Soil Erosion in Africa

Soil Erosion in Africa Soil erosion in Africa threatens food and fuel supplies and can contribute to climate change. For over a century, governments and aid organizations have tried to combat soil erosion in Africa, often with limited effect. The Problem Today Currently, 40% of soil in Africa is degraded. Degraded soil diminishes food production and leads to soil erosion, which in turn contributes to desertification. This is particularly worrisome since, according to the UNs  Food and Agriculture Organization, some 83% of sub-Saharan African people depend on the land for their livelihood, and food production in Africa will have to increase almost 100% by 2050 to keep up with population demands. All of this makes soil erosion a pressing social, economic, and environmental issue for many African countries. Causes for Erosion Erosion happens when wind or rain carry topsoil away. How much soil is carried away depends on how strong the rain or wind is as well as the soil quality, topography (for example, sloped versus terraced land), and the amount of ground vegetation. Healthy topsoil (like soil covered with plants) is less erodible. Put simply, it sticks together better and can absorb more water. Increased population and development put greater stress on soils. More land is cleared and less left fallow, which can deplete the soil and increase water run-off. Overgrazing and poor farming techniques can also lead to soil erosion, but it is important to remember that not all causes are human; climate and natural soil quality are also important factors to consider in tropical and mountainous regions. Failed Conservation Efforts During the colonial era, state governments tried to force peasants and farmers to adopt scientifically approved farming techniques. Many of these efforts were aimed at controlling African populations and did not take into account significant cultural norms. For instance, colonial officers invariably worked with men, even in areas where women were responsible for farming. They also provided few incentives - only punishments. Soil erosion and depletion continued, and rural frustration over colonial land schemes helped fuel nationalist movements in many countries. Not surprisingly, most nationalist governments in the post-independence era tried to work with rural populations rather than force change. They favored education and outreach programs, but soil erosion and poor output continued, in part because no one looked carefully at what farmers and herders were actually doing. In many countries, elite policymakers had urban backgrounds, and they still tended to presume that rural peoples existing methods were ignorant and destructive. International NGOs and scientists also worked off of assumptions about peasant land use that are now being called into question. Recent Research Recently, more research has gone into both the causes of soil erosion and into what are termed indigenous farming methods and knowledge about sustainable use. This research has exploded the myth that peasant techniques were inherently unchanging, traditional, wasteful methods. Some farming patterns are destructive, and research can identify to better ways, but increasingly scholars and policymakers are emphasizing the need to draw the best from scientific research and peasant knowledge of the land. Current Efforts to Control Current efforts, still include outreach and education projects, but are also focusing on greater research and employing peasants or providing other incentives for participating in sustainability projects. Such projects are tailored to local environmental conditions and can include forming water catchments, terracing, planting trees, and subsidizing fertilizers. There have also been a number of transnational and international efforts to protect soil and water supplies. Wangari Maathai won the Nobel Peace Prize for establishing the Green Belt Movement, and in 2007, the leaders of several African states across the Sahel created the Great Green Wall Initiative, which has already increased forestation in targeted areas. Africa is also part of the Action against Desertification, a $45 million program that includes the Caribbean and Pacific. In Africa, the program is funding projects that will protect forests and topsoil while generating incomes for rural communities. Numerous other national and international projects are underway as soil erosion in Africa gains greater attention from policymakers and social as well as environmental organizations. Sources Chris Reij, Ian Scoones, Calmilla Toulmin (eds). : Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation in AfricaSustaining the Soil (Earthscan, 1996) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Soil is a non-renewable resource. infographic, (2015). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Soil is a non-renewable resource. pamphlet, (2015). Global Environmental Facility, Great Green Wall Initiative (accessed 23 July 2015) Kiage, Lawrence,  Perspectives on the assumed causes of land degradation in the rangelands of Sub-Saharan Africa.  Progress in Physical Geography Mulwafu, Wapulumuka. : A History of Peasant-State Relations and the Environment in Malawi, 1860-2000.Conservation Song (White Horse Press, 2011).

