1 / 20

The Shrinking Aral Sea Lesson Objectives

The Shrinking Aral Sea Lesson Objectives. Students will be able to: 1. Explain what has happened in the past to drastically change 2. Analyze the proposed solutions to the Aral Sea environmental issues. 3. Project the future of the Aral Sea through persuasive writing.

yasuo
Download Presentation

The Shrinking Aral Sea Lesson Objectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Shrinking Aral SeaLesson Objectives Students will be able to: 1. Explain what has happened in the past to drastically change 2. Analyze the proposed solutions to the Aral Sea environmental issues. 3. Project the future of the Aral Sea through persuasive writing

  2. The Shrinking Aral SeaLesson Directions 1. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06BRxu3Zvb0 2. Read each slide and listen to the voice over for each as you do so. 3. Answer each prompted question. 4. Complete short answer prompt at the end of this presentation.

  3. Play Voice Over Aral Sea Basic Facts/Recap • Once the fourth largest freshwater sea in the world at over 26,000 sq. miles, the words Aral Sea mean Sea of Islands. • Served Kazakhstan to the north, Uzbekistan to the south, and its fishing industry helped feed nearby Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. • Once fed by the Amu and Syr Rivers, until they were both diverted to support the cotton industry in Uzbekistan when the area was part of the former Soviet Union.

  4. Play Voice Over Resulting Tragedy • The Aral Sea is now less than 10% of its former size (26,000 sq. miles to under 2,500 sq. miles). • The Northern portion has been stabilized, but the Southern part is almost gone except a small strip in the west. • Summers are extremely hot and dry, and winters are longer and colder, making agriculture more difficult. • The combination of salination of the land, overuse of fertilizers, and testing of chemical weapons have left the land and water polluted and dangerous.

  5. Play Voice Over Play Voice Over How do we fix it?

  6. CONS It would be very expensive. The major rivers are located in multiple countries. Play Voice Over Improve and repair current irrigation Description: It is estimated that up to 70% of water that is diverted for farming is wasted and simply evaporates because of a poorly built irrigation system. For example, only 12% of the canals in Uzbekistan are resistant to water loss. PROS • Much of the water could be saved, allowing farmers and the government to return about half of the river water to the Aral Sea

  7. 1. 10% 2. 20% 3. 30% 4. 40% What percent of water that is meant for the Aral Sea actually makes it there?

  8. CONS It would be extremely expensive, and in countries that cannot afford it. It would use a lot of energy that could be bad environmentally. Play Voice Over Desalinate what water is left Description: Much of the water in the Aral Sea right now is too salty for humans or animals. The water could go through the desalination process, making it fresh water again. PROS • It would make the water healthy again for humans. • Fish and plant life would return to the sea.

  9. 1. It makes water clean. 2. It cost a lot of money. 3. Afterwards plant life would flourish. 4. Afterwards fish would fill the sea. What is bad about desalination?

  10. CONS Farmers might stop farming if it became too expensive. Play Voice Over Charge farmers for water Description: The government is currently providing the water for free to encourage farmers to keep farming. They could start charging fees, which would decrease water waste as farmers would not want to pay for what they aren't using. PROS • Farmers would stop wasting water they don't need. • It would generate income that could be used for restoration efforts.

  11. 1. People who live/lived along the sea shore 2. The government 3. Farmers 4. All of the above Who would be unlikely to be in favor of charging fees for water?

  12. CONS Other varieties tend to be more expensive for farmers to purchase. Some people do not like scientifically created crops. Play Voice Over Use hybrid and drought resistant crops Description: There are many varieties of cotton, and some require less water than others. Additionally, scientist have created alternate types that require very little. Why can't people use those varieties? PROS • Plants would use less water.

  13. 1. Scientifically created crops are expensive 2. Some people don't like GMO foods 3. People would have to buy new machinery 4. All of the above Why do people resist the move to using different types of crops?

  14. CONS These types of crops are not worth as much money to farmers, whereas cotton is worth quite a bit. Farmers want to earn as much as possible. Play Voice Over Use crops native to a desert climate Description: There are many types of plants that grow well and naturally in a desert. Farmers should just grow what the land would naturally allow them to grow. PROS • No additional water would be needed on a regular basis. • It would be easier to care for the plants. • Salinization to the land would stop.

  15. 1. They're worth more money 2. They use less water 3. Farmers don't have to work as hard on them 4. Using these crops would reduce salinization Which of the following is not a benefit to growing desert crops in the Aral Sea Region?

  16. CONS Estimates suggest it would cost between 30-50 billions dollars. Some countries are less willing than others to help restore the Aral Sea. Play Voice Over Build dams to divert more river water back to the Aral Sea Description: Other dams could be built on the Amu and Syr rivers, as well as other rivers in different countries, to divert water back in the Aral Sea. It is estimated that the Aral Sea could return entirely in 20-30 years if this were done. PROS • In a matter of decades all the water would return. • Health of the region would greatly improve.

  17. 1. People need to leave their hoses running 2. Countries need to donate money 3. More Cotton needs to be grown 4. Dams need to be removed on the Amu and Syr What needs to happen to get more water into the Aral Sea?

  18. CONS There are some countries not willing to help, for example Uzbekistan who is currently diverting much of the water for their cotton crops. Play Voice Over Utilize international efforts for restoration Description: If the Aral Sea is ever going to actually return, it is going to require a joint effort from many countries, particularly from the countries within the region (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan). Other global agencies are helping as well such as the World Bank. PROS • The more countries helping, the less the financial burden for individual nations. • It could create a shared sense of responsibility for the sea.

  19. 1. The United States 2. The United Nations 3. The World Bank 4. The Aral Sea Federation Which organization has already done much work to help restore the Aral Sea?

  20. Play Voice Over How do we fix it? E-mail JosephJamesSchmidt@gmail.com you answer to the following question: What do you believe the future holds for the Aral Sea? What actions should be taken?

More Related