Rewilding: The most basic but effective conservation technique?

It's exciting to see a book about wildlife conservation in the UK being a top seller and highly advertised in bookstores. If you haven't heard of the book 'Wilding' yet by Isabella Tree I would highly recommend you pick it up. The book talks about the conservation technique of rewilding (obviously) in the Knepp estate in West Sussex and how this technique can be replicated in other habitats. The book defines this technique as essentially doing nothing. It is removing all intensive management and allowing natural succession of a habitat to occur with minimal human impact or intervention. The idea is that it will increase the population of the native species and possibly attract new species. This can also include the reintroduction of native species that are no longer found in that habitat (similar to my blogpost on beaver reintroduction). However, this is sparking some debate, particularly with locals when this technique is done on open land (or commons) such as Dartmoor which begs the question is a technique that we should be implementing more?

One key idea in this concept is to promote naturalistic grazing patterns to maintain sustainable vegetation levels and provide different exposure levels for a range of species. For example, in her book Tree links the population of Dartmoor ponies to an increase in the rare butterfly species the Marsh Fritillary; an insect that declined in population 66% between 1990 and 2000. She also rights about a study claiming the grazing of ponies has helped to increase the weight in grazing cows as the remove the tough upper layer of grass that bovines cannot digest. Whilst I don't recommend anyone eats meat, there is the argument that farmers can still raise livestock on the moor and can advertise the meat as organic and free range. This is what is done on the Knepp estate and has lead to an increase in profits for the landowners.

Another idea is to remove any intensive management techniques already in place such as drainage channels used in agriculture. The blocking of the channels (also known as grip blocking) will help to restore the water table leading to the reformation of rivers, streams and wetlands. This is what happened on the Knepp estate which has helped to increases the diversity of habitats, and subsequently increased overall species diversity. If this occurred nationwide it could help to increase the UK's ranking on the Biodiversity Intactness Index which is currently 189/218. In areas of Dartmoor this had lead to an increase in Sphagnum, moorgrass, braken and gorse which are the key plants that support endangered habitats such a blanket bogs. If this could be used to increase the size of our peatlands, this could significantly increase the rate of carbon sequestration as peat is a greater store of carbon than terrestrial plants.

The Knepp estate has also seen an increase in eco-tourism as they promote a guided nature walk and a sustainable camping site. Whilst the book does not mention a specific figure in profits, this could help bring tourists to areas, such as national parks, provided that they stick to paths and follow the guides to avoid damaging the plant life. This could create a new economy for locals, reducing our dependence on intensive agriculture which is always a benefit in terms of ethics and climate change.

However there are objections, mainly from farmers. The idea of reducing intensive farming will most likely result in reduced yield as fertiliser and pesticide isn't allowed under this scheme. Reintroduction programmes are also expensive with the beavers in Knapdale costing the Scottish government £2 million which, given the countries current financial state, could be invested in the public sector. Personally, I feel that ethically we should be looking to invest in our conservation and this method can be done on a budget and we need to take any measure we can to improve the state of our wildlife. So to sum up, I think rewilding could be easily implemented by landowners and help improve the UK's biodiversity.


Click here to buy Wilding on Amazon. 

Scottish Beaver Reintroduction

The European Beaver that became extinct in the UK in the 16th century after being hunted to extinction for their fur and medicinal purposes. They excrete castoreum which is an oil originally used to treat headaches. Reintroduction programmes for this beautiful mammal began in the early 2000's in Scotland with aims of sustaining a healthy population in order to reverse years of hunting.

A photo of the Eurasian Beaver. Photo from CreamTeam.be

The first reintroduction programme began in 2001 and was located within the River Tay, Scotland's largest river. This area was chosen due to the high biodiversity, the designation of SSSI and the high population of salmon meaning there would be a good food source for the beavers. Despite some opposition after a few rouge escaped individuals, in 2011 up to 100 individuals were recorded with there being evidence of breeding and a growing juvenile population. The second project began in 2007 and was located within the Knapdale forest after an application was made by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland and this project was given a gran of £1 million. and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. The first reintroduction was in 2009 where 16 beavers were realised. There were however a few mortality's and a few runaways meaning that in 2014 there were 10 beavers remaining. Since then a successful family unit has been established with a growing juvenile population and 28 more individuals are planned to be released within the next few years.. In February 2019, the European Beaver was granted European protected status and the appropriate measures should therefore be taken to protect the new populations that have been established.