Liberal Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Liberal Arguments Against the Death Penalty The problem with the death penalty was on stark display last week in Arizona. No one disputes that Joseph R. Wood III committed a horrific crime when he killed his ex-girlfriend and her father in 1989. The problem is that Woods execution, 25 years after the crime, went horribly wrong as he gasped, choked, snored, and in other ways resisted the lethal injection that was supposed to kill him quickly but dragged on for nearly two hours. In an unprecedented move, Woods attorneys even appealed to a Supreme Court justice during the execution, hoping for a federal order that would mandate that the prison administer life-saving measures.Woods extended execution has many criticizing the protocol Arizona used to execute him, especially whether it is right or wrong to use untested drug cocktails in executions.  His execution now joins those of Dennis McGuire in Ohio and Clayton D. Lockett in Oklahoma as questionable applications of the death penalty. In each of these cases, the condemned men appeared to experience prolonged suffering during their executions.   A Brief History of the Death Penalty in America For liberals the larger issue is not how inhumane the method of execution is, but whether the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual. To liberals, the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear. It reads, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. What is not clear, however, is what cruel and unusual means. Throughout history, Americans and, more specifically, the Supreme Court have gone back and forth on whether the death penalty is cruel. The Supreme Court effectively found the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972 when it ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was often too arbitrarily applied. Justice Potter Stewart said that the random way that states decided on the death penalty was comparable to the randomness of being struck by lightning. But the Court seemingly reversed itself in 1976, and state-sponsored executions resumed. What Liberals Believe To liberals, the death penalty is itself an affront to the principles of liberalism. These are the specific arguments liberals use against the death penalty, including a commitment to humanism and equality. Liberals agree that one of the fundamental underpinnings of a just society is the right to due process, and the death penalty compromises that. Too many factors, such as race, economic status, and access to adequate legal representation, prevent the judicial process from guaranteeing that each of the accused receives due process. Liberals agree with the American Civil Liberties Union, which states, The death penalty system in the U.S. is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white.Liberals believe that death is both a cruel and unusual punishment.  Unlike conservatives, who follow the biblical eye for an eye doctrine, liberals argue that the death penalty is merely state-sponsored murder that violates the human right to life. They agree with t he U.S. Catholic Conference that we cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. Liberals argue that the death penalty does not reduce the prevalence of violent crimes.  Again, according to the ACLU, The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime...The FBI has found the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates. The recent death penalty executions have graphically illustrated all of these concerns. Heinous crimes must be met with firm punishment. Liberals do not question the need to punish those who commit such crimes, both in order to affirm that bad behavior has consequences but also to provide justice for victims of those crimes. Rather, liberals question whether the death penalty upholds American ideals or violates them. To most liberals, state-sponsored executions are an example of a state that has embraced barbarism rather than humanism.

Liberal Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Liberal Arguments Against the Death Penalty The problem with the death penalty was on stark display last week in Arizona. No one disputes that Joseph R. Wood III committed a horrific crime when he killed his ex-girlfriend and her father in 1989. The problem is that Woods execution, 25 years after the crime, went horribly wrong as he gasped, choked, snored, and in other ways resisted the lethal injection that was supposed to kill him quickly but dragged on for nearly two hours. In an unprecedented move, Woods attorneys even appealed to a Supreme Court justice during the execution, hoping for a federal order that would mandate that the prison administer life-saving measures.Woods extended execution has many criticizing the protocol Arizona used to execute him, especially whether it is right or wrong to use untested drug cocktails in executions.  His execution now joins those of Dennis McGuire in Ohio and Clayton D. Lockett in Oklahoma as questionable applications of the death penalty. In each of these cases, the condemned men appeared to experience prolonged suffering during their executions.   A Brief History of the Death Penalty in America For liberals the larger issue is not how inhumane the method of execution is, but whether the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual. To liberals, the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear. It reads, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. What is not clear, however, is what cruel and unusual means. Throughout history, Americans and, more specifically, the Supreme Court have gone back and forth on whether the death penalty is cruel. The Supreme Court effectively found the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972 when it ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was often too arbitrarily applied. Justice Potter Stewart said that the random way that states decided on the death penalty was comparable to the randomness of being struck by lightning. But the Court seemingly reversed itself in 1976, and state-sponsored executions resumed. What Liberals Believe To liberals, the death penalty is itself an affront to the principles of liberalism. These are the specific arguments liberals use against the death penalty, including a commitment to humanism and equality. Liberals agree that one of the fundamental underpinnings of a just society is the right to due process, and the death penalty compromises that. Too many factors, such as race, economic status, and access to adequate legal representation, prevent the judicial process from guaranteeing that each of the accused receives due process. Liberals agree with the American Civil Liberties Union, which states, The death penalty system in the U.S. is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white.Liberals believe that death is both a cruel and unusual punishment.  Unlike conservatives, who follow the biblical eye for an eye doctrine, liberals argue that the death penalty is merely state-sponsored murder that violates the human right to life. They agree with t he U.S. Catholic Conference that we cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. Liberals argue that the death penalty does not reduce the prevalence of violent crimes.  Again, according to the ACLU, The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime...The FBI has found the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates. The recent death penalty executions have graphically illustrated all of these concerns. Heinous crimes must be met with firm punishment. Liberals do not question the need to punish those who commit such crimes, both in order to affirm that bad behavior has consequences but also to provide justice for victims of those crimes. Rather, liberals question whether the death penalty upholds American ideals or violates them. To most liberals, state-sponsored executions are an example of a state that has embraced barbarism rather than humanism.

