# data[].attributes.body
I found this article to be very funny, not that it was intended to be, but the idea of it struck me because it's unlike anything I've heard. Proving corn for cattle is becoming an expensive thing to do, and sometimes, it's hard to even get one's hands on it. As a result, corn alternatives are in high demand right now. In this particular case, the cows ate the Skittles because they spilled out of a truck, in Wisconsin, not because they were being forced to eat them, but because they were the most available food source at the moment. The sheriff claimed that the candy was easy to identify because of its distinct smell. It is questionable if it is unhealthy for the cows to be eating the candy, and whether it could have an effect on them, negative or positive. However, using an alternative for corn, such as candy, could save farmers a good 10-15%, as well as aiding the environment by reducing the amount of waste from candy that eventually will end up in landfills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore National Geographic. A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration.

# data[].attributes.body
This article really relates to topics we have been discussing in class recently, soil, because it is about how climate change has has a huge impact on soil. When the natural state of soil is altered, its ability to effectively support healthy growth for farms or thriving ecosystems. After numerous studies, it became apparent that soil organic carbon was one of the main components of healthy soil, that is able to fulfill both of the above characteristics. While the results of the tests mostly varied, a majority of them showed that with increased climate change, there was a decrease in carbon levels in the soil. This is a worthwhile study because although we may not be able to fix the issue currently, having a good understanding of what's taking place physically and chemically in terms of the connection between climate change and carbon levels in the soil, allows us to to adapt and prepare for the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The hottest months. The snowiest winters. Catastrophic floods and droughts.

Climate change impacts lives across the world in drastic and unpredictable ways. This unpredictability also extends to the more subtle -- yet still important -- effects of climate change.

For example, it is uncertain how climate change will affect soils and their ability to support productive farms or healthy natural ecosystems.

In a new study, researchers used digital techniques to predict how one vital soil characteristic, soil organic carbon, may be altered by climate change.

"Soil organic carbon is a major determinant of soil health," says Jonathan Gray, lead author of the study. "It influences many chemical, physical, and biological properties of the soil, such as fertility and water holding capacity." Gray is a senior scientist at New South Wales Office of Environment & Heritage in Australia and also undertaking doctoral studies at the University of Sydney.

The researchers used 12 climate change models to predict how soil organic carbon levels vary with climate change. The models used in the study reflected a full range of projected global climate outcomes. They were also applicable to the specific study region of New South Wales in southeast Australia.

Results were varied. "A majority of models showed a decline in soil organic carbon with climate change," states Gray. "But a few of the models actually predicted an increase."

Why the different predictions? Gray attributes it to uncertainties within the climate change models. "We need more consistency between climate change projections before we can confidently predict how soil organic carbon levels will behave," he says.

The researchers also discovered that the extent to which soil organic carbon changes varied across soil types, current climate, and land use regimes. For example, the projected average decline of soil organic carbon was less than one ton per hectare for sandy, low-fertility soils in dry conditions under cropping regimes. It was 15 times as much for clay-rich, fertile soils in wet conditions under native vegetation regimes.

"This knowledge can help us to better understand and predict where the greatest potential losses or gains in soil carbon may occur," says Gray.

Predicting soil organic carbon changes is vital. "It would allow us to better prepare for and adapt to altered soil conditions," he says. "That would ultimately improve how we manage both agricultural and native ecosystems."

Gray and his colleagues combined different digital methods to achieve very high resolution mapping. Instead of the typical 10 km resolution, the team achieved resolution of 100 meters. This allowed the researchers to link soil organic carbon changes with specific soil types or land use patterns.

"Our model offered a more conceptually simple, but still robust, alternative to the more complex dynamic modelling approaches that are usually used," explains Gray. While this study focused on New South Wales, Gray thinks the findings will apply to areas beyond the study site as well. "The actual map of expected soil organic carbon change is of most relevance to New South Wales," he says. "But the key findings of the study are globally applicable."

