Tia Ghose

Scientists may have found the oldest evidence of life on Earth

CBS News
One Page
May 10, 2017

In Scientists may have found the oldest evidence of life on Earth Ghoses purpose was to shine light on
the fact that life on Earth could have originated far longer ago than originally predicted. In the new study,
Djokic and her colleagues looked at an 8.6-mile-long stretch of rocks in the Dresser Formation. These
reddish, pillowy volcanic rocks were laid down roughly 3.48 billion years ago and, aside from a bit of
weathering from age, remain virtually unchanged since then. Ghoses goal was to show that the new
samples may provide the oldest solid evidence of ancient life.

Three things I learned about were the use of hot springs to trace back the lineage of life on Earth, certain
regions contain sediment that that have been the same for billions of years, and that even if they happen
to find ancient rocks, they may be too damaged to use as data.. I learned about how around modern hot
springs, the only sticky substance with the right elastic properties to preserve such round bubbles is a
microbial, mucus-like substance known as extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), which bacteria use to
create biofilms.The new findings push back the fossil evidence of microbial life in hot springs by about 3
billion years. I also learned that the Pilbara region contains pillowy rocks that look essentially the same as
they did 3.48 billion years ago, making it much easier to make claims about the ancient environment. To
finish, I learned that though even older rocks in Quebec and others in Greenland may contain traces of
potential life, those rocks have been tilted, stretched, baked and changed in many ways since their
formation.

What regions are the best to find ancient rocks?

What does the future hold from the effects of damaged ancient sediment?

What is the best way to effectively get the public to learn about how ancient life on Earth really started?

How long have scientists been using this technique to date back the beginning of life ?

Should funding be increased for studies like this because they help overall life on Earth?

I think this information will be useful to my portfolio because it relates back to my overall topic of how we
must look back at what has happened to our earth so that we can help it in the future. This ties with my
deforestation and climate change topics because it deals with how trying to analyze nature is difficult as it
is being damaged.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oldest-evidence-of-life-on-earth-possibly-found-
australian-rocks/

Hiroko Tabuchi, Claire Rigby and Jeremy White

Amazon Deforestation, Once Tamed, Comes Roaring Back
New York Times
One Page
February 24, 2017

In Amazon Deforestation, Once Tamed, Comes Roaring Back Tabuchis purpose was to bring to light
how deforestation is on the rise again, even though it was tamed for a while. He uses a side by side
comparison of three photos (1984, 2000, 2016) to show the rapid increase of deforestation in the past 16
years. Tabuchis goal was to show what is in store for the future if the current damage increases. He does
this by talking about what would happen in 2030.

Three things I learned about were what will happen if the current ways of deforestation continue by 2030,
the trade of land by small settlements for the destruction of their forests, and the damage that has been
done to the amazon rain forest. I was surprised how much Cargill has affected our worlds forests because,
especially in the amazon, the are destroying big chunks and not following up on their 2020 deal (cutting
deforestation). I was also shocked to learn how much Cargill is damaging small settlements because they
are paying them off to ruin the settlements forests turning the area to an ugly mess and ruining our
environment. To finish with the damage Cargill has done, it makes me sad to see how destroyed the
amazon is because this company is greedy, many ecosystems have been ruined and screwed up the
biodiversity in brazil.

If this area has been in danger for many years, why continue to ruin it even if it means not building as
much?

What does the future hold from the effects of deforestation around the world and especially in the
amazon?

What is the best way to effectively get the public to change their ways and open their eyes to
deforestation?

Why do most companies continue their excessive deforestation even though they know the world is
changing for the worst?

Is there a way to continue deforestation but also helping the environment?

I think this information will be useful to my portfolio because we have been dealing with deforestation in
our class and it ties in with our climate change lesson and my other article because deforestation is a fairly
big part in climate change.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/business/energy-environment/deforestation-
brazil-bolivia-south-america.html

Hiroko Tabuchi
In Americas Heartland, Discussing Climate Change Without Saying Climate Change
New York Times
One Page
January 28, 2017

In In Americas Heartland, Discussing Climate Change Without Saying Climate Change Tabuchis
purpose was to show the public how farmers dont know that climate change is happening and the
struggles that come along with it. Tabuchi wants readers to understand that farmers are ignoring climate
change, they continue to work because they need food on the tables for their families. Tabuchi also uses
politicians and media outlets to show that it isnt just a selective community dealing with this situation.

Three things I learned about were how some who believe in climate change may not always have the
opportunity to speak their voice because higher politicians dont believe in it, how farmers are in denial,
and how farmers can switch to no-till farming can reduce carbon emissions by fifteen percent. It is
unjust, in cases like Annie Kuether, how she cannot speak her mind because the chairman doesn't believe
in climate change, this denial will only halt the conservation of our planet. I was shocked to learn how
most farmers dont believe in climate change because especially farmers with cattle are part of the
emissions problem. I was happy to learn that there are alternate farming techniques because for a long
time I thought that we could fix most of the problems with climate change expect that one.

How can we permanently change farming to where it is efficient for the farmers while heavily reducing
methane?

How can we get more politicians to speak out about climate change so that they dont feeling soloed out?

What is the best way to effectively get the public to change their ways and open their eyes to global
warming/climate change?

Why do most farmers continue their excessive methane emissions even though they know the world is
changing for the worst?

If no-till farming is unavailable to farmers, what is the next best was to reduce emissions?

I think this information will be useful to my portfolio because we have been dealing heavily with climate
change in our class and it ties in with other information I found for my project very well because it deals
with the situation in this article as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/business/energy-environment/navigating-climate-
change-in-americas-heartland.html?_r=0