skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Before the 1960s, masses of people were starving on the Indian subcontinent, and Mexico was importing over half of its wheat, leading to many inhabitants being priced out of the food market. Something had to be done, and it was in the form of HYVs, which kick started the green revolution.The green revolution used high yielding varieties to help the neediest of countries become self sufficient in food production. It started in Mexico in 1943, and 13 years later it proved to be a success with a tiny percentage of Mexico's wheat being imported. It then moved to a much bigger country, India, and was massively successful in the greener regions of Utter Pradesh and Punjab.However, solving hunger problems in some of the world's poorest regions was not without its critics, a stupid suggestion you may think, but some ideas made sense. I will only list the problems that make perfect sense, so you don't have to sift through meaningless one word reasons, such as it being 'unsustainable' without any justification. The quality of diet is an important issue, rice only carries certain nutrition values, and the Indians eat a disproportionate amount of the stuff, which could me protein and iron deficiency amongst other things. Others believe that increased use of pesticides and fertilisers could increasingly 'poison' their diets, but one of my friend's relatives, who works for a top pesticide company, insists stringent tests are carried out. Some believe that the Us did not care about how safe the HYVs were, as long as they solved the hunger crisis to get poor, yet very large nations on side during the Cold War. Some believe that the Green Revolution benefits the TNCs, as it was funded by corporate giants such as Ford and Rockefeller. Perhaps the most important issue is the compromise for water used during the growth of HYVs. The use of pesticides and fertilisers and the intense growing strategies, have seen soil degrade, which could reduce future yields. The increased revenue from the rich farmers who can afford HYVs have seen poor farmers put out of work after having their land bought up and their labour being replaced by machines. Much more clean water is used for techniques such as irrigation than is used for drinking and cleaning, which is a resolvable problem, as the farming techniques used in LEDCs are incredibly inefficient.Still, with all these criticisms, I believe that it was a brilliant idea in the 1940s-60s, which the graph above proves, but it is desperate need of modernisation.
Lauterbrunnen is just a sleepy Swiss village, situated in a flat and fertile valley in the Bernese Alps. The difference between this place and anywhere else is that the valley it gives its name to and lies at the bottom of is one of the most stunning physical landforms on the face of the Earth.
The Lauterbrunnen Valley is situated at an altitude 795m. The tip of it, the Jungfrau mountain is one of the tallest peaks in the Alps at 4,158m. For altitude to change that dramatically over a distance of a few miles means a dramatic landform must have been created. A giant glacier has cut through this valley, creating a U-shaped valley with a sheer drop of 2,000m. The glacier did this by erosion. Mainly through abrasion and attrition. Using the rocks to slice through this landscape. Glacial ice has also helped erode the valley by expanded and putting pressure on the landscape, making it crumble, as has freeze-thaw weathering.
There are any other landforms that add to the spectacular nature of this landscape. The one that stands out are The Staubbach Falls. These drop 300 metres into the Lütschine river, which flows through the valley. This drops from a hanging valley, a v-shaped valley or a smaller u-shaped valley from a smaller glacier that meets the larger u-shaped valley. The river flowing through it then experiences a sheer drop into the valley producing an unconventional waterfall.
A stunning a inspiring place to visit for anyone. This hopefully gives you an insight into how stunning landscapes have been formed since the Ice Age by glaciation.
Farming on the River Ganges has very diverse results depending on where you farm on the river. Once the land becomes flatter after the river has left the Himalayas the huge amount of sediment it deposits should make it perfect for arable farming. The overly high amount of oxygen in the Ganges makes conditions for arable farming all the better.
Before the first major settlement on the River Ganges, Kanpur, the soil is perfect for farming, with the extremes in temperature allowing for a diverse range of products being produced, such as potato, sugar and wheat. The products give enough combined nutritional value so that the farmers can do subsistence farming, whilst the conditions allow them to significantly over produce, so they can do some commercial farming as well. It is good for pastoral land as well, with 15% of India's livestock population in Utter Pradesh. The people north of Kanpur thank the Gods on the Ganges for promising harvests more often than not. Western Utter Pradesh, which is where the Ganges flows before any industrialisation, is the most productive agriculture area in Utter Pradesh.
Kanpur is a city with over 4,000,000 inhabitants, and has grown at an uncontrollable rate, due to this a lot of pollution and sewage is simply dumped into the Ganges. This has ruined the Ganges in many respects, and when bathers go into the river in Varanasi, drowning isn't the only threat they face, as the river could easily poison a human.