Gray is now trying to predict how other key soil properties, such as nutrients and acidity, will be affected by projected climate change. "These variables will also impact our agricultural and native ecosystems," Gray says.

Understanding how climate change affects soil properties may actually yield more accurate climate change models as well. "Being able to predict the potential of soils to store carbon or release it into the atmosphere will be crucial for future climate change modelling and mitigation strategies," says Gray.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
global warming; climate; environmental awareness; environmental issues; landslides; environmental policy; weather; geochemistry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The hottest months. The snowiest winters. Catastrophic floods and droughts. Climate change impacts lives across the world in drastic and unpredictable ways. This unpredictability also extends to the more subtle -- yet still important -- effects of climate change.

# data[].attributes.body
While standing up the protection and proper treatment of the environment is a good cause that will benefit our planet in the long run, it is apparently proving to be a very dangerous activity to be partaking in, with a record number of murders of environmental activists in the past few years. "At least 185 environmentalists in 16 different countries are known to have been murdered, according to the group- a rate of more than three a week". This big number is largely a result of indigenous groups resisting the development of their land, which in most cases, is done to obtain a resource found on that land that is deemed to be valuable. Global Witness have made recommendations on how to stop such things from happening, including increased government, "greater scrutiny in international trade agreements", and having the UN Human Civil Rights Council intervene.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Environmentalism has never been more dangerous. According to findings published Monday by the NGO Global Witness, 2015 marked the bloodiest year on record for environmental activists and land defenders. At least 185 environmentalists in 16 different countries are known to have been murdered, according to the group-a rate of more than three a week.

The figure represents a 60 percent increase over 2014's death toll. And those are just the murders we know about. Global Witness says that number may actually be a significant underestimate. The true number could be "far higher," since many such killings happen deep within rainforests or in remote villages and are difficult to document.

Latin America and Southeast Asia suffered the brunt of the slayings, with Brazil (50), the Philippines (33), and Colombia (26) sustaining the greatest losses.

Nearly 40 percent of those killed came from indigenous communities, according to the report. Groups that attempt to resist development and land expropriation in resource-rich areas are particularly vulnerable. In the Mindanao region of the Philippines, a largely indigenous region flush with coal, nickel, and gold, 25 activists were murdered in 2015. The violence carries global implications-according to the IBON Foundation, foreign industries control 97 percent of all mineral production in the Philippines.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, few of these murders are ever prosecuted in court, or even investigated. According to the report, "Many authorities either turn a blind eye or actively impede investigations into these killings due to the collusion between corporate and state interests-the principal suspects in these murders." Based on available data, Global Witness determined that killings were almost equally likely to occur at the hands of paramilitary, army, police, and private security. Felipe Milanez, former deputy editor of National Geographic Brazil, told the that "killing has become politically acceptable to achieve economic goals" and that he had "never seen, working for the past 10 years in the Amazon, a situation so bad."

Slumping global commodities indices may give one partial explanation. The report cites economist Ademar Ramos of the State University of Campinas in Brazil, who argues that plummeting commodity prices and access to cheap oil have actually led to companies expanding their extractive practices and taking on greater risks in order to recoup lost profits. Coupled with an eroding regulatory climate in places such as Peru and Brazil, business interests have run roughshod over preexisting land tenure practices and in some case have targeted dissenters.

Mining, agribusiness, logging, and water rights were the four industrial sectors mostly explicitly implicated in this wave of violence. Mining-for tin, coal, copper, silver, and gold-was linked to 42 murders. Agribusiness was linked to 20 known murders. Expanded logging activity was linked to 15 killings. And hydroelectric dam initiatives in Central America were linked to another 15-not including the high-profile assassination of indigenous Honduran activist Berta Cáceres, a Goldman Environmental Prize winner and dam opponent who was shot in her home in March 2016.

