Scientific journal
Resource journal 5/16/17
Whaling article # 1 By: Kaiya Lane
What is whaling ? Whaling is the hunting of whales for their usable products like meat, oil and blubber. Why is whaling wrong ? You have to kill the whale. Whales live to be about 200 years old and are slow to reproduce. In the 2000 centuretry alone whalers have killed an estimated 3 million whales. That is not okay.
How can an average person like me help the whales ?
The following 3 things are things you can do to help stop whaling says http://us.whales.org/stop-whaling also you can go to this site for more information on how to help stop whaling
- Say No! To the Eu-Japan free trade agreement untill whailing is done with.
- If you go to greenland don’t it whale meat. Why because When you do that you are encoruaging the whaler to go out and kill more whale witch we don’t what that to happen. # This are just guesses by regual people .
Jon Mixion says
Any current prey of whales (in the case of sperm whales, giant squid) would flourish as their major antagonist would be removed from the food chain.
- Another species (likely the larger sharks) would become the "new whales" and would adapt themselves to the niche currently occupied by whales.
- Ecosystems which depended upon the existence of whales for their own survival would either have to adapt to the "new whales" or would face extinction.
- Potentially another mammal or perhaps another species would eventually evolve to "fit" into the niche formerly occupied by whales.
Sheldon Fernandes Says
Whales are the apex predators of the marine environment along with sharks and a few other species, so if they were to die out, the next species on the food chain would flourish. Unfortunately, this means that that (or those) species' populations would undergo dramatic rises, and would lead to the decimation of the species in the lower part of the food chain. Eventually, it would just be a domino effect of many ocean species disappearing (or their populations thinning out to near-unsustainable or unsustainable levels), leading to environmental devastation.
Joseph Dedrick, defender of the environment says
Sharks would be able to take over some of their role as long as we don't kill the sharks off also because many of them have similar roles to whales they just have their roles in the warmer waters(tropics and temperate with few exceptions) rather the the colder water (artic and temperate) that most whales tend to live in. Also their will be an increase I. Giant squid population because their will be no more sperm whales to eat them. This role takeover would take a longtime though so the world would be feeling the effects for at minimum a long period of years such as a century for my estimate(if all killing of sharks stopped).
3) Visting Iceland any time soon ? If you are help http://us.whales.org/stop-whaling keep whales off the menu. Almost all the meat from minke whales slaughtered in Icelandic waters is eaten by visitors to the country under the mistaken belief that this is somehow a 'traditional' dish. In fact most Icelanders never eat whale meat and tourist demand just encourages further cruel hunts. Staggering isn’t it? As part of our anti-whaling campaign, WDC encourages visitors to Iceland to avoid restaurants that serve whale meat and to take a whale watch trip instead to meet these amazing whales in the wild.
Commercail whailing
What is commercial Whaling ? Commercial Whaling Today. Norway and Iceland take whales commercially at present, either under objection to the moratorium decision, or under reservation to it. These countries establish their own catch limits but must provide information on their catches and associated scientific data to the Commission.
Here are 5 cool facts I found on the topic at http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/alarming-facts-about-whaling/
Whaling is a brutal and bloody business, and although there has been strong opposition to it from millions of people around the world, Japan, Norway, and Iceland continue to hunt and kill these beautiful creatures by the boat load.
In 1986, a Moratorium on Commercial Whaling was brought into effect by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), but this was not enough to stop the cruel practice. Usingloopholes in the regulations, countries have continued whaling under the provision of scientific research. However, this is just a legal way for them to carry on hunting whales which will ultimately be destined to end up in food markets and restaurants. Japan alone has killed more than 8,000 whales under the guise of scientific research since the Moratorium began in 1986.
Here are five alarming facts that highlight the plight of the whales and the fight that we’re up against if we want to save them:
1. 16,000 whales have been murdered every year for 83 consecutive years.
Whaling has been around for centuries, but due to a rapid increase in demand for whale meat in certain countries, whaling practices went into overdrive at the turn of the last century. From 1904 to 1987, an estimated 1,339,232 whales were killed by commercial whaling fleets in the Antarctic alone. That’s a heart wrenching 16,000 whales murdered year after year for the best part of a century.
2. 40 years after Antarctic whaling was banned, Blue Whale numbers remain critically low.
