I agree to disagree because not all technology is bad for the environment and pollutes because for example: solar panels are a type of technology but help save energy and don't pollute by harnessing the sun's energy and using it to power homes so I respectfully disagree with you
So what your saying is that as we advanced in technology its not always bad for the environment? Christian, i hear what your saying but i think you misread what Courtney was saying, she didn't specify technology. Non the less i still agree with you just in a different manner. In my opinion i feel we still advance without technology, just a bit slower. Adding to that as we advance we can give people the wrong idea, (eg. Its fine to kill all the fish because they'll just repopulate)
So to sum it up Christian your saying that the more advanced a civilization is the more the technology is environmentally friendly .I agree with Mathan we do advance in technology slowly but going back to your example . I respectfully disagree that people would think that you can kill all the fish and they would repopulate because if you killed every single fish there won't be any more fish to repopulate so instead they would be extinct.
I also agree to disagree like Christian because as the civilization advances we are able to try and help the amount of pollution we cause by using technology. For example: we can use electric cars to help limit the amount of gas put into the environment.
I agree with Azia and Christian I do not think more advanced civilization is more polluted , like Azia said we can use technology to pollute less like the electric cars or wind turbines or solar panels . This technology helps pollute less and it is more advanced . Also to add on I think third world country's are also likely to be polluted because there is more untouched resources such as iron and other metals, I find that most of the time mining jobs which create tons of pollution are done in areas like that . So no I do not think that more advanced civilization is more likely to be polluted because being more advanced is helping us to stop pollution
I agree with Christian because not all tautology is bad because some is bad and some is not. for an example the soler panels on a house is using energy from the sun not tautology
well there are some places that I can say that were affected and it affected the people living there. one place is Italy where in a typically hot country it snowed so obviously that was a unexpected change for them all of the sudden especially because I dont think that on a average day in Italy you would be wearing a big thick coat so what im trying to say is unexpected weather changes that you weren't prepare for can get you sick. for example say you experienced climate change where it starting snowing in a tropical country and you end up getting sick because your probably in a T-shirt and shorts and then you have cold weather and snow so it can affect your health
I respectfully disagree with you Christian I don't think that you would necessarily get sick because of climate change . I don't think that the person would still be wearing a T-shirt and shorts in cold weather . If it was cold in a tropical country I think the person will wear more warmer clothes so they won't get sick .
my question is that will everyone start thinking about the future and what I mean by that is the fact that it is predicted that later on as years pass we will run out of fossil fuels and so what I meant is that the technology that conserves energy shouldn't be so expensive such as solar panels. In fact I think having solar panels should be insisted so that people can conserve energy and so that we don't run out of fossil fuels so either it should be inssited to have natural resource harnessing technology or it should be sold for cheap so that more people can conserve energy.
Another question I need to ask is will the global warming get worse? and if yes how bad will it get? also what can we do to stop it? and can it be stopped?
To answer your last question i think that it is possible that climate change (global warming) can be stopped. But in my opinion i think it would be really difficult since there are multiple factors effecting climate change. People and country's all over the world also effect climate change so in order for climate change to stop everybody would have to contribute which could be very difficult.
I agree with Azia because as we keep polluting with the more and more carbon going in the atmosphere, global warming will get worse because look at the polar ice caps, there starting to melt away. I don't know if it's just me or is the earth starting to fall apart.
I agree with Azia and Nathaniel that to get climate change to stop it would be very difficult to convince almost the entire world into stopping. In my opinion climate change is getting worse. For example the Arctics temperature is rising causing the ice sheets to melt and ice to get thinner causing a worldwide rising in sea levels, which will one day flood the continents.
Hi its me Mathan actual i think there could be a way. My theory is that a renewable resource could become non-renewable by taking impact in anyway (injury or mixed with another resource) like mixing an element with another creating another sort of material, if you would like to find out more i suggest you look into a chemistry book or the periodic table (list of most elements)
I agree that renewable resources can be no longer renewable if we affect it because for instance when you cut down a tree you plant another one to take its place but what if you keep cutting trees and you don't replace it . We won't be able to use it as much.
I'm going to bounce off your thought by sayinng that there are ways to get a renewable resource to become non renewable. For example, the cod crisis, fish are renewable, they can reproduce but when we fish for cod and keep on fishing faster than the cod could reproduce, they'll start becoming non renewable, when we stopped and gave them space, the cod had time to reproduce.
