WWF, one of the world's largest and most respected independent conservation organization with 6 million supporters and a network of more than 100 offices on five continents, opens its office in Korea finally. WWF has a huge success with 'Earth Hour' campaign in Korea over the years.

On March 28, 2014, WWF officially celebrated its presence in Korea with a launching party, where Eco-save club had an opportunity to observe. 

The party main event had started with the congratulatory message from the UN Director General, Mr. Ban, Ki-moon, then the Director General of WWF, Dr. Marco Lambertini gave a speech over the WWF's mission in Korea. Over 300 people were there to celebrate WWF's presence in Korea.

WWF-Korea will focus on addressing ecological footprint issues, engaging on key policy discussions, and creating awareness about biodiversity.  WWF-Korea will have a special role in leading the WWF network in the Asia-Pacific region-building on Korea's strong engagement on climate and energy issues, its leadership in various corporate and industrial sectors and its innovatory prowess, as well as its critical role in sustainable fisheries, particularly tuna.

Dr. Lambertini told me that he started his eco career as a reporter to an eco-magazine when he was 12 years old. He emphasized a little attention and step on environment would make a huge difference in the future. He wished all his best to all the youth who have dedicated their time in eco-work.

It was an inspiring night for Eco-save club to reflect our work so far, and reconfirm our commitment to save the planet.

Biodiversity survey results

  We have gathered all our survey results, based on a public of about age ten to twenty, and have analyzed them by making three circle graphs. The first graph (Q1. What is biodiversity?) apparently shows us that the general public does not know about the biodiversity that well; only a third of the people polled knew what it was or heard about it. The second graph (Q2. What is biodiversity related to?) is at least good news since everybody can infer what biodiversity is related to. The last graph (Q3. How much of the world’s plant diversity for food and agriculture has been lost during the 20th century?) brings the worst news for only 15 percent of the public could answer the question correctly. Therefore, in the next meeting we are going to decide what to write in our personal letter to UNEP Korea or possibly the Seoul Metropolitan Government. An option we are considering is to convince the organization to include environmental awareness in the regular school curriculum.

Meeting on Biodiversity Survey

Biodiversity hotspots, such as tropical rainforests in South America, coral reefs of the Equatorial Pacific, and river ecosystems, have been gradually fading away over the years. Even in Korea, the precious wildlife around the Han River, Nakdong River, and many other major rivers are being destroyed every time a factory is built around it. Therefore, in order for us to take action on preserving biodiversity in these areas, we have decided to take a short, but crucial poll. This survey will help us determine how much of the general public knows about these issues.

Therefore, we have decided to have several online meetings amongst ourselves. In the process, we will make graphs and decide on an action plan to help relieve this perilous and aggravating situation, including writing a personal letter to UNEP Korea.

Biodiversity Essay Competition - I

We participated in an essay competition. The topics were preserving biodiversity or saving energy. I chose to write about biodiversity. This is one of the essays submitted into the essay competition:

Suppose a massive climate change crisis descended upon the world and all our livestock died? How will we obtain protein-rich food? Our only hope is other species that can survive harsh circumstances. Unfortunately, we are killing off these unusual species in order to increase the population of our normal livestock. Therefore, if our current livestock resources would be depleted, we would have no other back-up food source for extinction is an irreversible process. Scientists believe that humans have triggered a mass-extinction of a scale never seen since the last major mass-extinction, 65 million years ago, at the end of the dinosaurs’ epoch. Biologists have estimated that about 30,000 species see their last member die annually. By the end of the century, nearly 500,000 species would have become extinct. It is believed that, in the last 100 years, humans have increased the extinction rate by over 1,000 times.

Biodiversity has been a serious issue for a few decades. Although, many governments and organizations have tried to tackle the problem with several methods, there has been no sign of improvement. All efforts to stop the mass-extinction have been futile. The main reason why there has been no progress is because we have pitted biodiversity preservation and human welfare against each other. For years, preservationists have believed in the hotspots theory, in which twenty-five locations in the world with the most diverse plant life are protected at any costs. Usually, these hotspots are in rainforests. People have lost their homes and wealth while moving out of these national parks. However, plants make up less than one percent of the Earth’s life tree. Hence, it is unreasonable to justify that the more the plant life in a location means the more biodiversity. Recently, numerous conservationists have opposed this theory and have developed ecosystem services strategy. Why place biodiversity and human welfare on opposite sides of the see-saw? This new strategy informs the public about our dependence on the resources of ecosystems and aims to protect biodiversity for the sake of humans. Therefore, we must preserve biodiversity because it is essential to humankind’s survival.

Currently, we owe our terrestrial ecosystems a great debt. Without any of them, humans would become extinct. The raw materials, food, and other resources we obtain from the life around us helps all of us survive. It is safe to state that everything we make or use involves nature’s resources in some way. However, we are using these resources at an uncontrollable pace. In 2000, the United Nations launched the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Conducted by an international team of more than 1,300 scientists, four aspects of ecosystem services were assessed: provisioning (resources from nature), regulating (nature’s control over catastrophes), cultural (benefits for social relationships), and supporting (basic elements of ecosystems). It was reported that nearly all of these services have not only declined, but have been used unsustainably. Simply put, we humans are fueling our own destruction. The damage of Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was amplified by the lack of vegetation on coastlines. In both cases, humans depleted vegetation along coasts, leading to more damage than with vegetation. Moreover, farmers in the Sahara desert are affecting economies half the world away. Every year, several hundred million tons of sand is blown away to the Caribbean Sea, in which coral reefs and local industries are harmed. Natural resources are the backbones of developing economies. Improving the environmental situation is to alleviate poverty for 750 million people. Third, when ecosystems collapse, human health is threatened. Nearly two million people die of water contamination. Wetlands and forests can provide abundant resources of clean drinking water.