In the Antarctic, hunting for Blue Whales was banned in 1964. The original numbers for the Blue Whale in that region were around 20,000, but by the time the ban was brought into place, this population had dropped significantly. Today’s estimates only state around 2,000 Blue Whales, showing that even 40 years after the hunting was banned, they have struggled to repopulate. Worldwide numbers of Blue Whales have reduced from 220,000 to as little as 3,000. This highlights the long term effects of hunting on the ocean’s ecosystems.
3. Since 1986, over 25,000 whales have been murdered legally for “scientific research.”
A ban on commercial hunting of whales has not put a stop to the practice altogether as Japan have been able to conduct “commercial whaling in disguise” due to a loophole regarding scientific research. They assign themselves a permit to conduct scientific research on these magnificent ocean creatures, and killing is in the remit of the study.
4. Despite citing “scientific research” as a Reason for Capture, no data is ever published by reputable scientific journals.
You would imagine that there would be strict laws about the grounds for scientific research which allows “scientists” to capture and kill wild animals. However, after more than 25 years of this practice, almost no significant data has ever been published by a reputable scientific journal. Many of the Japanese “research” objectives are flawed or are based on incorrect scientific assumptions. In most cases, the information they claim to be collecting would be much more efficiently rounded up from non-lethal methods such as tagging, photo ID, and DNA profiling – certainly not death.
5. Money speaks louder than lives.
The sad truth of the matter is that despite the overwhelming majority of people on this planet being opposed to Japan and Norway’s whaling practices, those in power look at the financial rewards and trade benefits that come from supporting Japan in the IWC vote. It seems that the life of a whale in the Antarctic or North Pacific is of little consequence to those looking out for the financial interests of their people in other parts of the world, and year after year, bribery claims have been at the center of much controversy at the IWC meetings as countries pledge support for Japan despite the mountain of evidence showing the damage it causes and the lack of benefit that the “scientific research” is having. Another Fact is that it is illegal in most places to commercial whale.
Biobliography http://us.whales.org/campaigns/visiting-iceland-help-us-keep-whales-off-dinner-menu
http://us.whales.org/wdc-in-action/stop-whaling-0
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-there-were-no-whales
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/alarming-facts-about-whaling/
Research journal 5/17/17
Eco-tourism Article # 2 By : Kaiya Lane
What is ecotourism ? Should i be concerned about it ? With advances in transportation and information technology, even the most remote places on Earth are within reach of the traveler. In fact, tourism is now the world's largest industry, with nature tourism the fastest growing segment.
People want to experience nature and the world, but should try to do so in a way that doesn't impact the natural environment.
In response to this increasing appreciation of nature experiences, a new travel ethic has arisen called ecotourism. Says https://www.nature.org/greenliving/what-is-ecotourism.xml
Facts about ecotourism that you should know.
Ecotourism, short for ecological tourism, refers to outdoor recreation, sightseeing, and guided natural history studies in remote or fragile natural areas, or archeological and cultural sites. It was created in its current form in the 1980s but became first well known when the United Nations declared the year 2002 to be the International Year of Ecotourism. Ecotourism usually involves travel, by people called ecotourists, to engage in activities such as trekking and hiking, diving, mountaineering, biking, and paddling, while exploring a region’s natural highlights, observing native animals, and learning about the area’s natural history. Ecotourists may also visit local cultural and historical sites, and even participate in cultural activities. Many ecotours employ native guides and interpreters who can help visitors fully appreciate the natural and cultural significance of their experience.
What are the pro’s and cons of ecotourism? Cause it can’t be all bad can it ?
Economic Effects -- Positive
Tourism creates jobs, both through direct employment within the tourism industry and indirectly in sectors such as retail and transportation. When these people spend their wages on goods and services, it leads to what is known as the "multiplier effect," creating more jobs. The tourism industry also provides opportunities for small-scale business enterprises, which is especially important in rural communities, and generates extra tax revenues, such as airport and hotel taxes, which can be used for schools, housing and hospitals.
Economic Effects -- Negative
Successful tourism relies on establishing a basic infrastructure, such as roads, visitor centers and hotels. The cost of this usually falls on the government, so it has to come out of tax revenues. Jobs created by tourism are often seasonal and poorly paid, yet tourism can push up local property prices and the cost of goods and services. Money generated by tourism does not always benefit the local community, as some of it leaks out to huge international companies, such as hotel chains. Destinations dependent on tourism can be adversely affected by events such as terrorism, natural disasters and economic recession.