There are many benefits to beavers being present within certain ecosystems the main one being that fact that they are considered ecosystem engineers as they have the potential to alter or maintain their habitat. Beavers remove trees in a similar manner to coppicing which reduces the size of the canopy and canopy cover. Whilst this may seem like a bad thing, it actually increases diversity as it allows ground plants to grow, thus increasing insect diversity. The trees removed during this process are used to create dams which block a stream or rivers water course. This can create or restore wetlands which are key habitats from migratory birds in particular. This also acts as a store of water that can be extracted during periods of drought. The dams create ponds that offer protection and a food supply for beavers as well as provide a habitat for aquatic life and invertebrates, potentially attracting a greater population of pollinators.

There has also been some opposition to the project with one argument being it will affect the local agricultural industry as these areas are dependent on the existing drainage system, affecting water supply. The other major issue was cost with many questioning the running cost of the project and if locals would have to contribute towards the maintenance as well as if this would take away local government spending from other area. Question were also raised if other important Scottish species would still be receiving the same amount of funding towards their conservation efforts. There were also question about the impact on the topography as many were concerned with the stability of the river bank and burrowing may cause the river bank to collapse, leading to an increase in flooding to the surrounding area.

Despite these issue I personally believe the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages and projects like these help to maintain the ecosystem and improve diversity. Plus there is also the ethical issue as it was our (or our ancestors) fault for the initial extinction so shouldn't it be our responsibility to help introduce an maintain healthy populations? Hopefully this leads to other successful reintroduction programmes.


Resources -

•  https://www.nfus.org.uk/news/news/union-reiterates-opposition-reintroduction-beavers-tayside-following-snh-report
• https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/
• https://scottishbeavers.org.uk/beaver-facts/beaver-trial-faqs/when-do-beavers-start-breeding-and-are-they-around-all-year/
• https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-and-wild-places/saving-species/beavers
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38096751

The Importance of Peatlands

Photo of a peatland habitat. from leeds.ac.uk

In the UK, 10% of our land area are covered in peatlands and are vital not only to our economy and wildlife but as a form of carbon sequestration. Despite these factors, peatlands are given little care, unless designated by governments, as they are often just seen as bogs with nutrient rich soil making them ideal spots for the growing agricultural industry. However, the elevated water table means that drainage is required which removes the required vegetation (also know as bog builders)  that have lead to a dramatic decline in global peatland habitats. So what is being done to reverse this and why are these habitats so important?

So peatlands are essentially a soft, nutrient rich soil that forms over a long period of time, in a similar way to coal, under anaerobic conditions. These habitats also acts as a large store of water that leads to the colonisation of Sphagnum mosses that lead to the development of peat habitats such as swamps and wetlands. In the UK there are 10 key peatland Sphagnum species with most common being Baltic Bog-moss that is protected under UK legislation. These mosses have a sponge like structure meaning they store large quantities of water, preventing the surrounding area from drying up. This specific property also helps to prevent any decay and decomposition aiding the accumulation of peat and helping to maintain these diverse habitats. The bog building plants also help to shape the habitat by creating pool and hammock structures that increase the water table, making more water more available to plants on the surface. If these species are removed, it would cause a decline in peat formation, water supply and affect the topography of the habitat.

Global, peatlands are currently storing 500 GT (which is more than all forests) of carbon as a result of peat being made of dead and decaying vegetation which is stored instead of being released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. When peatlands are drained and deforested, that stored carbon is then released into the atmosphere so imagine the damage that would be done if all the peatlands around the world were gone? RIP polar bears. These habitats also act as a store of water which not only benefits biodiversity but can also increase ground water levels in the surrounding area and the moss structure helps to filter the groundwater. This means that our water reservoirs would face serious decline in these peatland habitats continue to decrease in size and quality.

