down trees in order to build more slopes, lodges and lifts. Ski resorts are not the only resorts that ruin the environment to increase profit; beach resorts are just as bad. Often these resorts build their hotels right on the beach, which increases the speed at which the coastlines are eroding. Resorts are not necessary for people to enjoy the environment. Many people choose to hike up mountains and ski or snowboard on trails not at ski resorts. Just as many people search for unsettled beaches to enjoy their vacations instead of the large overcrowded resorts. These places tend to capitalize off people who want to take the easy way to enjoy an activity that did not start that way. Before skiing became popular, there were no ski resorts, no precut slopes with man-made snow, no lift to take the skier to the top, and definitely no over-priced coffee or tea to warm them up in between runs. People enjoyed these activities way before resorts were around and could still enjoy them if they were no more.
Some people take these views way too far. I believe that if humans keep encroaching on the environment at this present pace then in the near future, there will be almost no environment left. However, some environmental organizations take these views way to literally and go about trying to achieve change in all the wrong ways. One of these organizations is called the Earth Liberation Front, formally known as the Earth Liberation Force. It was founded to protect the environment, which seems like a good thing. However, the ELF tends to protect the environment through direct action using guerilla tactics, which often includes violence (Hanna). Members or the ELF or elves have been convicted and placed into prison over many of their illegal actions, their form of protest. In the late seventies, the founder of the first ELF was arrested after he placed seven incendiary devices on crop dusters (Hanna). John Hanna, the founder, spent many years in prison for his actions. In a recent interview he said, “Not if it manifests itself in violence. Civil disobedience can be militant in practice or perception. But violence is NEVER civil. Thoreau and Gandhi landed in jail but they never could have accomplished their goals had they resorted to violence. They maintained the high moral ground and inspired support. They showed they were better than their adversaries” (Hanna). Hanna actually disbanded the original ELF but recently in the 90s another environmental extremist group was created named ELF. They have the same motives as the original and even follow in its idea of direct action. They have burned luxury homes, used car lots, and resorts. Many of its members have also spent time in jail for their actions, just like Hanna. One of their most famous protests was in Vail, Colorado (Funk). The ELF targeted Vail because the resort was considering expansion. The expansion that Vail was planning encroached on the lynx habitat in the area. The ELF set off fire bombs that destroyed 12 million dollars worth of damages including the Two Elk Restaurant (Hanna). It was the worst eco-terrorist act in United States history (Hanna). Four people, members of ELF, were convicted for this protest. Outside Magazine wrote an article on one of the accused, Chelsea Gerlach. She was sentenced to nine years in federal prison in May 2007 for her actions. Outside wrote the piece after Gerlach was imprisoned. When asked if she felt that her actions were wrong she stated, “I don't regret doing what I felt was right. I don't regret trying to protect the environment. I had good intentions, and I don't regret that I dedicated so much of my life to this. Activism is motivated fundamentally by compassion and a desire for peace. It's a big step to use force, and it should be” (Funk, 9). As proven by Gerlach, some people just feel so strong that direct action is the only way they think change can occur. However, Hanna did feel that his actions were wrong and that there is a better way to go about it. The environment is a very important issue and should be protected; however these eco-terrorist groups, like the ELF, may take it too far.
I believe humans should limit the amount of development in order to help protect the environment. Houses, roads, resorts, etcetera should be limited in where they can be constructed. I have watched my own neighborhood go through changes over the past few years that strengthens my belief. I used to play outside in my backyard when I was younger. Trees used to line three sides of my house. Dense forest stretched way back and ended almost at the beach. Now behind my house there is a very thin line of trees that separates my house from the house behind me. A whole new development was built in a matter of a couple of years. Twelve to fourteen new houses were constructed and a lot of trees and plants were cut down in order to build them. My neighborhood is not the only place development has affected the environment. My family used to own a condo on Loon Mountain in New Hampshire. When we first went up there, the mountain was barely settled. There were about four ski slopes and a bunch of small trails for mountain biking and hiking. There were about ten condos along the bottom near the river. Now there are three peaks open with over 50 trails available for skiing. My family ended up selling our condo. By the time we did sell, there were condos lining both sides of the river as well as creeping up the side of the mountain with no trails on it. Loon has tripled in size and is still expanding. In order for this resort to expand, more of the natural environment will have to be destroyed, all in the name of money. I, myself, love to snowboard. I choose to board on either very small resorts or on mountains without resorts. I hate to think that I would be contributing funds to the people who are destroying the environment in order to exploit it for its monetary value. I have also observed human developing much deeper into nature than a ski resort or my town. While hiking on trails that were once secluded and isolated within the forest, I now see houses and telephone lines. On some trails there are even multiple hotels built on them for hikers to stay. Not just a simple hut with a roof and a bed but a fully functioning hotel. It is unbelievable because hiking is one of the most environmentally friendly sports; to hike one does not even need a cut trail. At this rate, it will be difficult to find a spot untouched by development. If this development were to be slowed or limited to certain areas then the environment would be protected from becoming diminished.