Social Effects -- Positive
The improvements to infrastructure and new leisure amenities that result from tourism also benefit the local community. Tourism encourages the preservation of traditional customs, handicrafts and festivals that might otherwise have been allowed to wane, and it creates civic pride. Interchanges between hosts and guests create a better cultural understanding and can also help raise global awareness of issues such as poverty and human rights abuses.
Social Effects -- Negative
Visitor behavior can have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of the host community. For example, crowding and congestion, drugs and alcohol problems, prostitution and increased crime levels can occur. Tourism can even infringe on human rights, with locals being displaced from their land to make way for new hotels or barred from beaches. Interaction with tourists can also lead to an erosion of traditional cultures and values.
Environmental Effects -- Positive
Tourism -- particularly nature and ecotourism -- helps promote conservation of wildlife and natural resources such as rain forests, as these are now regarded as tourism assets. It also helps generate funding for maintaining animal preserves and marine parks through entrance charges and guide fees. By creating alternative sources of employment, tourism reduces problems such as over-fishing and deforestation in developing nations.
Environmental Effects -- Negative
Tourism poses a threat to a region's natural and cultural resources, such as water supply, beaches, coral reefs and heritage sites, through overuse. It also causes increased pollution through traffic emissions, littering, increased sewage production and noise.
What If There Were No Tourists?
Have you ever considered what the Grand Strand would be like if there were no tourists? If those 17.95 million visitors went somewhere else, how would our community feel and function? For most of us, it’s tempting to joyfully ponder the benefits of fewer tourists while we sit in traffic on Highway 501 or wait in line at our favorite restaurant. But consider our community without tourists?
Removing a $7 billion industry would change our area in many ways. To get a sense of what that would be like, we could draw comparisons to nearby communities, such as Dillon, Marion or Marlboro counties. Or we could draw comparisons to similarly-sized communities, like Aiken, York or Anderson counties. What types of jobs would be here? How well would our school district perform? How many residents would live here? Would we have a technical college and a university? How many restaurants, golf courses, live theatres and shopping malls would we have?
Sources
https://www.nature.org/greenliving/what-is-ecotourism.xml
http://traveltips.usatoday.com/positive-negative-effects-tourism-63336.html
Resource journal 5/16/17
Land degradation article # 3 By: Kaiya Lane
What is land degradation ?Land degradation is a process in which the value of the biophysical environment is affected by a combination of human-induced processes acting upon the land. It is viewed as any change or disturbance to the land perceived to be deleterious or undesirable.
Is Land degradation a problem ?
The problem of land degradation
PRESSURES ON THE REGION'S AGRICULTURAL LAND ARE LEADING TO EXTENSIVE LAND DEGRADATION. THE CAUSES ARE POVERTY, LAND SHORTAGE AND INCREASING POPULATIONS
In 1992 developing countries in Asia and the Pacific accounted for just less than 54 percent of the world population - nearly 3000 million people. Yet these countries had only 17 percent of the world's land resources.
Even so, countries in Asia and the Pacific are relatively well fed compared, for example, to much of Africa and parts of Central and South America. This is because they have made profitable use of new agricultural technology, such as fertilizers, high-yielding crop varieties, mechanization and irrigation. During the period ]961-85, 93 percent of the region's increase in cereal production was due to increased production inputs. As a result food production has more than kept pace with population increase.
While agricultural productivity has risen dramatically, the cost in land degradation has been high. Large areas of the region's cropland, grassland, woodland and forest are now seriously degraded. Water and wind erosion are the major problems but salinity, sodicity and alkalinity are also widespread; water tables have been over-exploited; soil fertility has been reduced; and where mangrove forest has been cleared for aquaculture or urban expansion, coastal erosion has been a common result. Finally, urban expansion has become a major form of land degradation, removing large areas of the best agricultural land from production.
The effect of these forms of land degradation on cereal production has so far been masked by the increasing levels of agricultural inputs that are used. However, production of other crops, such as pulses, roots and tubers, has now begun to decline. It is no coincidence that these crops arc grown on land with low production potential, where rates of land degradation are highest.
What would happen if Humans just disappeared ?
Given the mounting toll of fouled oceans, overheated air, missing topsoil, and mass extinctions, we might sometimes wonder what our planet would be like if humans suddenly disappeared. Would Superfund sites revert to Gardens of Eden? Would the seas again fill with fish? Would our concrete cities crumble to dust from the force of tree roots, water, and weeds? How long would it take for our traces to vanish? And if we could answer such questions, would we be more in awe of the changes we have wrought, or of nature’s resilience?