Peatlands tend to have a low species diversity due to the habitat creating a small niche so only specialised organism can live there. As the habitat is currently declining many of the species are subsequently following, including the Common Scoter and the Mountain Hare, and the specialised habitat requirements of these species mean they cannot colonise other habitats. As these habitats are declining the competition between and amongst species is increasing therefore reducing the population However, action is being taken especially regarding the protection of breeding birds as several peat habitats, including the North Pennies, have been designated a SPA (Special Protection Area). These areas are maintained and managed in order to increase specific bird populations. Most of these habitats are also listed a SSSI's (sites of special scientific interest) which are areas managed by Natural England due to their biological or geological interest. This ensures that land owners take all the necessary precautions to protect these areas, including many peatland habitats, from damage.

Despite vast restoration efforts, I feel that the importance of these areas is not emphasised to the general public, mainly because they aren't necessarily as aesthetically pleasing as the bright and vibrant tropical rainforests we see. Do I think more could be done? Absolutely. However, the UK government is making good efforts to designated and protect these areas but could invest in future expansion projects to increase the size of our peatlands.


Resources

• http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/publications/commission-inquiry/work-commission/peatland-hydrology 
• https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/mosses-and-liverworts/sphagnum-moss
• http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/publications/commission-inquiry/work-commission/peatland-biodiversity
• http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5905

Does Our Environment Affect Our Welfare and Health?

There's no question that we are having a grave impact on our environment whether that is through climate change or habitat destruction. Many of us believe that in order to improve our happiness and welfare we need to have a high income and economic growth in our country but there have been many reports to suggest that there is a strong link between growing the economy and environmental degradation. So what does this mean for our health? Can we really be at our happiest and healthiest with the current trend of over exploitation?

According to the World Bank, in 2014 globally we emitted 36.2 million Ktonnes of CO2 in contrast to the 9 million Ktonnes emitted in 1960 which has made us more vulnerable to respiratory illness. The WHO has linked 3 million deaths each year to outdoor air pollution with reference to illness ranging from asthma and bronchitis to lung cancer. These reports also state these illnesses are higher in industrial areas and larger cities due to excess transport fumes and burning of fossil fuels. There has also been a link between high concentrations of air pollution and cardiovascular illness which puts us at greater risk of heart attack, stroke and angina. One way this occurs is through particulate matter entering the blood stream, restricting the movement of blood vessels, increasing blood pressure and therefore increasing our risk of suffering a heart attack.

Sunlight provides us with vitamin D which is needed to regulate calcium and phosphate within the body, helping to maintain healthy bones and muscles. We as humans require 10 micrograms of vitamin D a day, most of which we are supposed to get naturally through sunlight meaning we do have to step out of the house occasionally. A lack of vitamin D in extreme cases can cause rickets in children that leads to weak bones and deformities. This causes a high number of bone fractures and can eventually cause a curvature of the spine, leading to a permanent disability. Low vitamin D can also cause osteomalacia, which is similar to rickets, in adults causing bones to soften. With 1 in 5 people in the UK having low vitamin D levels, it is important we spend more time outdoors (and maybe consider a supplement in winter).

There have also been studies suggesting a link between time outside and an improvement in mental health with studies showing time outdoors reduces stress and reduces the symptoms of depression and anxiety. Scientists have suggested that urban and man made environments has 'constant simulation' that leads to mental fatigue, making those living in cities at greater risk of mental illness. Those living in rural areas also have better sleep with less noises keeping them awake. This will help to improve concentration, lower stress and improve moods which will allow people to be more productive.

There is also the obvious benefit that walking in a natural environment keeps us active, aids weight loss and maintains a healthy heart. Sitting down for too long can cause a decline in bone density and increase blood pressure after deposits in the blood vessels are not removed. All of these factors have been linked to a lower life expectancy by increasing our risk of stroke, heart disease and diabetes just to name a few.

So we all need to get outside in nature to help improve our health and wellbeing. However, I'm not saying that if you live in a city you're going to get ill and live a shorter life because that's not the case. Most large cities have parks and open spaces you can visit and city councils should be turning old sites into open spaces to encourage the urban population the get out and appreciate nature and we should all be doing our bit to protect it to protect the health of the future generations.