Global Witness presented a number of recommendations, encouraging UN Human Rights Council intervention, increased government enforcement, and greater scrutiny in international trade agreements. The group called for urgent intervention, warning that population and economic growth coupled with rising global temperatures would serve to exacerbate this troubling trend in the years to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
At least 185 environmental activists were murdered last year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Environmentalism has never been more dangerous. According to findings published Monday by the NGO Global Witness, 2015 marked the bloodiest year on record for environmental activists and land defenders.

# data[].attributes.body
This article and the terrible headline are a result of the carelessness of the crew that was working on the project. Before beginning their work in the Gold King mine, failed to test the pressure buildup, a routine process, and put the lives of the workers in serious jeopardy. One complaint was that additional testing or using a different method would have cost much more money to complete. This method that is discussed and used to test the pressure consists of "drilling a hole into the area from above".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An internal review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's actions found that the agency failed to estimate the potential volume of toxic wastewater stored in the abandoned Gold King mine before beginning the work that eventually led to a 3 million gallon spill earlier this month. In a report released Wednesday, the EPA's review team (made up of EPA personnel from across the agency) writes that the agency failed to test for pressure buildup at the mine and narrowly avoided the death of crew members during the event.

In addition, the review team was unable to find any existing guidelines or procedures for assessing highly pressurized buildup of waste inside mines such as Gold King.

The EPA's original work plan for Gold King mine noted that it was possible the mine wastewater might be highly pressurized. The work plan warned, "Conditions may exist that could result in a blowout of the blockages and cause a release of large volumes of contaminated mine waters and sediment from inside the mine, which contain concentrated heavy metals."

Yet "experienced professionals" from the EPA and the Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety determined that there would be "no or low" pressurization inside the adit section of Gold King mine-a passage that leads into the mine for "purposes of access or drainage," according to the EPA-based in part on the fact that this part of the mine was already steadily leaking liquid, reducing the possibility of buildup of pressure.

But despite evidence to the contrary, "there was, in fact, sufficiently high pressure to cause the blowout," the report reads. Underestimating buildup of pressure in the adit was a critical misstep and "the most significant factor relating to the blowout."

Had EPA workers used a technique to measure pressurization, as they did at other, abandoned hard-rock mines nearby, they would have known about the pressure buildup at Gold King, the report notes. But the testing technique, which involves drilling a hole into the area from above, "would have been quite costly and require much more planning and multiple field seasons to accomplish."

"Site specific conditions may make certain investigative tools prohibitive or extremely challenging and costly," the EPA writes, though it does not explicitly point out whether high cost was the reason the agency chose not to drill-test Gold King mine.

In addition to underestimating water pressure at Gold King, the EPA failed to evaluate the volume of water stored within the mine, the report notes. "It is not evident that the potential volume of water stored within the Adit had been estimated," the report reads. "Given the maps and information known about this mine, a worst case scenario estimate could have been calculated and used for planning purposes."

Still, given a review of the available information and interviews with crew members involved in the blowout, the report finds that the EPA spill was "likely inevitable."

"It's important to recognize that underground mines may be extremely complex, making characterization of the internal hydraulic conditions and flow paths challenging," the report says. "In the end, while additional information gathering may reduce the uncertainty, a complete understanding of the underground conditions may not be attainable."

And on the positive side, "actions taken by the EPA OSC [on-scene coordinators] to pull out the site personnel and crew from and near the Adit, just prior to the blowout, probably avoided any fatalities from the pressurized Adit blowout."

The U.S. Department of the Interior is in the process of conducting its own, separate investigation into the spill. Results of that inquiry are expected to be released to the public within two months.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EPA Narrowly Avoided Fatalities in Gold King Mine Spill Blowout, Internal Review Finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An internal review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's actions found that the agency failed to estimate the potential volume of toxic wastewater stored in the abandoned Gold King mine before beginning the work that eventually led to a 3 million gallon spill earlier this month.