A good place to start searching for answers is in Korea, in the 155-mile-long, 2.5-mile-wide mountainous Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ, set up by the armistice ending the Korean War. Aside from rare military patrols or desperate souls fleeing North Korea, humans have barely set foot in the strip since 1953. Before that, for 5,000 years, the area was populated by rice farmers who carved the land into paddies. Today those paddies have become barely discernible, transformed into pockets of marsh, and the new occupants of these lands arrive as dazzling white squadrons of red-crowned cranes that glide over the bulrushes in perfect formation, touching down so lightly that they detonate no land mines. Next to whooping cranes, they are the rarest such birds on Earth. They winter in the DMZ alongside the endangered white-naped cranes, revered in Asia as sacred portents of peace.
If peace is ever declared, suburban Seoul, which has rolled ever northward in recent decades, is poised to invade such tantalizing real estate. On the other side, the North Koreans are building an industrial megapark. This has spurred an international coalition of scientists called the DMZ Forum to try to consecrate the area for a peace park and nature preserve. Imagine it as “a Korean Gettysburg and Yosemite rolled together,” says Harvard University biologist Edward O. Wilson, who believes that tourism revenues could trump those from agriculture or development.
As serenely natural as the DMZ now is, it would be far different if people throughout Korea suddenly disappeared. The habitat would not revert to a truly natural state until the dams that now divert rivers to slake the needs of Seoul’s more than 20 million inhabitants failed—a century or two after the humans had gone. But in the meantime, says Wilson, many creatures would flourish. Otters, Asiatic black bears, musk deer, and the nearly vanquished Amur leopard would spread into slopes reforested with young daimyo oak and bird cherry. The few Siberian tigers that still prowl the North Korean–Chinese borderlands would multiply and fan across Asia’s temperate zones. “The wild carnivores would make short work of livestock,” he says. “Few domestic animals would remain after a couple of hundred years. Dogs would go feral, but they wouldn’t last long: They’d never be able to compete.”
If people were no longer present anywhere on Earth, a worldwide shakeout would follow. From zebra mussels to fire ants to crops to kudzu, exotics would battle with natives. In time, says Wilson, all human attempts to improve on nature, such as our painstakingly bred horses, would revert to their origins. If horses survived at all, they would devolve back to Przewalski’s horse, the only true wild horse, still found in the Mongolian steppes. “The plants, crops, and animal species man has wrought by his own hand would be wiped out in a century or two,” Wilson says. In a few thousand years, “the world would mostly look as it did before humanity came along—like a wilderness.”
The new wilderness would consume cities, much as the jungle of northern Guatemala consumed the Mayan pyramids and megalopolises of overlapping city-states. From A.D. 800 to 900, a combination of drought and internecine warfare over dwindling farmland brought 2,000 years of civilization crashing down. Within 10 centuries, the jungle swallowed all.
Mayan communities alternated urban living with fields sheltered by forests, in contrast with today’s paved cities, which are more like man-made deserts. However, it wouldn’t take long for nature to undo even the likes of a New York City. Jameel Ahmad, civil engineering department chair at Cooper Union College in New York City, says repeated freezing and thawing common in months like March and November would split cement within a decade, allowing water to seep in. As it, too, froze and expanded, cracks would widen. Soon, weeds such as mustard and goosegrass would invade. With nobody to trample seedlings, New York’s prolific exotic, the Chinese ailanthus tree, would take over. Within five years, says Dennis Stevenson, senior curator at the New York Botanical Garden, ailanthus roots would heave up sidewalks and split sewers.
That would exacerbate a problem that already plagues New York—rising groundwater. There’s little soil to absorb it or vegetation to transpire it, and buildings block the sunlight that could evaporate it. With the power off, pumps that keep subways from flooding would be stilled. As water sluiced away soil beneath pavement, streets would crater.
Eric Sanderson of the Bronx Zoo Wildlife Conservation Society heads the Mannahatta Project, a virtual re-creation of pre-1609 Manhattan. He says there were 30 to 40 streams in Manhattan when the Dutch first arrived. If New Yorkers disappeared, sewers would clog, some natural watercourses would reappear, and others would form.Within 20 years, the water-soaked steel columns that support the street above the East Side’s subway tunnels would corrode and buckle, turning Lexington Avenue into a river.