References
https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution#death-rates-from-air-pollution
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/practical-support/air-pollution
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/
https://patient.info/health/osteoporosis-leaflet/vitamin-d-deficiency

Mangroves: The Natural Defence for Coastlines

Figure 1 - A map highlighting the distribution of mangrove forests (in black) throughout the globe (Romañach, 2017)

Across the intertidal zone are a collection of mangrove forests located along the coastlines of equatorial countries (figure 1), the largest being The Sundarbans in Bangladesh covering a total of 140,000 ha. These forests are often referred to as 'the roots of the sea' due to the complex aerial root system that spend the majority of the time above sea level enabling the plant to survive in the anaerobic soil, making these ecosystems tolerant to a hypersaline environment. With 40% of mangrove species labelled threatened by the IUCN, these coastal areas could be at greater risk of coastal erosion, storm surges and sea level rise. It is important these issues are understood to aid conservation of global coastlines as well as these beautiful unique habitats.

Figure 2 - A photograph showing the dense root systems of mangrove forests that reduce erosion 

Erosion is defined as “the process of eroding or being eroded by wind, water, or other natural agents”  and the complex, uneven aerial root system (figure 2) of mangroves reduces erosion of the shore. Mangroves have reportedly reduced the height waves up to 66% and slow the flow of seawater as the vegetation acts as a buffer between the land and sea. This enables 70-80% of incoming sediment to settle resulting, increasing biomass. This helps to increase the fertility in these harsh environments, increasing biodiversity, as mangrove soils have a high nutrient content. This gradual accumulation of biomass, over a long-time period, allows peat to form which is a long-term carbon sink helping to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. The dense roots bind soil particles together meaning an increase in mangrove trees means that less soil particles will become dislodged by incoming waves. This reduces the risk of flooding and damage to infrastructure in coastal communities. This risk increased in Guyana as after the removal of mangroves, coastal erosion increased 3 m annually.

The dense vegetation helps to reduce the impact of hurricanes and tsunamis inland by reducing the force of the storm surge. Figure 3 shows a storm surge is a large increase in sea water due to extreme weather, that often carries debris, that causes damage to infrastructure and flooding. The complex structure of mangrove forests increases the frictional resistance resulting in a drop in the force of the storm surge and slowing the flow rate of the wave. Storm surges are the biggest cause of damage during storms affecting causing large scale damage to properties, roads, biodiversity and coastal erosion. Studies have reported that mangroves can reduce the amplitude of a storm surge by 6 to 10 cm/km resulting in a decline in inland flooding and may fewer individuals at risk. However, the force from the waves can damage the mangroves often resulting in uprooting and damaging trunks so the health of mangrove forests should be monitored to ensure future storm surges have a reduced impact.

Figure 3 - A graphic showing the large increase in wave size during a storm surge 

Not only do mangroves provide a habitat to endangered species, including the Bengal tiger, but there are also major benefits to the human population as they reduce the risk to coastal settlements. Despite these major benefits, deforestation of these unique habitats is still on the rise due to the growth in aquaculture and the high value of mangrove wood potentially putting coastlines at risk.

Bibliography

• Gracia, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Oakley, J., & Williams, A. (2017). Use of ecosystems in coastal erosion management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 156, 277-289. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301588#bib42
• ICUN. (2010, April 8th). Mangrove forests in worldwide decline. Retrieved from ICUN Threatened List: http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/mangrove-forests-in-worldwide-decline
• Leggett, M. (2011, April 5th). Carbon grasped by Mangrove roots vastly underestimated. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from Earth Times: http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/carbon-grasped-mangrove-roots-vastly-underestimated/662/
• NOAA. (2018, June 25th). What is storm surge? Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from National Ocean Service: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/stormsurge-stormtide.html
• Oxford University. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English (Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 10th, 2018
• Romañach, S. (2017). Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and prognosis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 154, 72-82. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301710#fig
• Sivasothi, N. (2001). How plants cope in the mangroves. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from Guide to the Mangroves of Singapore: http://mangrove.nus.edu.sg/guidebooks/text/1043.htm
• Spalding, M., Mclvor, A., & Tonneijck, F. (2014). Mangroves for coastal defence. Cambridge: The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.nature.org/media/oceansandcoasts/mangroves-for-coastal-defence.pdf
• United Nations. (2017). The Sundarbans. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from UNESCO: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/798

The Danger of the Fishing Industry

Overfishing is defined as “the taking of fish species which exceeds its reproductive capacity” and as a result, we could have fishless oceans by 2048. Overfishing is a result of the mismanagement of fish stocks which leads to fishing above the maximum sustainable yield which is what lead to the collapse of the Newfoundland cod stocks in 1992. Reports show that between 90-100 million tons of fish are caught annually but with a growing population and consequently a higher demand for fish, overfishing is on the rise which could lead to grave environmental impacts.