# data[].attributes.body
While the issue of climate change and whether it's real or not has become a big topic the past several years, we have apparently now almost reached dangerous levels of global warming. At the rate we are at, and the temperatures that we are reaching, scientists believe that within the next century, the Earth will be uninhabitable. All of the world's ice could be melted at the temperate of four degrees Celsius. Without learning to reduce our emissions, our planet, as well as our race, are both in trouble. Along with the loss of ice caps and the flooding of land, to the point of complete disappearances, freshwater sources would become contaminated with saltwater, and sea levels would rise 65 meters, if the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were to melt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We are now officially in arm's reach of "dangerous" levels of global warming.

United Nations negotiators are meeting this week in Peru to forge a much-anticipated draft agreement to curb global climate change. They're brimming with optimism after the recent climate agreement between the U.S. and China, which had eluded negotiators for years.

But amid the hope is a much darker reality: Years of stalled talks and baby steps toward action have all but ensured that we will pass the previous do-not-pass benchmark of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by 2100. Now, The New York Times reports, the negotiators' objective is to stave off atmospheric warming of 4 to 10 degrees Fareinheit, or roughly 2.2 to 5.6 degrees Celsius, by the end of the century, at which point, experts say, Earth may "become increasingly uninhabitable."

Scientists say moving into that range of warming would result in a significantly different world. For example, four degrees Celsius of warming is enough to melt most or all of the world's ice. As climatologist and former NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies chief James Hansen put it in a paper published in the journal Nature last year:

"Four degrees of warming would be enough to melt all the ice.... You would have a tremendously chaotic situation as you moved away from our current climate towards another one. That's a different planet. You wouldn't recognise it.... We are on the verge of creating climate chaos if we don't begin to reduce emissions rapidly."

Steven Sherwood, a professor at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, and author of another study looking at the implications of four-degree warming, came to a similar conclusion.

"4C would likely be catastrophic rather than simply dangerous," Sherwood told The Guardian. "For example, it would make life difficult, if not impossible, in much of the tropics, and would guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet and some of the Antarctic ice sheet."

The volume of water in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets alone would raise sea levels by 65 meters, or roughly 213 feet, if released. For comparison, the Statue of Liberty is 150 feet tall. Coastal regions and island nations would all but disappear. Long before then, freshwater sources would become inundated by saltwater.

The U.N. released a report in November that concluded 2 degrees of warming could be avoided only if global emissions peak within the next 10 years and then plummet sharply, going down by half by 2050. A deal of that magnitude is not even on the table. In fact, the agreement being drafted in Lima this week will not be enacted until 2020.

Meanwhile, officials at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that 2014 will likely be the warmest year on record. Welcome to a very different type of climate discussion.
Correction: This article has been updated to reflect the fact that the 4-10 degree warming range cited by the New York Times was in Fahrenheit, not Celsius.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
At Lima Climate Talks, 2-Degree Warming Limit Is a Thing of the Past

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are now officially in arm's reach of "dangerous" levels of global warming. United Nations negotiators are meeting this week in Peru to forge a much-anticipated draft agreement to curb global climate change. They're brimming with optimism after the recent climate agreement between the U.S. and China, which had eluded negotiators for years.

# data[].attributes.body
This article reminded me of the project that we did in groups in class, along with the debate that we had in regards to the black rhino, and the hunting of it, discussing whether or not we believed that it was okay to do so. If there wasn't controversy about hunting before, there certainly was, following the unfortunate death of the beloved, Cecil the lion, of Zimbabwe. Although people would like to ban hunting and poaching completely, by doing so, some helpful methods of environmental conservation would be lost. The article goes on to discuss some of the benefits that hunting provides for conservation. Some of these positive aspects including reducing the pressures of converting the being hunted on from its natural state to a cattle ranch or agricultural cultivation, the ability to put stakes and money into the species to preserve them by deriving monetary value from them, and that the money raised from trophy hunting could be distributed among park rangers in order to effectively combat poaching. However, there are cons, including, handing out hunting licenses for endangered species, the question if whether or not the money raised from trophy hunting actually goes back into the parks and wildlife, and into preserving them, and finally, hunters will fail to see the animals as living things and kill as many as they want, under the protection of their hunting license, would could prove to be harmful to the species.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On July 29, Global Tiger Day, to mark an iconic keystone species on the verge of extinction, the media and public were mesmerized by the killing of Zimbabwe's beloved lion Cecil.