I agree with Clarissa with the Cod example and saying that renewable resources can become non renewable. But with the cod example if we just take a brake from using the resources we could help those resources stay renewable.
Yes there are ways for renewable resources to become un renewable , the cod crisis is a great example for this . Cod is essentially a renewable resource but due to fishing it was almost an u renewable resource . If things like fishing all the cod happen eventually what used to be a renewable recourse can become non renewable. Let's say some how we managed to almost kill all the cows suddenly what used to be a renewable source just became non renewable. Saying this ,yes I do think there are ways renewable resources can become non renewable
What does it take to make a resource a flow resource, i was trying to find out but the only ones I kept coming back to were: Sun, Water and Wind. So since water was a liquid i thought oil could be a flow resource but, it was already considered a non-renewable resource. I'll admit I was stumped, Anyone else?
Mathan, flow resources are natural resources that can create power. For example water, we gat power from it because of hydro dams whereas oil we don't get power. Basically what I'm trying to say is that for a resource to be a flow resource it must make power.
I agree with Nathaniel, a flow resource is any natural resource that is not man made and helps to create another with the help of technology. For example windmills use wind (a flow resource) to create electricity.
So to sum up what your saying Nathaniel and Matthew is that the only way another resource can become a flow resource is if it can create energy and has to be natural or else it's not considered a flow resource.
My question is about renewable resources, Are diamonds renewable resources? if we mine a diamond it is gone, but since some diamonds are formed from carbon compressing in a long period of time a new diamond would form, does this make diamonds renewable?
To answer to your question Mathan, I personally think that it can be renewable or non-renewable. Diamonds can be renewable because diamonds are formed by carbon under high temperature and pressure over a really long period of time. Diamonds can also be non-renewable because it takes billions of year for the diamonds to be formed. Usually, non- renewable resources are minerals, oil,coal and etc... Diamonds fall into the catagories of minerals. Minerals are normally gold,silver, iron and diamonds.Therefore, I think diamonds are renewable and non-renewable
I think that diamonds are non-renewable because yes, they can form again, but that takes MILLIONS of years! We are mining them faster than the diamonds itself can be replaced. We're mining them at a rate where even if we cut back on mining to let them re-form it'll still take a long time to replensih. Once we take them out, they're not giving anything back that will help them replenish.
I agree with Clarissa about diamonds being non renewable resources since diamonds are formed from graphite (another form of carbon) under the Earths crust under intense pressure and heat. which takes millions of years (like Clarissa said) Therefore if we use too many diamonds at once they could become a non renewable resource.
I also agree with Clarissa about diamonds being non renewable , I hear what your saying Mathan about the diamond forming again but that takes millions of years of that carbon being under pressure . So if we decide to mine all the diamond , that diamond won't be there for millions of years . Typically we think that since it won't form again for that long period of Time it is non renewable . So no I do not think diamond is a renewable recourse
So, to sum up what you are all saying is that diamonds ARE NOT a renewable resource but they take billions of years to form. So I sort of agree with Clarissa about diamonds because we can take all the diamonds and it won't be for a while till the form again. This is one of those questions that can go either way.
The amount of fossil fuels we have is finite, it's only a matter of time before there are none left. I think in he near future we will still have fossil fuels but later on we will eventually run out and will have to use a substitute. There will be new reserves for finding fossil fuels soon but they're getting harder to find. oil rserves are decreasing and is predicted that oil deposits will be gone by 2052. My theory is that oil will be the first fossil fuel to run out, considering we use 34 billion barrells a year. But even without oil, we would still have gas and coal.
I agree with Clarissa. Today, we still have the fair amount of fossil fuels. But later fossil fuel will be gone in the future because of us using it too much for everything. For example, we use fossil fuel for gas like cars to drive, we use fossil fuel for heat for our homes, electricity and etc... We would try to find a different resource to replace fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are mainly natural gas, coal, and oil. I agree with Clarissa that oil will be likely to be gone because oil is now used for transportation, heat and electricity. In 1950, Canada's primary source was coal. They used coal like oil but after world war II, people agreed to use oil instead of coal. The reason is oil was cheaper than coal.