As hard as it is to say, I do see how groups like the ELF could become so angry about the total disregard that some people have for the environment. I see it happening around me and it is sad. I enjoy nature and want to for the rest of my life, yet with all of the development that is going on that might not be a possibility. From big ski resorts only getting larger and expanding to housing developments with hundreds of units being built everywhere, our environment is getting smaller and smaller. We need to protect the environment for it impacts many aspects of our lives. Without the environment, life would be very different.
.
Hanna, John. "ELF (Earth Liberation Force): the original." ELF (Earth Liberation Force). 2 Nov. 2008.
Kohler, Judith, and Dan Elliott. "4 Indicted for 1998 Vail Ski Resort Fires." Washinton Post. May 2006. 1 Nov. 2008.
People are often responsible for the destruction of the environment. As the population grows, those people need places to live. Houses are built everywhere and anywhere. Excluding the land set aside as either national parks or nature reserve like places, houses can be built anywhere. In order to build houses, the land needs to be cleared, pipes need to be laid and wires need to be hung. All of this is done for just one house. Houses are very necessary and I am not suggesting that they are not. I am simply saying that people need to be aware of where they build their houses and maybe choose a location that is more environmentally friendly rather than a place with a view or a sprawling floor plan.
An aspect of life that people could live without is resorts. Resorts are built purely to make money off of the environment. They bring an enormous amount of people into the specific area but not without consequence. Ski resorts require hotels, ski lifts, ski slopes, lodges, and restaurants. Most ski resorts, that are successful at all, have multiple slopes and usually have multiple peaks allowing for lines to be short. This mentality is what makes it much more profitable for these resorts to cut down trees in order to build more slopes, lodges and lifts. Ski resorts are not the only resorts that ruin the environment to increase profit; beach resorts are just as bad. Often these resorts build their hotels right on the beach, which increases the speed at which the coastlines are eroding. Resorts are not necessary for people to enjoy the environment. Many people choose to hike up mountains and ski or snowboard on trails not at ski resorts. Just as many people search for unsettled beaches to enjoy their vacations instead of the large overcrowded resorts. These places tend to capitalize off people who want to take the easy way to enjoy an activity that did not start that way. Before skiing became popular, there were no ski resorts, no precut slopes with man-made snow, no lift to take the skier to the top, and definitely no over-priced coffee or tea to warm them up in between runs. People enjoyed these activities way before resorts were around and could still enjoy them if they were no more.