Liberal Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Liberal Arguments Against the Death Penalty The problem with the death penalty was on stark display last week in Arizona. No one disputes that Joseph R. Wood III committed a horrific crime when he killed his ex-girlfriend and her father in 1989. The problem is that Woods execution, 25 years after the crime, went horribly wrong as he gasped, choked, snored, and in other ways resisted the lethal injection that was supposed to kill him quickly but dragged on for nearly two hours. In an unprecedented move, Woods attorneys even appealed to a Supreme Court justice during the execution, hoping for a federal order that would mandate that the prison administer life-saving measures.Woods extended execution has many criticizing the protocol Arizona used to execute him, especially whether it is right or wrong to use untested drug cocktails in executions.  His execution now joins those of Dennis McGuire in Ohio and Clayton D. Lockett in Oklahoma as questionable applications of the death penalty. In each of these cases, the condemned men appeared to experience prolonged suffering during their executions.   A Brief History of the Death Penalty in America For liberals the larger issue is not how inhumane the method of execution is, but whether the death penalty itself is cruel and unusual. To liberals, the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is clear. It reads, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. What is not clear, however, is what cruel and unusual means. Throughout history, Americans and, more specifically, the Supreme Court have gone back and forth on whether the death penalty is cruel. The Supreme Court effectively found the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972 when it ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was often too arbitrarily applied. Justice Potter Stewart said that the random way that states decided on the death penalty was comparable to the randomness of being struck by lightning. But the Court seemingly reversed itself in 1976, and state-sponsored executions resumed. What Liberals Believe To liberals, the death penalty is itself an affront to the principles of liberalism. These are the specific arguments liberals use against the death penalty, including a commitment to humanism and equality. Liberals agree that one of the fundamental underpinnings of a just society is the right to due process, and the death penalty compromises that. Too many factors, such as race, economic status, and access to adequate legal representation, prevent the judicial process from guaranteeing that each of the accused receives due process. Liberals agree with the American Civil Liberties Union, which states, The death penalty system in the U.S. is applied in an unfair and unjust manner against people, largely dependent on how much money they have, the skill of their attorneys, race of the victim and where the crime took place. People of color are far more likely to be executed than white people, especially if the victim is white.Liberals believe that death is both a cruel and unusual punishment.  Unlike conservatives, who follow the biblical eye for an eye doctrine, liberals argue that the death penalty is merely state-sponsored murder that violates the human right to life. They agree with t he U.S. Catholic Conference that we cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. Liberals argue that the death penalty does not reduce the prevalence of violent crimes.  Again, according to the ACLU, The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime; a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime...The FBI has found the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates. The recent death penalty executions have graphically illustrated all of these concerns. Heinous crimes must be met with firm punishment. Liberals do not question the need to punish those who commit such crimes, both in order to affirm that bad behavior has consequences but also to provide justice for victims of those crimes. Rather, liberals question whether the death penalty upholds American ideals or violates them. To most liberals, state-sponsored executions are an example of a state that has embraced barbarism rather than humanism.