I respectfully disagree with Clarissa and Christine since even though the amount of fossil fuels in the future most likely will decrease. As technology advances like we were talking about in class, we can use certain forms of technology to create fossil fuels. For example scientists have tested a piece of technology that creates fossil fuels by infusing substances (carbon, e.t,c) into the Earths crust, which forms fossil fuels due to the pressure and heat.
I respectfully disagree with Azia , although they have invented technology that can infuse substances into the earths crust , using prior nolige I know that it takes millions of years of those substances under pressure and being compressed to create these fossil fuels. Perhaps this technology contributes to the production of fossil fuels but that doesn't help the fact it takes millions of years to be produced . Eventually will run out of these fossil fuels leaving us to use other technology to obtain energy such as solar panels wind turbines ect.
I agree with Azia because our future is starting to get more technical. We are seeing more and more electric cars on the road and being made. Instead of fossil fuels we would probably use flow resources ( water, sun, wind) to power our machines. Humanity keeps getting better and better and in the future we would probably be past fossil fuels.
I think there is not going to be any more fossil fuels because what i learned today is that we use a lot of fossil fuels when we candianas make water bottles or when the USA makes water bottles we use so much fossil fuels that I don,t think in the future were to have a lot left.
I think that in the future there will be a point in time when there will be no more fossil fuels. This is because we are consumimg plenty of fossil fuels before they can be replenished ( which can take millions of years). Since use fossil fuels for a various amount of our things, which will make the amount of fossil fuels decrease faster.
To answer your question Joanne, i think that there will be fossil fuels left in the future. I think that humans will stop using fossil fuels and slowly switch to renewable energy, like solar, wind, etc. This wont happen over night and will only happen when fossil fuels get to expensive, are hard to find or cause too much damage to the environment. To me, it does not make sense that humans will use up every last fossil fuel before switching to another source. The question that I have is: what type of renewal energy source do you think will replace fossil fuels?
Well humans have increased are technology so that now we are seeing a little bit of the future. We are seeing more electric cars so maybe in the future we will be running on electricity. Are technology is increasing to the point were someday we will have flying cars. Who know what capabilities we can accomplish in the future.
I think that it would be flow. This is because just has Nathaniel said our technology has advance so we need energy from the sun, wind ,and water. The sun gives us energy by us collecting it with solar panels. The sun is a flow resource. We also get energy through a flow resource by this resource is the wind. We use windmills to collect the winds energy. Lastly we use hydroelectric power this involves the waters currents, specifically waterfalls. For example Niagara falls uses hydroelectric power through the giant waterfall. That is why I think it would be flow by it already giving us energy.
I personally think only renewable resources because for example trees, if the air is polluted the trees will start to die. I think this is only possible for living this that are renewable because is it was not alive, climate change wouldn't affect is.
I think that it does affect because pretend Christine that the climate changes and there is a big storm and it is really bad and most of the trees fall down they are not magically going to aper again we people need to replant them so there for i think it does affect.
I think that they are all important. This is because we need renewable resources to live. Examples of renewable resources that we need is cattle, trees, fish and etc... We also need non renewable resources maybe not as much. But we still need them. We need them to drive places ( gasoline.) We also need them to pay with coins ( nickel.) Lastly we also need flow resources to live because they give us power, electricity energy and many more uses. Some examples of flow resources is wind, sun and water.
I think they're all equally important for different reasons for example, without flow rsources we wouldn't be here because we need water and sunlight in order to survive, we couldn't possibly adapt without it. Withought renewable resources we wouldnt have food or clothing, and without non renewable soures we wouldnt have transportation. Without all of them in general we wouldn't have power such as using water (flow resource) for hydroelectricity, oil (non renewable) for gas and crops (renewable for other things like medication and food. All in all,we use all of them is an equal value.
I agree with Sara and Clarissa they are all important , currently we depend a lot on non renewable recourses such as oil and coal to provide energy for our homes but I think in the future non renewable resources are going to be depended on less then present day . If we are speaking about the present then I think they are all equally important in their own ways for example we need renewable and flow recourses suck as fish , water , cattle , trees ect ... To survive . We need non renewable resources such as gasoline to travel or coal to provide energy for our homes . So there fore they are all equally important .