Between Kanpur and Varanasi there are many small fishing villages that once thrived. Now however, the river is killing the fish and many people are going hungry. They thought they'd try their luck at subsistence arable farming, but the deposits from the river has poisoned the soil as well, meaning that seeds fail to germinate. This leads to people migrating to Kanpur and Varanasi, continuing the vicious circle of more pollution when more people live in an area.
It's hard to get a poor country with over 1,000,000,000 inhabitants to 'go green', so it looks like bathing in the Ganges will soon have to come to an end, which will be a cultural disaster for India and there will be more pressure on Western Utter Pradesh to produce the goods.
The most famous earthquake this century is not known for its seismic power, it is known for what the seismic power caused, a tsunami that spread around the Indian Ocean on an unimaginable scale. The devastation surrounding it was in the headlines for weeks, and overall claimed 229,866 lives. Here I will take a brief look at the cause, the impacts and the response.
The main factor that helped create the tsunami was that it was a megathrust earthquake. This meant that the Indian plate subducted beneath the tiny Burma plate. This led to the Burma plate being pushed up, so a lot of energy was pushed upwards underwater. This led to a large body of water being taken to the shoreline, like any other wave, in the form of a tsunami. There was also a fairly shallow focus of 30km, which allowed less energy to be lost. Indonesia was the worst country affected, because of it's long coastline allowing the tsunami to devastate its entire west coast and it closest to the epicentre, which was 100km from the nearest Indonesian coastline, Aceh.
Economically the entire infrastructure in Banda Aceh was ruined, so schools, roads and communication links had to be rebuilt. An important social impact was that the destruction of many coastline hospitals made it difficult for people to be relieved of injuries and get treatment for water-borne disease, increasing the death toll. Millions were also made homeless. Environmentally, a lot of animals have been killed by the tsunami as well as humans, as well as the salinisation of soils and the destruction of agriculture. Politically it did nothing to help the civil war in Sri Lanka and there has since been civil unrest in Kenya and Thailand, but it is doubtful that the tsunami was a direct cause of this.
Soldiers were originally sent in to help the victims, until the realisation hit in that they too had either lost a family member or been killed. Countries who sent a lot of aid include the UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, the USA and many other EU nations and MEDCs. Many charities, such as Save the Children, were key in the giving of food and clean drinking water.
Hopefully, the Indian Ocean Tsunami was a one off event that will only be experienced one in a life time, certainly on that scale. This has been the worst natural disaster in the past 30 years, and now people will be better prepared to respond to a freak rarity, such as a tsunami.
Grenen is the most northerly point in Jutland, and is effectively where the North Sea meets the Kattegat (which then meets the Baltic). Near the town of Skagen, it translates as 'the branch', as that is what it would be if Denmark were a tree. At the time of writing 'you can't stand up out there' which a resident of Skagen, John Skånberg, said. This is due to strong gales. This is because it is where the south westerly Atlantic maritime and Polar continental prevailing winds have gathered most energy before meeting each other and dispersing.
The spit is formed by a meeting of the Atlantic Ocean's currents and the Baltic's currents. As the Atlantic is far larger than the Baltic it carries far more energy and therefore it deposits some of its load where the two currents meet, thus creating 'Grenen'. It is as though the Atlantic is the sea and the Baltic is the estuary as you would find with the more conventional spits, such as Spurn Head. However a major difference with this particular landform is that the currents of the two seas defelct upwards, which allows more sediment to be deposited as both seas lose even more energy. Like a spit, it will not be able to reach its nearest landform, likely to be a Swedish island, depending on its direction, as the Atlantic current will be able to squeeze through. Once Grenen reaches its maximum length there will be wave refraction giving the end a hook shape.
However, as the Baltic loses a lower percentage of its energy as the Atlantic absorbs it, there is a problem on the eastern side of Grenen. This problem is erosion. The Danish government and Skagen council have an effective, cheap and environmentally friendly approach to this using soft coastal management. Stony wave breakers have been built. It is evident that this has stopped erosion, as the beach is about 10m back in areas where there are no wave breakers. However, as evident in the picture, the longshore drift may erode the longer strips of beach protected by the wave breakers and alienate them as islands, meaning a slightly harder approach is needed, which will unfortunately be unfriendly to finance and nature alike. As bathing is banned, a possible approach could be to line the vast majority of the east side with these wave breakers, without ruining the experience for tourists. A beach nourishment or sea wall scheme would also see erosion cut much less. A sea wall would help greatly as long as the wave breakers were kept, but this would be expensive and not aesthetically pleasing.