Collared for an Oxford University research project and a major tourist attraction, Cecil was killed by a Minnesota dentist, Dr. Walter Palmer, who paid $54,000 for the hunting license. The license turned out to be fake: It is never legal to hunt a collared lion. And worse yet, the lion had been illegally lured out of its protected reserve for the hunt.

Palmer claims he is a responsible hunter and was not aware of those violations, for which his Zimbabwean guides have previously been charged in the Zimbabwean court with violating. However, he already has a felony charge for illegally hunting a black bear outside of a permitted area in the United States in 2006.

The outpouring of emotions that has surrounded Cecil's death will hopefully catalyze a strong international determination and policies to combat the escalating poaching around the world.

Wildlife conservation will not necessarily be enhanced, however, by total bans on hunting. While reducing poaching as much as possible needs to be the objective, legal hunting can enhance environmental conservation and even reduce poaching and sometimes is crucial for accomplishing those objectives.

So, moving beyond the emotional reactions to the killing of Cecil, what are the pros and cons of trophy hunting for conservation?
The conservation benefits of allowing trophy hunting
Allowing some level of hunting can, in theory, give hunters, ranchers and other people close to the wild resource a stake in preserving the species and the entire ecosystem and managing it sustainably. Managed hunting could reduce the pressure on land being converted from its natural state to cattle ranching or agricultural cultivation-a driver of some of the greatest environmental destruction around the world.

Often competition for land between landowners and rural populations on the one hand, and wildlife on the other, puts wildlife at great risk, as landowners and rural populations see wildlife as pests and so kill them. Without being able to derive monetary value from wildlife, landowners and local populations may have no stake in any conservation of the species or preservation of the ecosystem.

If bans and other restrictions on land use and requirements for conservation impose significant costs on local owners, they may even want to extirpate the species from their lands to avoid such conservation costs. In the United States, the case of the black-footed ferret is an example.

In theory, managed hunting, such as trophy hunting, however, puts money in the pockets of landowners legally, perhaps even raising the standard of living of close-by rural populations. Thus, the frequent argument for encouraging the consumption of wild meat or wild plants and for allowing trophy hunting of big animals on private properties in Africa is that this motivates landowners to preserve the ecosystem, instead of burning down the bush for cattle, African oil palm, or other agriculture.

For a while in South Africa, where the controlled hunting of the white rhinoceros on private reserves is permitted, the species increased spectacularly. But the positive results of that regime have withered in recent years due to a dramatic escalation of poaching, which has gutted the gains of well-managed licensed hunting.

In an optimal scenario, money raised from trophy hunting would be channeled to underpaid and under-equipped rangers so as to increase their capacity and will to combat poaching.
The costs and difficulties of regulating hunting
But many of these presumed positive outcomes often do not materialize, or at least do not fully materialize.

The first issue is whether legal licenses and hunting quotas are handed out wisely and sustainably. A hunting license may be legal and still have disastrous effects on the environment.

Just as in any industry-with fishing being perhaps the most emblematic example-lobby groups often pressure governments and international organizations to issue unsustainably high numbers of permits, driving species after species to near collapse. Often, only when a species is close to extirpation and placed on the endangered list, will hunting be disallowed.

Thus, industry after industry, which presumably has an interest in good management and sustainability, including in trophy hunting, instead eats its own tail and destroys the species. In general, hunting licenses should not be handed out for endangered species and highly restricted for top predators and keystone species on which the health of the ecosystem depends.

From an environmental perspective, issuing a hunting license for a zebra or an antelope is much less risky than for a lion or rhino. That said, exceptions could be made: A sick or an old lion that will no longer breed, for example, would be much more appropriate to issue a hunting license for than a young breeding animal.