So to sum up what your saying Clarissa is that basically if humans continue to use fossil fuels for a long period of time (few years/decades) there will be no more oil (of that fossil fuel). Which we will end up using something else to replace the oil (example natural gas).
Also I agree with what your saying Clarissa about how you think oil is going to be the first fossil fuel to run out. Because like you said we use a lot of fossil fuels and if we continue to use oil for filling up the car and manufacturing items and different things there won't be anymore to use. Also we mostly use oil pretty much in our everyday lives.
My theory is that renewable resources can be considered as living things because they reproduce and living things also reproduce. For example cows can breed making more cows. I also think that non renewable resources can be considered as non living things . This is because they do not reproduce. An example is diamond it cannot reproduce. This can be a reason why we are running out fossil fuels because we are taking so much and fossil fuels can't reproduce.
I would like to bounce off of Sara. Because like you said renewable resources can be considered as living things and can reproduce different things when you use it up. Non-renewable resources can be considered as non-living things (example: gold cannot be reproduced again). But I also think that flow resources is considered to be neither renewable or non-renewable (example:Water is used for drinking,power,transportation,etc..).
I say this because wind, water and the sun are not exactly living things but I can understand why Sara says that they are living. These flow resources are things that naturally exist and happen every day and are out of our control. The wind will always blow, the sun will always shine and water will always flow.
My theory is that we are going to use flow resources as our main supplier of energy instead of fossil fuels. This is because fossil fuels are damaging our environment and are not limitless. Flow resources are limitless and do not hurt the environment. They are already becoming more popular and are being used more and more. For example electric cars are being seen on the roads. These are powered by electricity and not fossil fuels. Many houses and businesses are putting up solar panels. I see many being installed on farms around my aunts farm in Barrie. The switch from fossil fuels to flow resources is happening but is slow to occur. I think that it will take many years or decades to happen.
I'm very curious about the loss of water because what I've learned is that water is not renewable or non renewable, also that there is always the same amount of water on earth so where is this water coming from
The loss of fossil fuels will affect us in many different ways such as not being able to use cars, gas stoves e.c.t which we then will have to use electric cars, bikes or go by foot. Plus we will have to use fire to heat up or cook anything.
I agree with Hanna because if we lose fossil fuels, we would have to suffer just like Hanna said like not being able to use cars, gas stoves etc. Also, I know by fact that 38 million barrels of fossil fuels are used for plastic water bottles which makes our fossil fuels decrease much quicker as we expect it.
To bounce off of matthew i thin k we would losse money and go down but then shortly after reboot and pull back up. In my opinion though i dont think we will run out of fossil fuels anytime soon or never because if there is a huge shortage i predict scientests will invent or find a supstitoot. in the long run i dont think we are going to run out
Because of climate change there was a lot of wierd things going around the world such as Italy having snow and etc. Do you think it is going to happen again around hot areas which does snow at all or not very often? How do you know? Explain.
Is it safe to say that the more advanced a civilization is the more likely they are to have more pollution?
ReplyDeleteI agree to disagree because not all technology is bad for the environment and pollutes because for example: solar panels are a type of technology but help save energy and don't pollute by harnessing the sun's energy and using it to power homes so I respectfully disagree with you
DeleteSo what your saying is that as we advanced in technology its not always bad for the environment? Christian, i hear what your saying but i think you misread what Courtney was saying, she didn't specify technology. Non the less i still agree with you just in a different manner. In my opinion i feel we still advance without technology, just a bit slower. Adding to that as we advance we can give people the wrong idea, (eg. Its fine to kill all the fish because they'll just repopulate)
DeleteSo to sum it up Christian your saying that the more advanced a civilization is the more the technology is environmentally friendly .I agree with Mathan we do advance in technology slowly but going back to your example . I respectfully disagree that people would think that you can kill all the fish and they would repopulate because if you killed every single fish there won't be any more fish to repopulate so instead they would be extinct.
DeleteI also agree to disagree like Christian because as the civilization advances we are able to try and help the amount of pollution we cause by using technology. For example: we can use electric cars to help limit the amount of gas put into the environment.