Philadelphia Snacks Breadsticks Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Philadelphia Snacks Breadsticks - Essay Example Another ingredient, water is considered the most abundant and versatile substance on Earth. Water is used in a variety of ways in food preparation, processing, and preservation (Bender & Bender, 2005). Salt is also known as sodium chloride. It is the second most widely used food additive in the world. Salt is primarily used for food seasoning and preservation (Joachim, 2002). Locust bean gum is also called carob bean gum, is extracted from the seeds of the carob tree which grows in Mediterranean countries. It is used as a thickener and gelling agent for various food products. Locust bean gum works well with carrageenan and is usually combined with the latter (Khan & Abourashed 2010). The ingredient carrageenan is also called seaweed extract. It turns into a gel once dissolved in water and is commonly used in milk products (Tarte, 2008). Wheat flour is the flour obtained by grinding wheat kernels and recovering the ground endosperms after removing the bran and germ (Sertori, 2008). Ve getable fat is an edible fat composed of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil which contains no water (Smith & Hui, 2004). Wheat fiber is a dietary fiber sourced from wheat bran (Sertori, 2008). Meanwhile, barley malt extract is the sweetener derived from barley during the malting process (Roberts & Greenwood, 2011). Yeast is a leavening agent derived from the one-celled microorganism (International Commission on Microbiological Specification for Foods, 2005). Wheatgerm is extracted from wheat kernels and a source of fiber (Sertori, 2008).

The Scarlet Letter :: essays research papers

The Scarlet Letter- In Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, the letter "A" changes it's meaning many different times. This change is significant. It shows growth in the characters, and the community in which they live. The letter "A" begins as a symbol of sin. It then becomes a symbol of her ability to do and help things, and finally it becomes a symbol of her respect for herself. The letter "A," worn on Hester's bodice, is a symbol of her adultery against Roger Chillingworth. This letter is meant to be worn in shame, and to make Hester feel unwanted. "Here, she said to herself, had been the scene of her guilt, and here should be the scene of her earthly punishment . . ." (84) Hester is ashamed of her sin, but she chooses not to show it. She committed this sin in the heat of passion, and fully admits it because, though she is ashamed, she also received her greatest treasure, Pearl, out of it. She is a very strong woman to be able to hold up so well against what she must face. Many would have fled Boston, and sought a place where no one knew of her great sin. Hester chose to stay though, which showed a lot of strength and integrity. Any woman with enough nerve to hold up against a town which despised her very existence, and to stay in a place where her daughter is referred to as a "devil child," either has some sort of psychological problem, or is a very tough woman. The second meaning that the letter "A" took was "able." The townspeople who once condemned her now believed her scarlet "A" to stand for her ability to create her beautiful needlework and for her unselfish assistance to the poor and sick. "The letter was the symbol of her calling. Such helpfulness was found in her- so much power to do and power to sympathize- that many people refused to interpret the scarlet 'A' by its original signification." (156) At this point, a lot of the townspeople realized what a high quality character Hester possessed. "Do you see that woman with the embroidered badge? It is our Hester- the town's own Hester- who is so kind to the poor, so helpful to the sick, so comforting to the afflicted!" (157) The townspeople soon began to believe that the badge served to ward off

My Favorite Place Essay

Through my life, I have had a few favorite places, but my overall favorite place is sitting in my front yard. A favorite place to me one that you can enjoy and relax, where you are at peace. This essay is about my favorite place, as I will tell you why it is. Sitting in my front yard, I watched my kids and grandkids play running around, swimming in the pool, and riding their bikes. My front yard has seen a lot through the years. I have a lot of great memories, and plan to make a lot more in the future. It is a place we had barbeques, parties, and other events. My front yard I can sit and enjoy the smell of fresh cut grass, kids playing and just relax. Our kids and grandkids all have played and left their mark in it, we all have. It was the place my kids and grandkids had their first skinned knees, they learned to ride a bike had their first cookout. Some of the memories I have of sitting in my front yard are birthday parties, my youngest daughter’s wedding, and the Fourth of July fireworks. All my kids and grandkids love to come to our house and play in the yard. We love to have them over; they are there about every weekend and more during the summer. Every Fourth of July when I am home, I set of firework for the family. I try to make it a big event we cook out, swim, and enjoy each other’s company. The kids and grandkids have a blast; we try to plan many things for them to do for the whole weekend. Most of the things have to deal with being outside in the yard. We had our daughter’s wedding in our front yard. It was a beautiful ceremony; we had what you would call a garden wedding. The weather was great, sunny skies and in the 70’s, a great day for a wedding. We had the chairs setup for the guests and the flowers arranged nicely. With everything setup I met my daughter at my front door and walked her down the isle to the alter to give her away. The ceremony was great everything went off without a hitch. In conclusion, my favorite place is a place is my front yard where I can relax and enjoy life with my wife, kids, and grandkids. It has great memories for me my wife and kids. Its where we all get together to talk, and enjoy each other’s company.