Climate Change isn’t the only consequence of carbon pollution from fossil fuels. If driving global temperature rise wasn’t enough, increased carbon in our atmosphere is also behind the rapid acidification of our world’s oceans.

But what exactly is ocean acidification?

When carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals. These chemical reactions are termed “Ocean Acidification” or “OA” for short.

Oceans becoming more acidic after the Industrial Revolution are no accident. As humans burn more and more fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere continues to rise, driving climate change and making both air and sea temperatures hotter and hotter.

Ocean acidification is expected to impact ocean species to varying degrees. Photosynthetic algae and sea grasses may benefit from higher CO2 conditions in the ocean, as they require CO2 to live just like plants on land. On the other hand, studies have shown that a more acidic environment has a dramatic effect on some calcifying species, including oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. When shelled organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk. Today, more than a billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. Many jobs and economies in the U.S. and around the world depend on the fish and shellfish in our oceans.

Ocean acidification is an emerging global problem. Over the last decade, there has been much focus in the ocean science community on studying the potential impacts of ocean acidification. Since sustained efforts to monitor ocean acidification worldwide are only beginning, it is currently impossible to predict exactly how ocean acidification impacts will cascade throughout the marine food chain and affect the overall structure of marine ecosystems. With the pace of ocean acidification accelerating, scientists, resource managers, and policymakers recognize the urgent need to strengthen the science as a basis for sound decision making and action.

Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.


The global population is skyrocketing, the climate is changing, and diets are shifting. So how do you tackle the problem of feeding 9 billion people by 2050?

It’s only 2017 and we produce enough food for 10 billion people, so why are we defaulting to a scientific solution? Science can address the technical aspects of food production — yields, shelf life, etc. — but the technical aspects of food production aren’t the problems when it comes to feeding nine billion people, or dealing with the agricultural impact of climate change, or accommodating shifting diets. These problems are, almost exclusively, social and political.

“Twenty-first-century challenges require 21st century approaches,” said Sally Rockey, executive director of FFAR. While many people tend to view agriculture as a tradition-bound system, “it really is a cutting-edge science.”

This may be true, but nowhere is it written that a 21st century approach MUST involve advanced technology, precision-everything, and patching together a broken food system with duct tape made out of patents.

We have an intractable food problem because it’s a people problem, not a technological one. Its solution will involve deliberate choices to do with less quantity and fewer options in a world where the supermarket and its infinite bounty and instant gratification are regarded as a global ideal.

“Revolution” is agriculture oriented toward locality, diversity, redundancy, seasonality, mass participation, and ecological integration. Revolution is farms, and the technologies for distributing food, focused on producing food for a community or region instead of the gaping maw of a global marketplace. Revolution is communities around the world largely independent of food products, methods, and technologies owned outside of those communities.

A Green Revolution would be a fundamental re-engineering of the way food is produced and consumed around the world.


For three decades, environmentalists have been claiming that if we don’t do something to fight global warming, we’ll all turn into pumpkins by the end of the century or so. Yet they’ve made very little headway in getting humanity to act on their suggested remedies.

The amount of Global Warming is often measured relative to the late 19th century even though this is about 100 years after the start of the industrial revolution, when humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels.

According to the Paris Agreement on climate change, the world should try to limit global warming to as close to 1.5C as possible to avoid its worst effects, such as deadly heat waves, sea level rise that threatens coastal cities and more violent storms.

One of the researchers, Professor Michael Mann, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had been using a definition of pre-industrial “that is likely underestimating the warming that has already taken place”.

“That means we have less carbon to burn than we previously thought, if we are to avert the most dangerous changes in climate,” he said.

“When the IPCC says that we’ve warmed 1C relative to pre-industrial, that’s probably incorrect. It’s likely as much as 1.2C.”

Meeting a 1.° C target is obviously more difficult if the change already experienced is 1.2 degrees rather than the 1.0 that had been broadly accepted. The new information doesn’t make the world any warmer, but it could have an effect on programs designed to meet the 1.5 degree goal. Either the total change allowed under agreements needs to go up to adjust for this early change, the definition of the allowed change needs to be redefined to make it clear it’s relative to 1880, or programs will have to be rapidly accelerated to try and hold off that final bit of change.