New York’s architecture isn’t as flammable as San Francisco’s clapboard Victorians, but within 200 years, says Steven Clemants, vice president of the Brooklyn Botanic Garden, tons of leaf litter would overflow gutters as pioneer weeds gave way to colonizing native oaks and maples in city parks. A dry lightning strike, igniting decades of uncut, knee-high Central Park grass, would spread flames through town.
As lightning rods rusted away, roof fires would leap among buildings into paneled offices filled with paper. Meanwhile, native Virginia creeper and poison ivy would claw at walls covered with lichens, which thrive in the absence of air pollution. Wherever foundations failed and buildings tumbled, lime from crushed concrete would raise soil pH, inviting buckthorn and birch. Black locust and autumn olive trees would fix nitrogen, allowing more goldenrods, sunflowers, and white snakeroot to move in along with apple trees, their seeds expelled by proliferating birds. Sweet carrots would quickly devolve to their wild form, unpalatable Queen Anne’s lace, while broccoli, cabbage, brussels sprouts, and cauliflower would regress to the same unrecognizable broccoli ancestor.
Unless an earthquake strikes New York first, bridges spared yearly applications of road salt would last a few hundred years before their stays and bolts gave way (last to fall would be Hell Gate Arch, built for railroads and easily good for another thousand years). Coyotes would invade Central Park, and deer, bears, and finally wolves would follow. Ruins would echo the love song of frogs breeding in streams stocked with alewives, herring, and mussels dropped by seagulls. Missing, however, would be all fauna that have adapted to humans. The invincible cockroach, an insect that originated in the hot climes of Africa, would succumb in unheated buildings. Without garbage, rats would starve or serve as lunch for peregrine falcons and red-tailed hawks. Pigeons would genetically revert back to the rock doves from which they sprang.
It’s unclear how long animals would suffer from the urban legacy of concentrated heavy metals. Over many centuries, plants would take these up, recycle, redeposit, and gradually dilute them. The time bombs left in petroleum tanks, chemical plants, power plants, and dry-cleaning plants might poison the earth beneath them for eons. One intriguing example is the former Rocky Mountain Arsenal next to Denver International Airport. There a chemical weapons plant produced mustard and nerve gas, incendiary bombs, napalm, and after World War II, pesticides. In 1984 it was considered by the arsenal commander to be the most contaminated spot in the United States. Today it is a national wildlife refuge, home to bald eagles that feast on its prodigious prairie dog population.
Bibliography
http://www.fao.org/docrep/V9909E/v9909e02.htm
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/earth-without-people/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_degradation ( I check this with 2 other sources that aren’t listed and it was correct )
Resource journal 5/23/17
Urban Sprawl # 4 By: Kaiya Lane
What is an Urban sprawl? An Urban sprawl is migration of a population from high density urban areas to low density rural areas which results in spreading of city over more and more rural land. Urban sprawl results in land degradation, increased traffic, environmental issues and health issues. The ever growing demand of land displaces natural environment consisting of flora and fauna instead of being replaced.
What do you think of the Urban sprawl ?
Heidi shepherd
I think that it is very bad for the environment. Because as we expand more and more there is less wild. So eventually humans will be the only ones on the earth. And we would be able to bring any animals back .
What would happen if there were no animals ?
Xen Amjad, Lost Child
If the entire Animalia kingdom had never existed on Earth, then all that would be left were bacteria cells, plant-related diseases, etc., and of course, plants. If it was impossible for a kingdom such as ours to happen on Earth, plant life (Plantae kingdom) might have evolved into some alien-like plant life/exotic plant species? Anyhow, it would be very different. Literally only the other five kingdoms would exist to some extent (there would only be Plantae, Eubacteria, Archaebacteria, Protista, and Fungi).
We’ll never know, but basically, if there were no animals (don’t forget, humans, or homo sapiens, are also animals), we wouldn’t exist. Earth would be an entirely different planet.
Eric Nguyen, Professional High school student for 2 years
There are two ways I am going to answer your question.
1.What if Earth had no animals?
Seeing this cladogram of the domains of life, we can observe that bacteria and archaea go first. The first life on earth came from microscopical organisms. Later, these organisms would come and develop to be animals(eukaryotes) AKA the eucarya. So essentially there was a time period in which animals technically didn't exist. And keep note that it was a pretty long time in Earth’s biology. But since this isn't satisfying enough, I am going to answer it again.