DeleteI agree with Azia and Christian I do not think more advanced civilization is more polluted , like Azia said we can use technology to pollute less like the electric cars or wind turbines or solar panels . This technology helps pollute less and it is more advanced . Also to add on I think third world country's are also likely to be polluted because there is more untouched resources such as iron and other metals, I find that most of the time mining jobs which create tons of pollution are done in areas like that . So no I do not think that more advanced civilization is more likely to be polluted because being more advanced is helping us to stop pollution
DeleteI agree with Christian because not all tautology is bad because some is bad and some is not. for an example the soler panels on a house is using energy from the sun not tautology
DeleteCool. Tell me how global warming affected us?
ReplyDeletewell there are some places that I can say that were affected and it affected the people living there. one place is Italy where in a typically hot country it snowed so obviously that was a unexpected change for them all of the sudden especially because I dont think that on a average day in Italy you would be wearing a big thick coat so what im trying to say is unexpected weather changes that you weren't prepare for can get you sick. for example say you experienced climate change where it starting snowing in a tropical country and you end up getting sick because your probably in a T-shirt and shorts and then you have cold weather and snow so it can affect your health
DeleteI respectfully disagree with you Christian I don't think that you would necessarily get sick because of climate change . I don't think that the person would still be wearing a T-shirt and shorts in cold weather . If it was cold in a tropical country I think the person will wear more warmer clothes so they won't get sick .
DeleteI really enjoyed your Bookemon project, I learned a lot about Taiwan and the climate changes.
ReplyDeleteYou guys are dope and have great taste in music.
ReplyDeleteYour bookemon project was very informative and organized . great job!
ReplyDeletemy question is that will everyone start thinking about the future and what I mean by that is the fact that it is predicted that later on as years pass we will run out of fossil fuels and so what I meant is that the technology that conserves energy shouldn't be so expensive such as solar panels. In fact I think having solar panels should be insisted so that people can conserve energy and so that we don't run out of fossil fuels so either it should be inssited to have natural resource harnessing technology or it should be sold for cheap so that more people can conserve energy.
ReplyDeleteAnother question I need to ask is will the global warming get worse?
ReplyDeleteand if yes how bad will it get?
also what can we do to stop it?
and can it be stopped?
To answer your last question i think that it is possible that climate change (global warming) can be stopped. But in my opinion i think it would be really difficult since there are multiple factors effecting climate change. People and country's all over the world also effect climate change so in order for climate change to stop everybody would have to contribute which could be very difficult.
DeleteI agree with Azia because as we keep polluting with the more and more carbon going in the atmosphere, global warming will get worse because look at the polar ice caps, there starting to melt away. I don't know if it's just me or is the earth starting to fall apart.
DeleteI agree with Azia and Nathaniel that to get climate change to stop it would be very difficult to convince almost the entire world into stopping.
DeleteIn my opinion climate change is getting worse. For example the Arctics temperature is rising causing the ice sheets to melt and ice to get thinner causing a worldwide rising in sea levels, which will one day flood the continents.
the last question I would like to ask is are there ways for renewable resources to become no longer renewable?
ReplyDeleteHi its me Mathan actual i think there could be a way.
DeleteMy theory is that a renewable resource could become non-renewable by taking impact in anyway (injury or mixed with another resource) like mixing an element with another creating another sort of material, if you would like to find out more i suggest you look into a chemistry book or the periodic table
(list of most elements)
I agree that renewable resources can be no longer renewable if we affect it because for instance when you cut down a tree you plant another one to take its place but what if you keep cutting trees and you don't replace it . We won't be able to use it as much.
DeleteI'm going to bounce off your thought by sayinng that there are ways to get a renewable resource to become non renewable. For example, the cod crisis, fish are renewable, they can reproduce but when we fish for cod and keep on fishing faster than the cod could reproduce, they'll start becoming non renewable, when we stopped and gave them space, the cod had time to reproduce.
DeleteI agree with Clarissa with the Cod example and saying that renewable resources can become non renewable. But with the cod example if we just take a brake from using the resources we could help those resources stay renewable.