Trophy hunting can also encourage breeding programs for animals. In parts of Africa, that's the case even with lions. Sometimes they are bred in rather deplorable conditions in order to keep numbers high enough for a lot of hunting licenses: Their fate is sad for sure.

Whether or not such breeding benefits the environment depends on whether wild populations are thriving or being poached even as the breeding programs mass produce animals for legal hunting and whether the rest of the ecosystem is being preserved or logged or grazed down.

The second crucial but problematic issue is to whom does the money from trophy hunting go: Is it actually spent on the national park and reserve? Does it get into the hands of poor local rural populations? Or is it stolen by government and park officials or captured by a few landowners without being actually invested in conservation? Corruption and governance matter hugely.

Corruption is also crucial in the issuing of licenses. If licenses are systematically faked, issued for bribes in excess of quotas, or never checked, the presumed conservation benefits of legal trophy hunting can be nil despite the hefty fee (tens of thousands of dollars) a license could cost a hunter.

Moreover, as with all circumstances where legal trade coincides with an illegal one, licensing complicates law enforcement. It is not easy or straightforward for enforcement to ensure that a legally certified scheme does not serve to launder illegally hunted animals with a fake license or even without one.

Just as with total bans on legal trade in wildlife, effective law enforcement is extraordinarily resource-intensive and easily overwhelmed. New technologies, such as DNA testing or microchips for animals in the wild, both of which are being implemented for some species, can reduce law enforcement challenges to some extent, but they are unlikely to eliminate them.

Moreover, the tracing often takes place only post facto, once the animal is dead. In addition, for DNA testing to be effective beyond random catches, and to have a large deterrent effect, the database of known genetic samples needs to be enormous, detailed and complete, since DNA will vary for each specimen. Testing also needs to take place any time the product changes hands.

Finally, permitted trophy hunting may overall encourage demand for such trophies beyond sustainable culling. If licensed hunting is extensively pervaded by illegally obtained licenses, the licensing may serve only to whitewash consumers' consciousness.

Instead of feeling any guilt at all and moderating their demand, consumers may in fact increase their consumption of the supposedly harmlessly obtained product, such as a hunting trophy, and the impact on wildlife may be even worse than if the trade were fully illegal, making it unambiguously clear to hunters and other consumers that they acted illegally and had negatively affected the species and the environment.
And the answer is: Policy specificity and governance
The uneasy bottom line is that there is no one answer, and there should not be one uniform policy as to whether to allow the continued hunting of lions and other trophy hunting, or banning the practice. Policy specificity is key: What needs to be taken into account in deciding whether to permit hunting are the conditions of the species and ecosystem in a particular place; their reproductive requirements; law enforcement capacities to enforce compliance with licenses, or conversely with a total ban; and the likelihood that the money obtained from the license will actually end up in conservation and support better environmental conservation or be stolen by a few.

Along with the species' biological requirements, conservation success comes down-once again-to effective, enlightened, equitable governance and rooting out corruption.
Vanda Felbab-Brown is senior fellow, foreign policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution. This article first appeared on the Brookings site . For further readings on wildlife conservation, check out Vanda Felbab-Brown's pieces "The Disappearing Act: The Illicit Trade in Wildlife in Asia," "Indonesia Field Report IV: The Last Twitch? Wildlife Trafficking, Illegal Fishing, and Lessons from Anti-Piracy Efforts," and "Terrorism, wildlife trafficking, and Obama's Africa trip."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beyond the Sad Death of Cecil the Lion: Why Trophy Hunting Can Be Good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On July 29, Global Tiger Day, to mark an iconic keystone species on the verge of extinction, the media and public were mesmerized by the killing of Zimbabwe's beloved lion Cecil. Collared for an Oxford University research project and a major tourist attraction, Cecil was killed by a Minnesota dentist, Dr. Walter Palmer, who paid $54,000 for the hunting license.