Q: I can use this background: Natural resources include energy, minerals and other materials. Natural resources may be renewable or non-renewable. Non-renewable resources cannot be replaced. When they're gone, they're gone. Renewable resources can be replaced. They can supply human activities forever. Fossil fuels are crucial for modern human society. Fossil fuels are essential for transportation, industry and agriculture. Renewable energy resources tend to be clean. They emit fewer pollutants and greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Renewable resources often have other problems. They are more costly and less efficient than fossil fuels. Still, they have many advantages. Research is going into developing renewable resources. Conservation is the best way to increase resource availability. Anyone can conserve! You and your family can. Society can. The world can. Just reduce, reuse, recycle. Now, I have a new situation: A recent study compared the amount of pollution in the air of two towns, Kaya and Arcfield. Arcfield is mostly powered by solar panels. Kaya on the other hand uses fossil fuels to power most of the town. Answer this question please: Will switching to solar panels increase or decrease the amount of pollution in Kaya?
A: decrease

Q: I can use this background: Increased solar ultraviolet radiation resulting from the Antarctic ozone hole has reduced marine primary productivity (phytoplankton) by as much as 15% and has started damaging the DNA of some fish. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, especially the landing of an estimated five to six times more Patagonian toothfish than the regulated fishery, likely affects the sustainability of the stock. Long-line fishing for toothfish causes a high incidence of seabird mortality. Now, I have a new situation: Bob was studying about Earth's atmosphere. He found that increased depletion of Earth's ozone layer is a relatively new phenomenon. Most scientists would blame the CFC gases for the depletion of ozone layer. In the early twentieth century ozone layer was relatively stable. Bob labeled that time as time A. But in the late twentieth century situation changed with seasonal depletion of ozone layer. He labeled that time as time B. Answer this question please: In which time less fish DNA would be damaged, time A or time B?
A: time A

Q: I can use this background: Huge amounts of chemicals, such as fertilizers and pesticides, are applied to farm fields (see Figure below ). Some of the chemicals are picked up by rainwater. Runoff then carries the chemicals to nearby rivers or lakes. Dissolved fertilizer causes too much growth of water plants and algae. This can lead to dead zones where nothing can live in lakes and at the mouths of rivers. Some of the chemicals can infiltrate into groundwater. The contaminated water comes up in water wells. If people drink the polluted water, they may get sick. Now, I have a new situation: Lucy and Sarah are two people who each own a lake that they enjoy spending time at. They have to take care of the lake though and make sure everything is healthy so that the lake can continue to thrive and people will want to visit it. Sarah says she heard a secret that if you dump fertilizer into your lake, the fish will grow twice as large. Sarah says she has just started doing it this past week and can't wait to see the results. Lucy is skeptical and waits to see what happens at Sarah's lake. Answer this question please: Dead zones will be more prevalent in Lucy's lake or Sarah's lake?
A: Sarah's lake

Q: I can use this background: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat. The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible. Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1] Now, I have a new situation: Rob is an environmental scientist. He is studying the effect of insect species on environment. For his study he chose four locations, location A, location B, location C and the entire globe, which he denoted as location D. He noticed location A's loss of biodiversity is temporary , but location B's loss is permanent. Location C's loss of biodiversity yet to be determined. Answer this question please: Could location C's biodiversity loss most likely be restored or not be restored?
A:
be restored