DeleteYes there are ways for renewable resources to become un renewable , the cod crisis is a great example for this . Cod is essentially a renewable resource but due to fishing it was almost an u renewable resource . If things like fishing all the cod happen eventually what used to be a renewable recourse can become non renewable. Let's say some how we managed to almost kill all the cows suddenly what used to be a renewable source just became non renewable. Saying this ,yes I do think there are ways renewable resources can become non renewable
DeleteWhat does it take to make a resource a flow resource, i was trying to find out but
ReplyDeletethe only ones I kept coming back to were: Sun, Water and Wind. So since water was a liquid i thought oil could be a flow resource but, it was already considered a non-renewable resource. I'll admit I was stumped, Anyone else?
Mathan, flow resources are natural resources that can create power. For example water, we gat power from it because of hydro dams whereas oil we don't get power. Basically what I'm trying to say is that for a resource to be a flow resource it must make power.
DeleteI agree with Nathaniel, a flow resource is any natural resource that is not man made and helps to create another with the help of technology. For example windmills use wind (a flow resource) to create electricity.
DeleteSo to sum up what your saying Nathaniel and Matthew is that the only way another resource can become a flow resource is if it can create energy and has to be natural or else it's not considered a flow resource.
DeleteMy question is about renewable resources,
ReplyDeleteAre diamonds renewable resources? if we mine a diamond
it is gone, but since some diamonds are formed from carbon compressing in a long period of time a new diamond would form, does this make diamonds renewable?
To answer to your question Mathan, I personally think that it can be renewable or non-renewable. Diamonds can be renewable because diamonds are formed by carbon under high temperature and pressure over a really long period of time. Diamonds can also be non-renewable because it takes billions of year for the diamonds to be formed. Usually, non- renewable resources are minerals, oil,coal and etc... Diamonds fall into the catagories of minerals. Minerals are normally gold,silver, iron and diamonds.Therefore, I think diamonds are renewable and non-renewable
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that diamonds are non-renewable because yes, they can form again, but that takes MILLIONS of years! We are mining them faster than the diamonds itself can be replaced. We're mining them at a rate where even if we cut back on mining to let them re-form it'll still take a long time to replensih. Once we take them out, they're not giving anything back that will help them replenish.
DeleteI agree with Clarissa about diamonds being non renewable resources since diamonds are formed from graphite (another form of carbon) under the Earths crust under intense pressure and heat. which takes millions of years (like Clarissa said) Therefore if we use too many diamonds at once they could become a non renewable resource.
DeleteI also agree with Clarissa about diamonds being non renewable , I hear what your saying Mathan about the diamond forming again but that takes millions of years of that carbon being under pressure . So if we decide to mine all the diamond , that diamond won't be there for millions of years . Typically we think that since it won't form again for that long period of Time it is non renewable . So no I do not think diamond is a renewable recourse
DeleteSo, to sum up what you are all saying is that diamonds ARE NOT a renewable resource but they take billions of years to form. So I sort of agree with Clarissa about diamonds because we can take all the diamonds and it won't be for a while till the form again. This is one of those questions that can go either way.
DeleteDo you think that in the future there will be any fossil fuels left ? Why?
ReplyDeleteThe amount of fossil fuels we have is finite, it's only a matter of time before there are none left. I think in he near future we will still have fossil fuels but later on we will eventually run out and will have to use a substitute. There will be new reserves for finding fossil fuels soon but they're getting harder to find. oil rserves are decreasing and is predicted that oil deposits will be gone by 2052. My theory is that oil will be the first fossil fuel to run out, considering we use 34 billion barrells a year. But even without oil, we would still have gas and coal.
DeleteI agree with Clarissa. Today, we still have the fair amount of fossil fuels. But later fossil fuel will be gone in the future because of us using it too much for everything. For example, we use fossil fuel for gas like cars to drive, we use fossil fuel for heat for our homes, electricity and etc... We would try to find a different resource to replace fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are mainly natural gas, coal, and oil. I agree with Clarissa that oil will be likely to be gone because oil is now used for transportation, heat and electricity. In 1950, Canada's primary source was coal. They used coal like oil but after world war II, people agreed to use oil instead of coal. The reason is oil was cheaper than coal.
DeleteI respectfully disagree with Clarissa and Christine since even though the amount of fossil fuels in the future most likely will decrease. As technology advances like we were talking about in class, we can use certain forms of technology to create fossil fuels. For example scientists have tested a piece of technology that creates fossil fuels by infusing substances (carbon, e.t,c) into the Earths crust, which forms fossil fuels due to the pressure and heat.