The study, described in the journal Natural Climate Change, found that anything from 0.02C to 0.21C of warming could already have taken place before the late 19th century.

The lower end of that range would mean the current use of the late 19th century is reasonably accurate, but the upper end would be a substantial change.

Professor Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, said that either the Paris targets “have to be revised” or the world could simply decide that they only wanted to restrict warming relative to the 19th century.

The new information doesn’t make the world any warmer, but it could have an effect on programs designed to meet the 1.5 degree goal. Either the total change allowed under agreements needs to go up to adjust for this early change, the definition of the allowed change needs to be redefined to make it clear it’s relative to 1880, or programs will have to be rapidly accelerated to try and hold off that final bit of change.


“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.”
— Greek proverb

Global warming has increased in vast increments in the last decade. In fact, in the last 50 years, the earth’s global temperature has increased by 3%. Pollution caused by the release of carbon dioxide into the air creates a blanket over the atmosphere. Global warming can cause a whole chain of events to rupture ecosystems, weather patterns, and a variety of other factors. We all play a part in our future.

To save the world, there is no need of any committee or agreement. We can do this by simply altering our lifestyle a little. Take small steps that won’t change our life but make a difference to the world.

Replace Regular Incandescent Light bulb: Replace regular incandescent light bulb with compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. They consume 70% less energy than ordinary bulbs and have longer lifetime.

Go Solar: Many people have caught the energy efficient band wagon of solar energy. Having solar panels installed is something readily possible and available. Incentives and discounts given by government agencies and energy companies make solar energy something to look into.

Reduce Waste: Landfills are the major contributor of methane and other greenhouse gases. When the waste is burnt, it releases toxic gases in the atmosphere which result in global warming. Reusing and recycling old items can significantly reduce your carbon footprint as it takes far less energy to recycle old items than to produce items from scratch.

Use less Hot Water: Buy energy saving geysers and dishwasher for your home. Avoid washing clothes in hot water. Just wash them in cold or warm water. Avoid taking frequent showers and use less hot water. It will help in saving energy require to produce that energy.

Plant a Tree: Planting trees can help much in reducing global warming than any other method. They not only give oxygen but also take in carbon dioxide, during the process of photosynthesis, which is the main source of global warming.

Reuse Towels: Hang towels to dry, instead of popping them back in the wash after a few uses.

Spread the Awareness: Always try your best to educate people about global warming and its causes and after affects. Tell them how they can contribute their part by saving energy that will be good for the environment. Gather opportunities and establish programs that will help you to share information with friends, relatives and neighbors.

By being just a little more mindful, we all can play our part in combating global warming. These easy tips will help preserve the planet for future generations.


About 71% of earth’s surface consists of water.

The ocean remains one of the most expansive, mysterious and diverse places on Earth. Unfortunately, it is being threatened by pollution from people on land and from natural causes. Marine life is dying, and as a result the whole oceanic ecosystem is threatened simply by various sources of pollution.

One such hazardous pollution is plastic pollution.

More than 8 million tons of plastic are dumped in our oceans every year.

The proliferation of plastic products in the last 70 years or so has been extraordinary; quite simply we cannot now live without them. We are now producing nearly 300 million tons of plastic every year, half of which is for single use.

Plastic is cheap and incredibly versatile with properties that make it ideal for many applications. However, these qualities have also resulted in it becoming an environmental issue. We have developed a “disposable” lifestyle and estimates are that around 50% of plastic is used just once and thrown away.

Plastic is a valuable resource and plastic pollution is an unnecessary and unsustainable waste of that resource.

Plastic is harmful to environment is many ways. It does not break down easily and it is considered as food for marine animals.

But we could prevent this much plastic from ever entering the ocean.

For example, only 14% of plastic packaging is recycled, and it’s the biggest source of plastic pollution in the oceans, according to the report.

If we reused more plastic packaging, and turned it back into other plastic products, the report concludes, we could significantly decrease the amount that goes into the oceans.

If we are to preserve ocean and its natural beauty, drastic measures have to be taken to combat this pollution and keep what we hold most dear.