Does The Film Blue Planet Support Or Oppose Our Definition Of Geography?
Does the film “Blue Planet” support or oppose our definition of geography?
I believe it supports our definition of geography, for both the film’s and definition’s main points/ideas are in relevance to a cause(human activity) and effect(on natural environment) type system. Global warming, an obvious interaction/problem between human activity and the natural environment is also covered in this film. It states that there is a hole in the ozone above Antarctica, larger than Europe caused by chemicals used daily. Such chemicals are being released more and more each day; faster than our trees and oceans can absorb. Having less and less trees each day could also be an important factor to take into account. The rainforest is disappearing due to deforestation,
I believe it supports our definition of geography, for both the film’s and definition’s main points/ideas are in relevance to a cause(human activity) and effect(on natural environment) type system. Global warming, an obvious interaction/problem between human activity and the natural environment is also covered in this film. It states that there is a hole in the ozone above Antarctica, larger than Europe caused by chemicals used daily. Such chemicals are being released more and more each day; faster than our trees and oceans can absorb. Having less and less trees each day could also be an important factor to take into account. The rainforest is disappearing due to deforestation,