DeleteI respectfully disagree with Azia , although they have invented technology that can infuse substances into the earths crust , using prior nolige I know that it takes millions of years of those substances under pressure and being compressed to create these fossil fuels. Perhaps this technology contributes to the production of fossil fuels but that doesn't help the fact it takes millions of years to be produced . Eventually will run out of these fossil fuels leaving us to use other technology to obtain energy such as solar panels wind turbines ect.
DeleteI agree with Azia because our future is starting to get more technical. We are seeing more and more electric cars on the road and being made. Instead of fossil fuels we would probably use flow resources ( water, sun, wind) to power our machines. Humanity keeps getting better and better and in the future we would probably be past fossil fuels.
DeleteI think there is not going to be any more fossil fuels because what i learned today is that we use a lot of fossil fuels when we candianas make water bottles or when the USA makes water bottles we use so much fossil fuels that I don,t think in the future were to have a lot left.
DeleteI think that in the future there will be a point in time when there will be no more fossil fuels. This is because we are consumimg plenty of fossil fuels before they can be replenished ( which can take millions of years). Since use fossil fuels for a various amount of our things, which will make the amount of fossil fuels decrease faster.
DeleteTo answer your question Joanne, i think that there will be fossil fuels left in the future. I think that humans will stop using fossil fuels and slowly switch to renewable energy, like solar, wind, etc. This wont happen over night and will only happen when fossil fuels get to expensive, are hard to find or cause too much damage to the environment. To me, it does not make sense that humans will use up every last fossil fuel before switching to another source.
ReplyDeleteThe question that I have is: what type of renewal energy source do you think will replace fossil fuels?
When fossil fuels are gone, what type of resources do you think will take their place? Renewable or Flow resources? How will they be used?
ReplyDeleteWell humans have increased are technology so that now we are seeing a little bit of the future. We are seeing more electric cars so maybe in the future we will be running on electricity. Are technology is increasing to the point were someday we will have flying cars. Who know what capabilities we can accomplish in the future.
DeleteI think that it would be flow. This is because just has Nathaniel said our technology has advance so we need energy from the sun, wind ,and water. The sun gives us energy by us collecting it with solar panels. The sun is a flow resource. We also get energy through a flow resource by this resource is the wind. We use windmills to collect the winds energy. Lastly we use hydroelectric power this involves the waters currents, specifically waterfalls. For example Niagara falls uses hydroelectric power through the giant waterfall. That is why I think it would be flow by it already giving us energy.
DeleteDoes climate change affect the resources like renewable ,non-renewable and flow?
ReplyDeleteI personally think only renewable resources because for example trees, if the air is polluted the trees will start to die. I think this is only possible for living this that are renewable because is it was not alive, climate change wouldn't affect is.
DeleteI think that it does affect because pretend Christine that the climate changes and there is a big storm and it is really bad and most of the trees fall down they are not magically going to aper again we people need to replant them so there for i think it does affect.
DeleteTo sum up what your saying Nathaniel, is that any living resource would be affected by climate change while non living resources will not be.
DeleteBetween which resources are the most important to humans? Renewable, non-renewable or flow and why?
ReplyDeleteI think that they are all important. This is because we need renewable resources to live. Examples of renewable resources that we need is cattle, trees, fish and etc... We also need non renewable resources maybe not as much. But we still need them. We need them to drive places ( gasoline.) We also need them to pay with coins ( nickel.) Lastly we also need flow resources to live because they give us power, electricity energy and many more uses. Some examples of flow resources is wind, sun and water.
DeleteI think they're all equally important for different reasons for example, without flow rsources we wouldn't be here because we need water and sunlight in order to survive, we couldn't possibly adapt without it. Withought renewable resources we wouldnt have food or clothing, and without non renewable soures we wouldnt have transportation. Without all of them in general we wouldn't have power such as using water (flow resource) for hydroelectricity, oil (non renewable) for gas and crops (renewable for other things like medication and food. All in all,we use all of them is an equal value.
DeleteI agree with Sara and Clarissa they are all important , currently we depend a lot on non renewable recourses such as oil and coal to provide energy for our homes but I think in the future non renewable resources are going to be depended on less then present day . If we are speaking about the present then I think they are all equally important in their own ways for example we need renewable and flow recourses suck as fish , water , cattle , trees ect ... To survive . We need non renewable resources such as gasoline to travel or coal to provide energy for our homes . So there fore they are all equally important .