Some people take these views way too far. I believe that if humans keep encroaching on the environment at this present pace then in the near future, there will be almost no environment left. However, some environmental organizations take these views way to literally and go about trying to achieve change in all the wrong ways. One of these organizations is called the Earth Liberation Front, formally known as the Earth Liberation Force. It was founded to protect the environment, which seems like a good thing. However, the ELF tends to protect the environment through direct action using guerilla tactics, which often includes violence (Hanna). Members or the ELF or elves have been convicted and placed into prison over many of their illegal actions, their form of protest. In the late seventies, the founder of the first ELF was arrested after he placed seven incendiary devices on crop dusters (Hanna). John Hanna, the founder, spent many years in prison for his actions. In a recent interview he said, “Not if it manifests itself in violence. Civil disobedience can be militant in practice or perception. But violence is NEVER civil. Thoreau and Gandhi landed in jail but they never could have accomplished their goals had they resorted to violence. They maintained the high moral ground and inspired support. They showed they were better than their adversaries” (Hanna). Hanna actually disbanded the original ELF but recently in the 90s another environmental extremist group was created named ELF. They have the same motives as the original and even follow in its idea of direct action. They have burned luxury homes, used car lots, and resorts. Many of its members have also spent time in jail for their actions, just like Hanna. One of their most famous protests was in Vail, Colorado (Funk). The ELF targeted Vail because the resort was considering expansion. The expansion that Vail was planning encroached on the lynx habitat in the area. The ELF set off fire bombs that destroyed 12 million dollars worth of damages including the Two Elk Restaurant (Hanna). It was the worst eco-terrorist act in United States history (Hanna). Four people, members of ELF, were convicted for this protest. Outside Magazine wrote an article on one of the accused, Chelsea Gerlach. She was sentenced to nine years in federal prison in May 2007 for her actions. Outside wrote the piece after Gerlach was imprisoned. When asked if she felt that her actions were wrong she stated, “I don't regret doing what I felt was right. I don't regret trying to protect the environment. I had good intentions, and I don't regret that I dedicated so much of my life to this. Activism is motivated fundamentally by compassion and a desire for peace. It's a big step to use force, and it should be” (Funk, 9). As proven by Gerlach, some people just feel so strong that direct action is the only way they think change can occur. However, Hanna did feel that his actions were wrong and that there is a better way to go about it. The environment is a very important issue and should be protected; however these eco-terrorist groups, like the ELF, may take it too far.
I believe humans should limit the amount of development in order to help protect the environment. Houses, roads, resorts, etcetera should be limited in where they can be constructed. I have watched my own neighborhood go through changes over the past few years that strengthens my belief. I used to play outside in my backyard when I was younger. Trees used to line three sides of my house. Dense forest stretched way back and ended almost at the beach. Now behind my house there is a very thin line of trees that separates my house from the house behind me. A whole new development was built in a matter of a couple of years. Twelve to fourteen new houses were constructed and a lot of trees and plants were cut down in order to build them. My neighborhood is not the only place development has affected the environment. My family used to own a condo on Loon Mountain in New Hampshire. When we first went up there, the mountain was barely settled. There were about four ski slopes and a bunch of small trails for mountain biking and hiking. There were about ten condos along the bottom near the river. Now there are three peaks open with over 50 trails available for skiing. My family ended up selling our condo. By the time we did sell, there were condos lining both sides of the river as well as creeping up the side of the mountain with no trails on it. Loon has tripled in size and is still expanding. In order for this resort to expand, more of the natural environment will have to be destroyed, all in the name of money. I, myself, love to snowboard. I choose to board on either very small resorts or on mountains without resorts. I hate to think that I would be contributing funds to the people who are destroying the environment in order to exploit it for its monetary value. I have also observed human developing much deeper into nature than a ski resort or my town. While hiking on trails that were once secluded and isolated within the forest, I now see houses and telephone lines. On some trails there are even multiple hotels built on them for hikers to stay. Not just a simple hut with a roof and a bed but a fully functioning hotel. It is unbelievable because hiking is one of the most environmentally friendly sports; to hike one does not even need a cut trail. At this rate, it will be difficult to find a spot untouched by development. If this development were to be slowed or limited to certain areas then the environment would be protected from becoming diminished.
As hard as it is to say, I do see how groups like the ELF could become so angry about the total disregard that some people have for the environment. I see it happening around me and it is sad. I enjoy nature and want to for the rest of my life, yet with all of the development that is going on that might not be a possibility. From big ski resorts only getting larger and expanding to housing developments with hundreds of units being built everywhere, our environment is getting smaller and smaller. We need to protect the environment for it impacts many aspects of our lives. Without the environment, life would be very different.
Works Cited
Funk, McKenzie. "Firestarter." Outside Magazine. Sept. 2007. 1 Nov. 2008 Hanna, John. "ELF (Earth Liberation Force): the original." ELF (Earth Liberation Force). 2 Nov. 2008
Kohler, Judith, and Dan Elliott. "4 Indicted for 1998 Vail Ski Resort Fires." Washinton Post. May 2006. 1 Nov. 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
