ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

All economic activities affect the environment in some way whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally. These could be positive or negative effects. Most of the time, they are negative. Most activities usually end up harming ecosystems or just polluting the environment. Economic activities can range from mining all the way to farming. This project will discuss different types of economic activities and how they effect the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF AGRICULTURE

Agriculture and the environment are intimately linked and much debate has taken place in recent years about the sustainability of some farming practices. Farming efficiencies, technological innovations and organic farming are all used to reduce the environmental impact of farming. There are numerous environmental issues with the various practices of agriculture.

Water pollution in a rural stream due to run-off from farming activity; in New Zealand.

Climate change
Climate change and agriculture are interrelated processes, both of which take place on a global scale. Global warming is projected to have significant impacts on conditions affecting agriculture, including temperature, precipitation and glacial run-off. These conditions determine the carrying capacity of the biosphere to produce enough food for the human population and domesticated animals. Rising carbon dioxide levels would also have effects, both detrimental and beneficial, on crop yields. The overall effect of climate change on agriculture will depend on the balance of these effects. Assessment of the effects of global climate changes on agriculture might help to properly anticipate and adapt farming to maximize agricultural production.At the same time, agriculture has been shown to produce significant effects on climate change, primarily through the production and release of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, but also by altering the Earth's land cover, which can change its ability to absorb or reflect heat and light, thus contributing to radiative forcing. Land use change such as deforestation and desertification, together with use of fossil fuels, are the major anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide; agriculture itself is the major contributor to increasing methane and nitrous oxide concentrations in earth's atmosphere.

Deforestation
One of the causes of deforestation is to clear land for pasture or crops. According to British environmentalist Norman Myers, 5% of deforestation is due to cattle ranching, 19% due to over-heavy logging, 22% due to the growing sector of palm oil plantations, and 54% due to slash-and-burn farming.

Intensive farming alters the environment in many ways. Some of the disadvantages of this method of farming include:

Limits or destroys the natural habitat of most wildlife, and leads to soil erosion Use of fertilizers can alter the biology of rivers and lakes. Pesticides generally kill useful insects as well as those that destroy crops Generally not sustainable - often results in desertification or, in a worst case scenario, land that is so poisonous and eroded that nothing else will grow Use of chemicals on fields creates run-off, excess runs off into rivers and lakes causing pollution Use of pesticides have numerous negative health effects in workers who apply them, people that live nearby the area of application or downstream/downwind from it, and consumers who eat the pesticides which remain on their food.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF OIL SHALE INDUSTRY

Kivili Oil Shale Processing & Chemicals Plant in ida-Virumaa, Estonia Environmental impact of the oil shale industry includes the consideration of issues such as land use, waste management, and water and air pollution caused by the extraction and processing of oil shale. Surface mining of oil shale deposits causes the usual environmental impacts of open-pit mining. In addition, the combustion and thermal processing generate waste material, which must be disposed of, and harmful atmospheric emissions, including carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. Experimental in-situ conversion processes and carbon capture and storage technologies may reduce some of these concerns in future, but may raise others, such as the pollution of groundwater.

Air pollution
Main air pollution is caused by the oil shale-fired power plants, which provide the atmospheric emissions of gaseous products like nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride, and the airborne particulate matter (fly ash). It includes particles of different types (carbonaceous, inorganic ones) and different sizes. The concentration of air pollutants in flue gas depends primarily on the combustion technology and burning regime, while the emissions of solid particles are determined by the efficiency of fly ashcapturing devices.

Greenhouse gas emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions from the production of shale oil and shale gas are higher than conventional oil production. Emissions arise from several sources. These include CO2 released by the decomposition of the kerogen and carbonate minerals in the extraction processwhich also releases some methanethe generation of the energy needed to heat the shale and in the other oil and gas processing operations, and the mining of the rock and the disposal of waste. As the varying mineral composition and calorific value of oil shale deposits varies widely, the actual values vary considerably. At best, the direct combustion of oil shales produces carbon emissions similar to those from the lowest form of coal, lignite, at 2.15 moles CO2/MJ, an energy source which is also politically contentious due to its high emission levels.

In-situ processing
Currently, the in-situ process is the most attractive proposition due to the reduction in standard surface environmental problems. However, in-situ processes do involve possible significant environmental costs to aquifers, especially since in-situ methods may require ice-capping or some other form of barrier to restrict the flow of the newly gained oil into the groundwater aquifers. However, after the removal of the freeze wall these methods can still cause groundwater contamination as the hydraulic conductivity of the remaining shale increases allowing groundwater to flow through and leach salts from the newly toxic aquifer.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF COAL

Effects of mining

Release of carbon dioxide and methane, both of which are greenhouse gases causing climate change and global warming . Coal is the largest contributor to the human-made increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Waste products including uranium, thorium, and other radioactive and heavy metal contaminants Acid rain Acid mine drainage (AMD) Interference with groundwater and water table levels Impact of water use on flows of rivers and consequential impact on other landuses