2. What if Earth had no animals?
We would have a fairly interesting dilemma in what would happen in the ecosystem. Fertilizing plants would not exist, plants would have no need for certain adaptations such as thorns or pricks, the worlds oxygen supply would be increased ten fold, and if animals didn't exist, evolution would kinda of cease to exist. The only interactions that would happen in nature would be between plants and bacteria. Eventually, bacteria and plants would grow to be symbiotic to each other and plants as we know today would probably have to develop an immune system. It would be a truly slow, boring, and green world.
Giovanni Peyo, I love animals, they love me too. Well except mosquitoes, they don't.
The ecosystem would be pretty much crashed, it'll be a total disaster if they suddenly disappear. If you're saying if they never existed then I really doubt we'd be here today. They're important for us for our survival. This is why it's really bad when an entire specie dies. Some people gladly preserve that, so yeah basically we would all die anyways.
Clare Harding
So we talked about this a little bit yesterday, assuming that there still would be plants, actually we would probably have more food than just now. Also, there would be less greenhouse gases produced (cows are a surprisingly big source of methane!). Most of the animals on the planet are the ones that we grow for food (there is a great comic here: http://xkcd.com/1338) and so there would be more space for plants and trees to go. One problem would be pollination of flowers, but if there are still insects than most plants would be ok.
But it would be very boring and I think we would miss all of the animals a lot!
Biographraphy
https://www.quora.com/What-if-the-world-had-no-animals
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/15-current-environmental-problems.php
Ozone Layer Depletion article #5
By : Kaiya Lane
The ozone layer is an invisible layer of protection around the planet that protects us from the sun’s harmful rays. Depletion of the crucial Ozone layer of the atmosphere is attributed to pollution caused by Chlorine and Bromide found in Chloro-floro carbons (CFC’s). Once these toxic gases reach the upper atmosphere, they cause a hole in the ozone layer, the biggest of which is above the Antarctic. The CFC’s are banned in many industries and consumer products. Ozone layer is valuable because it prevents harmful UV radiation from reaching the earth. This is one of the most important current environmental problem.
Answer by Morgen1011
First of all the ozone layer is there to protect us from the suns most harmful UV rays
The ultra violet rays from the sun are absorbed by the ozone layer because of the gas present in it(O3)
If the ozone layer is depleted by harmful gases like Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), freon, etc., the uv rays enters the troposphere and affects living beings and causes diseases like skin cancer.
The ozone protects us from deadly types of UV that we would normally be protected against. This kind damages your skin and deeper tissue's DNA causing various types of cancer. Basically, we'd all die of cancer.
Well not die of cancer, but we'd burn to death. The Earth and all of its inhabitants would burn because the Sun's powerful UV rays would come at us and we'd have no protection. Cancer happens now while we still have 80 - 95% protection from the sun's UV rays because of the ozone layer. Without the ozone layer, the rays would literally fry us.
With no ozone, ultraviolet rays (UV-B specifically) are easily able to penetrate the earth's atmosphere and exposure to UV-B rays has been linked to the increased occurrence of cancer, cataracts, mutation, and decreases in crop yields and loss of arable land. This affects Man and all DNA-based life on the surface of the Earth.
The conditions that would be needed to have this situation occur though are a complete lack of oxygen in our atmosphere and/or the lack of sunlight. Should either of these conditions happen, life on the planet would be extinct. The primary answer is that we would be dead before the ozone was gone.
Answer by Scott A. Butler
A British multi-genre author, wordsmith, blogger and tea addict. He is also a co-author of 'In Memory: A Tribute to Sir Terry Pratchett'.
Life would not exist.
The ozone layer is keeping all the gasses from escaping into space. So, without the ozone layer, there would be no oxygen for animals or carbon dioxide for plants.
The ozone layer also reflects space radiation and harmful UV rays back into space, preventing them getting into the Earth's atmosphere. If this didn't happen, life would be poisoned and killed by constant radiation and UV blasting.
How are humans destroying the ozone layer?
Answered by The WikiAnswers® Community
Things like spray on deodorant, air freshener, hair spray and more are destroying the ozone layer with the chemicals that are in them. The chemicals float up into the air and begin eating their way through.
Bibliography
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_are_humans_destroying_the_ozone_layer
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_would_happen_if_the_Ozone_layer_was_destroyed
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/15-current-environmental-problems.php