Which one is best ?a)Yes, but only if the extra food was sent to countries with starving people.
b)Yes, because it would decrease environmental degradation.
c)I don't eat meat now.
d)No, I don't see the need to eat lower on the food chain.
e)No, I like the taste of meat too much.
Yes people should eat at a lower trophic level b/c as you increase in trophic levels, the energy between them decrease by 90%.
Another benifit is that with the higher the trophic level, the more of a risk people can get toxins and diseases from previously consumed organisms....
so yes they should eat at a lower trophic level.
1. Can feed more people
2. Can sustain more people
3. It's healthier
Molecular ecological research ... from a bio-ecological standpoint as the study of man as the ecological ... and restoration phases of land-use. Ecological ...
LLL
It would begin crystalising and would decrease
A decrease in the amount of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere would result in Cooler global temperatures. This would help decrease the impact of global warming.
Rain would decrease if the oceans died because there wouldn't be enough water to evaporate into clouds.
An ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on Earth's ecosystem. An example sentence would be: She recycles because she wants her ecological footprint to be small.
Drive an SUV; leave the lights burning in every room all night; hold the fridge door open for ten minutes every hour; run the air conditioning with wndows open. BUT.... ummmmm.. Why would you want to INCREASE your carbon foorprint when soooo many others are desperately trying to DECREASE the overall carbon footprint of humanity? We all have a fairly small footprint, this is a hype issue. Having said that, there is absolutely no reasonable reason to not want as small a carbon footprint (or any pollutant footprint) as possible. What you want to be careful of though is that you don't shrink your carbon foot print at the cost of a much larger real pollution foot print. High efficiency bulbs are a great example. They do decrease the power consumption at the terrible cost of Mercury mining, florescence being used and a far larger real pollution foot print. They sure feel good though.
6.48You
This would have to be the United States still. Despite their efforts the rest of the world is far more conditioned to recyleing than they are.A: A low ecological footprint is good. Actually the US is about the second highest in the world, after Dubai.
It doesn't, the ecological footprint is a calculation of how hard you affect earth. Someone with a larger ecological footprint affects the Earth much more than someone with a smaller footprint because they use more of Earth's resources to maintain their lifestyle. Luckely everyone's ecological footprint is different, because if everyone would affect the Earth as much as anyone in The west, the Earth would only be able to sustain 1 billion people, and were with 7 times more than that ;).
A great majority of the world's population would have to be killed.
If Bigfoot were made of coal, he would have a massive carbon footprint.
the ecological niche of a moose would be to eat grass
Due to there being no wind on the moon, as there is no atmosphere, it can be safe to assume that a footprint on the moon would look like a normal footprint, but wouldn't be affected by wind or rain. Therefore it would stay around indefinately. Basicly, its just a perpetualy fresh footprint.
If you pick up one piece and I pick up one piece and a million other people do the same then that will be a lot of litter taken up from the street and it will stop it from destroying our enviroment.
Molecular ecological research ... from a bio-ecological standpoint as the study of man as the ecological ... and restoration phases of land-use. Ecological ...
immigrationImmigration would most likely lead to a general decrease in wages. Immigrants are generally willing to work for less money than people already established in that country.immigration