Coal mining causes a number of harmful effects. Effects on water

Flood events can cause severe damage to improperly constructed or located coal haul roads, housing, coal crushing and washing plant facilities, waste and coal storage piles, settling basin dams, surface water diversion structures, and the mine itself. Besides the danger to life and property, large amounts of sediment and poor quality water may have detrimental effects many miles downstream from a mine site after a flood. Overall, it will cause a lot of poulltion in our drinking water. Ground water supplies may be adversely affected by surface mining. These impacts include drainage of usable water from shallow aquifers; lowering of water levels in adjacent areas and changes in flow directions within aquifers; contamination of usable aquifers below mining operations due to infiltration or percolation of poor quality mine water; and increased infiltration of precipitation on spoil piles. Sulphuric acid is formed when minerals containing sulphide are oxidised through air contact, which could lead to acid rain. Leftover chemicals deposits from explosives are usually toxic and increase the salt quantity of mine water and even contaminating it.] Effects on wildlife Surface mining of coal causes direct and indirect damage to wildlife. The impact on wildlife stems primarily from disturbing, removing, and redistributing the land surface. Some impacts are short-term and confined to the mine site; others may have far reaching, long term effects. The most direct effect on wildlife is destruction or displacement of species in areas of excavation and spoil piling. Mobile wildlife species like game animals, birds, and predators leave these areas. More sedentary animals like invertebrates, many reptiles, burrowing rodents and small mammals may be directly destroyed. If streams, lakes, ponds or marshes are filled or drained, fish, aquatic invertebrates, and amphibians are destroyed. Food supplies for predators are reduced by destruction of these land and water species. Animal populations displaced or destroyed can eventually be replaced from populations in surrounding ranges, provided the habitat is eventually restored. An exception could be extinction of a resident endangered species. Broad and long lasting impacts on wildlife are caused by habitat impairment. The habitat requirements of many animal species do not permit them to adjust to changes created by land disturbance. These changes reduce living space. . Some species tolerate very little disturbance. In instances where a particularly critical habitat is restricted, such as a lake, pond, or primary breeding area, a species could be eliminated. The wide range of damage that could be done is severe.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF NUCLEAR POWER

Nuclear power activities involving the environment; mining, enrichment, generation and geological disposal. Nuclear power has an effect on the environment through the nuclear fuel cycle, through operation, and from the lingering effects of the Chernobyl disaster.

Environmental effects
Environmental damage was widespread immediately following the accident, stretching from fauna and vegetation to rivers and lakes and all the way down to the groundwater. The extent of the damage led scientists and government officials to the conclusion that the Chernobyl exclusion zone had been subjected to enough radioactive fallout to severely alter the ecological balance of the region for decades. This initial assessment could not be farther from the truth as wildlife abounds in even the most affected areas of Chernobyl no more than 20 years after the disaster.

The Red Forest

The Red Forest

The second major plume of radiation released by the Chernobyl nuclear accident was carried directly over what is now called the Red Forest. Radioactive particles settled on trees, killing approximately 400hectares of pine forest. The Red Forest is now one of the most contaminated terrestrial habitats on earth. The highly radioactive plume killed most of the Scotch Pines in the area, but Birch and Aspen are more radio-resistant. Now the pine trees are being replaced as the Red Forest recovers.

Groundwaters
The integrity of the groundwater is another area of concern following the accident. Initial contamination of the groundwater may have been introduced by method of disposal used for the Red Forest. Much of the Red Forest was bulldozed and buried in trenches. The trenches were then covered to form long bermes. As the trees decay radiation leaches into the groundwater. Additional contamination viapercolation of radioactive material through the soil is not expected due to many of the radionuclides being short-lived, while the longer-lived radiocesium and radiostrontium were adsorbed to surface soils before they could transfer to groundwaters.

Fauna and vegetation

The fallout from the explosion had obvious adverse effects on life in the exclusion zone and the four-kilometer red forest, but the current ecological stability seen in those same regions that experienced deadly doses of radioactivity in 1986 is an unexpected result. In the 20 years since the accident, the sum effect for the flora and fauna in the highly radioactive, restricted zone has been overwhelmingly positive in favor of biodiversity and abundance of individuals. For example, researchers have experienced numerous sightings of moose (Alces alces), roe deer (Capreol capreolus), Russian wild boar (Sus scrofa), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), river otter (Lutra canadensis), and rabbits (Lepus europaeus) within the 10-km exclusion zone; however, none of these taxa were observed outside the 30 km zone.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF MEAT PRODUCTION

The environmental effects of meat production include pollution and the use of resources such as fossil fuels, water, and land. This article discusses the environmental effects of livestock and poultry farming. According to a 2006 report by the Livestock, Environment And Development Initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. In 2006 FAO estimated that meat industry contributes 18% of all emissions of greenhouse gasses. This figure was challenged in 2009 by two World-Watch researchers who estimated a 51% minimum, however this paper has not been peer reviewed. Animals fed on grain need more water than grain crops. In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits for direct human consumption. Relatedly, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, species extinction, and other environmental harms.

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF WIND POWER

A wind turbine at Greenpark, Reading, England, producing electricity for around one thousand homes

A European Commission report has found wind to have the lowest external costs, comprising human health impacts, building and crop damage, global warming, loss of amenities and ecological impact, when compared to coal, oil, gas, biomass, nuclear, hydro and photovoltaic electricity generation. Energy derived from wind power consumes no fuel, and emits no air pollution. A study by Lenzen and Munksgaard of the University of Sydney and the Danish Institute for Local Governmental Studies finds that the energy consumed in manufacturing and transporting the materials used to build a wind power plant is paid back within months. There are reports of bird and bat mortality at wind turbines, as there are around other artificial structures. The scale of the ecological impact may or may not be significant, depending on the particular site. Prevention and mitigation of wildlife fatalities, and protection of peat bogs, affect the siting and operation of wind turbines. There are conflicting reports as to any health effects on people of sound or infrasound from wind turbines.