One of these impacts is bycatch, or the removal or non-target species, due to unsustainable fishing methods such as demersal trawling.At least 40% of global catch is estimated to be bycatch and has been linked to a decline in population of large marine species, including the hammerhead shark. Leatherback turtles are likely to become extinct in the next 5 – 30 years with the main cause being pacific long line fisheries, designed to catch tuna. However, a large proportion of bycatch is believed to be unreported as it is discarded overboard to avoid fines once the vessel reaches shore which can stop effective conservation and designations in the areas in greatest need of protection. Bycatch has a major impact on marine ecosystems and will increase as the fishing industry grows.

Unsustainable fishing methods are also a major cause of habitat destruction, the most damaging being deep-sea trawling (figure 1) that tears up the sea bed which kills a range for species including coral and sea grass. This can also have an indirect effect as the disturbance of the sea bed causes a decline in photosynthesis by the removal or green sea plants and suspended particles, created by trawling, cause oxygen levels to fall making areas of the ocean uninhabitable to certain marine species. Trawling has been linked to the destruction of 30-50% of the coral along the Norwegian continental shelf and was the main reason for the Røst reef becoming a no take zone in 2002 with other nations protecting habitats on the sea bed.

Abandoned fishing nets has created the issue of ghost fishing which is when marine organisms become trapped in unused fishing gear. Not only does this account for 10% of marine debris, but each net can catch anywhere between 30-40 individuals included the Leatherback turtle. A positive feedback mechanism is also created as trapped organisms can act as bait for the apex predators, including rare shark species that can put them at greater risk.

Figure 2 - A list of the most and least sustainable fish to buy (activation.com)

Consumers have the ability to reduce these impacts by buying sustainable fish or cutting fish from their diet altogether. If consumers wish to buy fish they should purchase from the MCS sustainable fish list (some of which can be seen in figure 2) and look for the MSC logo on the packaging. Overall the fishing industry is unsustainable and this needs to change to protect the oceans. Personally, I feel the only 'sustainable method' is to stop fishing as there are many scientific studies showing we don't actually need to eat fish. If fish populations are going to recover, we need to stop eating them.

Bibliography

Activation. (2016). Fish: The Farmed v. Wild Debate, from activation.com. Retrieved October 1 2018. https://www.activationproducts.com/blog/farmed-fish-wild-fish-debate/

Australian Government. (2018). Trawling. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from Australian Fisheries Management Authority: https://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries-management/methods-and-gear/trawling

Buhl-Mortensen, P., & Buhl-Mortensen. (2018, Febuary 27). Impacts of Bottom Trawling and Litter on the Seabed in Norwegian Waters. Frontiers in Marine Science. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00042/full

FAO. (2012). WORLD REVIEW OF FISHERIES. New York: United Nations. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf

Kemp, D. (1998). The Environment Dictionary. London: Routledge. Retrieved October 1, 2018

Mason, F. (2002). The Newfoundland Cod Stock Collapse: A Review and Analysis of Social Factors. Electronic Green Journal, 1(17).

NOAA. (2009, October 19). Deep Water Corals. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: https://web.archive.org/web/20100221152237/http://coris.noaa.gov/about/deep/#fossa

Roach, J. (2002, November 2). Seafood May Be Gone by 2048, Study Says. Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2006/11/seafood-biodiversity/

United Nations. (2009, May 6). Ghost nets hurting marine environment. Retrieved from FAO: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/19353/icode/

WWF. (2010). Factsheet: Bycatch. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from panda.org: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/bycatch_factsheet.pdf

Are Fireworks Damaging Our Environment?

Happy new year! Our beautiful planet has taken another journey around our sun meaning that we celebrate with over the top and elaborate firework displays and excessive drinking. Whilst watching the London fireworks on TV, I couldn't help but notice the large amount of smoke being emitted which got me thinking could these beautiful sparks of light actually be having a big impact on the environment?