Biodiversity is not only helpful to humans now, but it can be crucial in the future. According to scientists all over the globe, there is a 70% chance of a global disaster to occur in the next century. This catastrophe can be a sudden climate change, an outbreak of a universal pandemic, or fluctuations in sea level. Regardless of the case, there is an extremely high chance of our main sources of food to become extinct during the event. Only thirty types of crops provide more than 90% of the world’s calories and 14 animal species that make up nearly 90% of our livestock. Moreover, all of these crucial species are prone to diseases and are sensitive to climate changes. If some of these keystone species die off, the entire world can become dead by a global mass-extinction. Fortunately, there is a solution to this dilemma. There are some relatives of our central plant and livestock species, which can withstand dire conditions, such as diseases and harsh climates. Some examples are the Blanco Orejinegro cattle of the Andes, Namaqua Africander sheep of Africa, and the Yakut cattle of Siberia.

In conclusion, biodiversity must be maintained not only for the sake of other organisms, but also for the sake of humans. Humans heavily depend on the lives of other species right now and will do so in the future. Many ecologists and biologists are starting to think that the Earth still has a chance of reviving itself. Although the extinction rate is rising, it has not yet reached the threshold, which divides sustainable rates and catastrophic rates. Already, many plans are being executed in both developing nations, such as China and India, and developed countries, such as USA and Japan. Many illustrious icons have said encouraging words to the public about the relationship between biodiversity and human comfort. Former U.N. secretary-general Kofi A. Annan said “our fight against poverty, inequality and disease is directly linked to the health of the Earth.” In short, to maintain biodiversity is to protect all organisms on Earth, including us.  By Y.J. Kim

Biofuels Are Not So Green

Did you know that biofuels are not actually eco-friendly? Since their discovery in the early 21st century, biofuels have been widely regarded as the means of saving the earth from environmental catastrophe due to harmful carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Research in 2001 and 2002 did show that biofuels were more green and efficient than fossil fuels. However, scientists then did not consider some crucial factors that would completely change our view of biofuels. Recent studies show that there are many disadvantages to using biofuels as alternative energy sources. Biofuels, once promising alternative energy sources, are not actually green. (Picture from Washington Post 2008)

To begin with, the production of biofuels causes enormous amounts of carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere. In the past, people thought that using biofuels released only a minute amount of carbon dioxide; indeed, burning biofuels emits eight times less carbon dioxide than burning regular fossil fuels. However, changing crops into energy sources yields a great deal of carbon dioxide. For example, forests are destroyed in order to create space for biofuel crops. This is unfortunate because forests play an important role in reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, absorbing forty percent of it. When forests are destroyed, carbon dioxide accumulates. Transporting biofuels across the globe produces a great deal of carbon dioxide as well. Moreover, during the refinement of biofuels, a large amount of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere from the reaction created when oxygen is pumped into the liquefied crops. Thus, biofuels actually yield more carbon than conventional fossil fuels.

Second, producing biofuels causes deforestation, land degradation, and the destruction of the environment. The majority of people think that biofuels do not cause harm to the environment because they do not pollute the atmosphere or the oceans. Unfortunately, in order to produce biofuels, crops such as corn need to be grown. The amount of arable land on the planet is limited to approximately seven percent of the total surface area. Of this tiny amount of arable land, about half is already being utilized. Therefore, biofuel crops must be grown in the other half of the total arable land, most of which is located in large jungles and forests. When this occurs, deforestation is inevitable, even though it is quite hazardous to the organisms living in those areas and to the environment. Furthermore, soybeans are grown every year to replenish the nutrients of the land; if crops for biofuels replace those for soybeans, the land will be depleted and become barren. For this reason, those who want to cultivate biofuels tend to search mostly around the Amazon rainforest of Brazil. Therefore, biofuels can be partially blamed for deforestation and the destruction of the land and the environment.

Third, biofuels put an increasing strain on fresh water sources. A large amount of water is used in farming and irrigation. Just like other plants, biofuel crops require water to grow; it is crucial to their health. Biorefineries also need water. When biofuel crops are sent to refineries, the crops first have to be liquefied by pumping water into the spores of the stem. Hence, a large amount of water is used to produce a trivial amount of biofuel.

Fourth, the use of biofuels leads to the loss of biodiversity. In the past, most people believed that biofuels were not hazardous to any living organism because biofuels are essentially plants. However, excessive development for the cultivation of biofuel crops destroys natural habitats where many organisms live. For example, let us assume that the entire Amazon rainforest was cleared for biofuel crops. This would cause a catastrophic imbalance of biodiversity in the region because nearly twenty-six million exotic species would be wiped out, just for the sake of two or three species of crops for biofuels.

Finally, during the refinement of biofuels, a chemical compound called aldehyde is created. This compound is usually found in car exhaust, paint chemicals, cigar remnants, and construction materials. Not only is this chemical extremely flammable, but it also causes many serious health problems. For example, formaldehyde, part of the aldehyde group, causes headaches, skin disorders, and sick house syndrome. Sick house syndrome occurs when a person first arrives in a new building and inhales the formaldehyde from the wallpaper and other construction materials. This syndrome can develop into lung disorders, heart disease, and even cancer. Aldehyde, produced in the refinement of biofuels, may kill humans and animals.

In conclusion, biofuels are not green but quite dangerous. The production of biofuels emits large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, causes deforestation and land degradation, uses an enormous amount of water, leads to the loss of biodiversity, and produces aldehyde, an extremely harmful chemical compound. Therefore, biofuels as alternative energy is not as positive a solution as we have expected. By Y.J.Kim