Due to changes in wind speed, temporary changes in prevailing winds, changes in sediment output and wave refraction, means that the tip of Grenen is changing on an almost daily basis. If you're a resident or regular visitor to the area this is what makes the experience every time and is one of the reasons why it's such a popular tourist destination, as well as the excitement of standing at the end of Denmark and Europe. It would be interesting to see what the trend change in Grenen is, so we could make a prediction into where this spit will soon travel.
Dedicated to Oliver Skånberg Tippen, whose family is from Skagen. Unfortunately whilst on a trip to Colombia in April he was kidnapped. Despite losing two fingers and his left ear in this messy process, the ransom money is slowly being coughed up. Hang on in there and kick the cocaine habit. FREE OLLIE!
With North Korea almost constantly being in the news I thought that I'd give this post a bit of a twist. I will Contrast the two capitals and make a final judgement on which one should be the nation's capital if and when they unify. Pyongyang is the capital of the generally poorer and communist north, whereas Seoul is the capital of the richer and capitalist south.
Population wise both cities are the largest in their region. Pyongyang has a population of almost 3,500,000 in a country with a population of 23,000,000. Whereas Seoul is one of the largest cities in the world with a population of about 10,500,000 in a country with a population of 48,000,000. Pyongyang is in a larger country area wise and both are located close to the border, so it would be slightly more central and accessible to those in remote mountainous areas. However London, like Seoul, is the UK's largest city and imagine the uproar if they moved parliament to Birmingham (as well as Seoul being more central than Birmingham) and for that reason round 1 goes to Seoul.
It does seem a bit stupid to have a round on economics, but I will make points anyway. Seoul is renowned for its 'miracle on the Han river' when its financial centre saw the South Korean economy grow from 0 after the Korean war to $1 trillion+. Seoul is the tenth most important business centre in the world and the over GDP is in excess of $200bn. Its economy is driven by banking (Deutsche Bank) and hi-tech industries (Samsung), so has obviously been hit pretty hard by the recession. The infrastructure of the city is world class with an underground and more broadband connections than anywhere else in the world, which is in contrast to Pyongyang which has no worldwide internet connection. Pyongyang's economy is self-sufficient and is mainly concentrated on state run heavy industries, such as tool making. Famine and financial crisis are common, but the recent nuclear tests shows North Korea's determination to become as developed as its southerly neighbour. Unsurprisingly I have awarded round 2 to Seoul.
The final round is based on culture. There are many stereotypes about Korean culture, mainly involving dog meat, but both cities are very different. Seoul is much like Tokyo in the sense that its an east meets west culture shock. However it keeps to its Korean traditions with 5 grand palaces and original city walls. It has Korea's national museum and the Bukchon Hanok Village where original Korean housing still stands (being a cynic you could see this all over Pyongyang). Perhaps its clincher is the major sports events it has held. The 1988 Summer Olympics were held here in the Olympic stadium and the opening ceremony and a semi final of the 2002 FIFA World Cup was held in its atmospheric football stadium. Pyongyang, does however, provide sterner competition than in the previous two rounds. Despite there being unwanted sites of historic Korea there are far more traditional sites than in Seoul. However the entire centre of Pyongyang is quite chilling with huge monuments and the 330m hotel that is yet to be opened (making it the world's largest unopened structure). Another modern wonder is the world's largest stadium. Home to athletics and the national football team it is more than double the capacity of any stadium in South Korea at 150,000 and is one of the greatest engineering feats of all time. The Tomb of King Dongmyeyong is perhaps the most impressive site in the whole of Korea and it is after all the country's traditional capital and held that post until the war. I'm going to go a bit soft and call this a draw, as they both have a lot of positives.
Overall Seoul is the obvious choice, because of its far greater population and its links have been firmly rooted into the wider world, whereas Pyongyang's haven't at all.
There are many ways in which green energy on an island nation such as the UK should be utilised. The best way in which I believe (other than offshore wind farms off of the west coast of Scotland) is a barrage over the River Severn.