A picture of fireworks. From pixabay.com

Before looking at the impact I was curious what these were actually made of. In the simplest form, fireworks are tubes filled with gunpowder, wrapped in flash paper and attached to a fuse, hence the explosion. However, to create the sparkle and the colour aluminium, iron, steel, zinc, or magnesium are added as these ensure that fireworks will burn for longer and brighter. Compounds of strontium, lithium, sodium, barium or copper are added to change the colour as these react with heat differently to produce different coloured flames, thus creating the beautiful displays we see twice a year. These additions are the biggest concern as in high concentrations, they can be toxic for both humans and wildlife. The fireworks create particulate matter containing the toxic elements that will eventually settle on land and, if landed on soil, can be taken into the plant system via the roots and enter the food chain via bio-magnification. Aluminium alone can affect the functions of gills in fish as it acts as an inhibitor for the enzyme responsible for the uptake of ions and will therefore reduce fish populations and any predators feeding on the poisoned fish.

Another issue is the smoke caused as it increases particulate matter levels and increases carbon dioxide concentrations within our atmosphere. Particulate matter is a collection of particles (under 100 micrometers) that are either produced naturally or, in the case of fireworks, are produced from chemical reactions. Minerals (including aluminium, silicon, iron and calcium) are producers of particulate matter and, as previously stated, some of these are included in the makeup of fireworks but this composition varies depending on colour. The monitoring of particulate matter has shown that pollution episodes (above average concentrations) occur around January and November implying there may be a link between New Year and Bonfire night. During these winter months, high PM concentration have been linked to temperature inversion that are responsible for trapping pollution at ground levels, in turn increasing our exposure time. There are a range of health impacts ranging from respiratory illness to affecting the cardiovascular system with these risks being greatest during inversions which is shown by the increase of breathing problems of over 30% during Diwali. However, there is also a large environmental impact the first one being the impact of photosynthesis as PM deposits on the leaves of green plants reducing the contact to sunlight. This can reduce the rate of plant growth and therefore lessening the amount of food available to primary consumers. This can affect of the rest of the food web as it reduces energy available for higher tropic levels (basically reducing food for top predators) especially if the primary consumer populations are affected.

The chemical process of lighting the gun powder has been linked to the pollution of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, both of which are major polluting gases. Sulphur dioxide is directly linked to the production of acid rain that can corrode metal and limestone structures as well as the exoskeletons of invertebrates. As many small invertebrates are the basis of any food web, this can again affect higher tropic levels and affect the food availability within the ecosystem. This can also affect the pH of water bodies and has the potential to cause ocean acidification which is a cause for coral bleaching. As our coral reefs are currently in decline shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to reduce acid rain, especially for things that are not strictly necessary?  Nitrogen dioxide has been linked to increased eutrophication, decreasing the sunlight available to a water supply by the growth of algal blooms. This causes a decline in oxygen from a lack of photosynthesis affecting the populations of marine organisms thus reducing biodiversity. This, again, can affect human health and can cause nitrogen dioxide poisoning as it can irritate the mucous membrane in the lungs.

So with these major environmental impacts shouldn't we be focusing on reducing our use of fireworks rather than spending millions on elaborate firework displays every year? With so much advancement in scientific knowledge, it does seem strange to me that we have not found a more sustainable alternative, despite the fact that firework displays are unnecessary to our well being but I can see that it is a tradition and culturally we associate these with celebrations. With the development of renewable energy sources, light and laswer shows could be an alternative if done safely. With climate change being on the tip of everyone tongue, I think we should be looking at smaller issues, like fireworks, in order to help the bigger picture.


References

• B Rosseland, T Eldhuset, M Staurnes. Environmental effects of aluminium. 1990. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24202562
• Wonderopolis. How are fireworks made? 2014. https://www.wonderopolis.org/wonder/how-are-fireworks-made
• McLendon, R. Are Fireoworks Bad for the Environment? Earth Matters. 2018. https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/are-fireworks-bad-for-the-environment
• Fuller, G. Our prettiest pollutant: just how bad are fireworks for the environment? The Conservation. 2015. http://theconversation.com/our-prettiest-pollutant-just-how-bad-are-fireworks-for-the-environment-52451
• Compound Interest. The Dark Side of Fireworks. January 2017. https://www.compoundchem.com/2017/01/05/fireworks-environment/