DeleteSo to sum up what your saying Clarissa is that basically if humans continue to use fossil fuels for a long period of time (few years/decades) there will be no more oil (of that fossil fuel). Which we will end up using something else to replace the oil (example natural gas).
ReplyDeleteAlso I agree with what your saying Clarissa about how you think oil is going to be the first fossil fuel to run out. Because like you said we use a lot of fossil fuels and if we continue to use oil for filling up the car and manufacturing items and different things there won't be anymore to use. Also we mostly use oil pretty much in our everyday lives.
What resources do you think is more efficient to collect? Renewable, non renewable or flow.
ReplyDeleteMy theory is that renewable resources can be considered as living things because they reproduce and living things also reproduce. For example cows can breed making more cows. I also think that non renewable resources can be considered as non living things . This is because they do not reproduce. An example is diamond it cannot reproduce. This can be a reason why we are running out fossil fuels because we are taking so much and fossil fuels can't reproduce.
ReplyDeleteAre the ways we are collecting renewable, non renewable and flow resources effecting the environment ?
ReplyDeleteYes, because when we mine minerals ( non renuabe resource) from the ground it releases carbon dioxide.
DeleteI would like to bounce off of Sara. Because like you said renewable resources can be considered as living things and can reproduce different things when you use it up. Non-renewable resources can be considered as non-living things (example: gold cannot be reproduced again). But I also think that flow resources is considered to be neither renewable or non-renewable (example:Water is used for drinking,power,transportation,etc..).
ReplyDeleteI say this because wind, water and the sun are not exactly living things but I can understand why Sara says that they are living. These flow resources are things that naturally exist and happen every day and are out of our control. The wind will always blow, the sun will always shine and water will always flow.
ReplyDeleteMy theory is that we are going to use flow resources as our main supplier of energy instead of fossil fuels. This is because fossil fuels are damaging our environment and are not limitless. Flow resources are limitless and do not hurt the environment. They are already becoming more popular and are being used more and more. For example electric cars are being seen on the roads. These are powered by electricity and not fossil fuels. Many houses and businesses are putting up solar panels. I see many being installed on farms around my aunts farm in Barrie. The switch from fossil fuels to flow resources is happening but is slow to occur. I think that it will take many years or decades to happen.
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen if a renewable resource was gone for example cod? What would we do?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think we should find another renewable resource to replace cod that is for our food and supplies.
DeleteI'm very curious about the loss of water because what I've learned is that water is not renewable or non renewable, also that there is always the same amount of water on earth so where is this water coming from
ReplyDeleteAva, I believe there is something called a water cycle that processes over and over again making the water in the ocean remain the same.
DeleteWhen the fossil fuels run out where do you think we will turn?
ReplyDeleteDo you think that we could decrease the risk of global warming? And that in the future will it get better or worse?
ReplyDeleteHow do you think the loss of fossil fuels will affect us?
ReplyDeleteThe loss of fossil fuels will affect us in many different ways such as not being able to use cars, gas stoves e.c.t which we then will have to use electric cars, bikes or go by foot. Plus we will have to use fire to heat up or cook anything.
DeleteI agree with Hanna because if we lose fossil fuels, we would have to suffer just like Hanna said like not being able to use cars, gas stoves etc. Also, I know by fact that 38 million barrels of fossil fuels are used for plastic water bottles which makes our fossil fuels decrease much quicker as we expect it.
DeleteTo bounce off of matthew i thin k we would losse money and go down but then shortly after reboot and pull back up. In my opinion though i dont think we will run out of fossil fuels anytime soon or never because if there is a huge shortage i predict scientests will invent or find a supstitoot. in the long run i dont think we are going to run out
ReplyDeleteWhat can we do to prevent climate change? For example worldwide sea level risings.
ReplyDeleteWhat can we do to help to increase the amount of fossil fuels and not decreasing it so much?
ReplyDeleteBecause of climate change there was a lot of wierd things going around the world such as Italy having snow and etc. Do you think it is going to happen again around hot areas which does snow at all or not very often? How do you know? Explain.
ReplyDelete