The River Severn's energy has a huge amount of energy stored in it, because of the sheer amount of water flowing into it, more than any other river in England and Wales. The best way to utilise this would be too build the barrage slightly further back from the outer barrage area on the map, so the barrage can achieve its full potential with both the energy of the tides and Severn bore. This would generate approximately 15 GW of energy (5% of UK total), however it has been stated the bore could be eliminated by a barrage.
The advantages of this scheme would see 25% of the governments green energy targets met. Another green advantage would be its carbon payback, which would take around a year. It'll also protect the immediate area from coastal flooding as well as benefiting the area's economy by providing jobs in construction and tourism. It could also provide new road and rail links which will have a longer lifetime than the suspension bridges. Many have argued about the wiping out of habitat, but the reduced turbidity of the water will see more birds and fish come to the area.
There are some disadvantages however. The main two are the assessment and eventual change of industrial activity and discharge into the Severn and the difficulty of ships being able to navigate it, meaning the building of locks and the loss of some energy produced. There would also be increased coastal erosion around the barrage and the potential loss of habitat and feeding ground for birds, as it is one of the largest areas of mud flats in Europe.
Whatever the environmental costs of this operation, it is potentially the largest energy producing region inside the UK and if left untouched with green energy as a whole the cost would be much greater worldwide.
When water freezes into ice it floats on top of the denser water. This is because water molecules are less spread out than the colder ice particles. This helps the movement and flow of water as the ice melts seasonally, helping the major currents of the ocean along with prevailing winds.
The gulf stream is largely responsible for such a mild climate in the UK, as well as being an island, meaning the sea will store the heat much better than land. If the gulf stream stops or slows down this could see a very different climate for the UK, especially in winter. As the gulf stream is a warm current, a slow down in it will see colder and more extreme winters, something, which as proved by the snowy period in January, the government is clearly not prepared for. Personally I believe that the gulf stream will not grind to a halt, because of the warm south westerly prevailing wind that drives it, but I do think that the melting of the ice will slow it down to a noticeable effect. If another major snowfall occurs, this should back up my prediction.
Some scientists have predicted that the melting of the ice caps will see a chemical imbalance in the world gases, due to the ice storing them, and seeing a vast amount of poisonous gas, such as methane, being released into the atmosphere. It has been proved in Russia that some ice contains methane, but not enough to have catastrophic effects on society, which I agree with, as other life had lived for millions of years with no ice sheets, such as the dinosaurs.
Obviously a very well known problem is the rising sea levels that the melting ice sheets will bring on. This could see cities such as London, Portsmouth and Hull. These cities can be saved if the sea is allowed to reclaim some unused or agricultural land. This will please and save the majority of people, whilst allowing nature take its course.
As the name of the isle suggests, the Isle of Wight is fast becoming a ghost town. Having been there last Tuesday the place had a feel of nothingness about it, despite claims that it is the South East's fastest growing economy. With little job prospects for 9 months of the year, is it any wonder why the centre of Ryde is looking a bit worse for wear? I wouldn't say it was horrible at all, safety is not an issue, but a tourist resort should surely be a bit more pleasing on the eye.
The Royal York Hotel, once the pride of the town, has gone into disrepair. This is a stinging message that something must be done, especially since Vestas, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer,and the island's largest employer relocated to the USA. In my opinion there needs to be more of a link with the main land, no matter what the ultra traditional Conservative council says. However, the Isle should remain a perfect plae for retirement and should never lose its rural roots.
What I propose, which the island's MP will agree with, is to immediately demonopolise Wightlink, and make it cheaper for everyone to visit the island, as quite frankly the public are being had. It becomes very hard for the islanders to see family and get jobs elsewhere, no matter how skilled they are. After Wightlink has been demonopolised the serious work can start without the opposition on the greedy ferry company. Firstly the train links need to be improved, with the Island Line being extended to Ventnor, with other branch lines going from Ryde to Yarmouth, via Fishbourne and Newport, as well as a branch line from Newport to Cowes. Then one bridge can be built from Yarmouth to Lymington. The rail will link with the Lymington branch line and the road will link the A3054 to the A337 on the mainland. This will act as a route for residents to find work in cities such as Southampton and Bournemouth, whilst businesses may set up on the island as its the cheapest place in the South East. The beauty spots will be protected and due to the fairly remote location of the bridge, the island will not become overpopulated by commuters.
On the image the blue shows the current island line, the red shows the Ventnor extension, the purple shows the Ryde-Yarmouth line, the pale yellow shows the Newport-Cowes line. The yellow shows the road/rail bridge.
