Blog # 4

Summary: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being

This selection is a summary of what was found in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment that was released in 2005. It was called for to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for humans, the prospect of the Millennium Development Goals being achieved, as well as to scientifically assess what conservation/sustainable changes were needed regarding the health of ecosystems.

The selection outlines 3 major problems with world ecosystem management practices which are already harming some people. These problems included that approximately 60% of those ecosystem services that were analyzed are being degraded due to unsustainable/profit-driven practices; a very strong likelihood that relatively moderate ecosystem changes are increasing the frequency of accelerated/abrupt and potentially irreversible and/or damaging ecosystem changes; as well as that many of the consequences of degrading ecosystems services are borne by the most impoverished people in the world.

The summary goes on to state that degraded ecosystem services are largely linked to regions facing the most difficulty in achieving Millennium Development Goals, and that the degradation of ecosystems is likely to increase over the next few decades, as nutrient loading and climate change, especially, become more severe. The selection then goes on to outline actions/changes which could mitigate some of the future negative consequences associated with ecosystem degradation. Changes to institutions and governance, technology, economic policy, social consciousness, knowledge, and behavioural factors are examples of some areas that are outlined as needing change.

Four major findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment are then outlined, namely being:

1. There has been an overall loss of diversity in life on Earth as a result of the rapid, human-induced ecosystem changes of the past 50 years.
2.  Many human-induced ecosystem changes have resulted in net-gains in human well-being and economic development, however these have been at the cost of ecosystem service degradation, increased risk of abrupt/severe ecosystem changes, as well as bringing about poverty for some groups of people.
3. “The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this century and is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals.”
4. The scenarios that the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment proposes to meet increased demand for ecosystem services without their degradation and with some reparation require significant changes in policy, institution and practices which are not currently under way. 

When discussing the first finding the report cites land loss due to agriculture expansion, severe coral reef loss/degradation, a change in water allocation due to man-made structures such as reservoirs and dams, a drastic increase in biologically available nitrogen in terrestrial ecosystems, and an increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide as all being human-induced trends which have significantly contributed to the loss of diversity on Earth. When discussing the second finding, the summary explains that despite the benefits to human health and economic development that drastic human-induced ecosystem changes may have brought about, these benefits are for the most part temporary and unsustainable, with severe costs for some vulnerable groups. When discussing the third finding, the summary states that when it comes to reaching Millenium Development Goals, socioeconomic policy changes can only do so much in the face of degraded ecosystem services. Therefore, sound ecosystem management is important in the reduction of poverty, in the reduction of world-wide hunger (as ecosystem health can affect both crop-yields and the availability of wild food), reduction of child mortality as a result of malnourishment and poor water quality, as well as the reduction of some of the world’s most deadly diseases. In the discussion of the fourth finding the report analyzes the four Millenium Ecosystem Assessment scenarios proposed for future ecosystem management, namely being “Order from Strength”, “Global Orchestration”, “Adapting Mosaic”, and “TechnoGarden”. The last three scenarios are deemed to be most desirable in the positive outcomes they project for ecosystem health world-wide; these are also the scenarios which require the most radical change to achieve.

The report then discusses the difficulty in finding truly suitable changes to create these desired outcomes, as ideas which seem to be solutions , like substitutions (such as plastic products for wood products, which could potentially relieve stress from forestry ecosystems) often have unforeseen or alternative negative ecosystem impacts. Despite this however, the report does contain industry-specific “effective” responses for improved ecosystem management in forestry, agriculture, fisheries/aquaculture and water. Some of these suggested responses include a removal of subsidies with negative ecosystem impacts, investment in science to develop more environmentally friendly practices, as well as an increase in restrictions on ecosystem service use.  The report states that key drivers of change which need to be addressed in reversing ecosystem degradation are population change, change in economic activity, socio-political factors, cultural factor, and technological change. This can be difficult as often all of these driving factors are extremely linked. The report also outlines inappropriate institution and government arrangements, underinvestment in ecosystem technologies which increase ecosystem efficiency, social and behavioural factors such as the under representation of groups most effected by ecosystem degradation, as well as insufficient knowledge concerning ecosystem management practices amongst others as barriers to implementing sustainable ecosystem management practices. These barriers must be overcome.

Critical Thinking Question #2: In what ways does damage to ecosystems affect human well-being?

Damage to ecosystems affects human well-being in that it leads to the degradation of ecosystem services, which, essentially, all humans depend on to survive. If ecosystem services in a particular region, or globally, degrade to the point that they can no longer sustain the population that depends on them, this could seriously affect human well-being in a number of ways. If the ecosystem service is food, then many people could potentially starve to death.  If the ecosystem service is water and it becomes degraded by poisonous chemicals, then the outcome could be that many people could die of disease/ exposure to toxins. If the ecosystem service is space in which to live, then the degradation of that ecosystem service could lead to overcrowding, increased aggression, and a rapid spread of disease. Damage to ecosystems directly affects the well-being of humans, as the planet on which we live is composed of/is an ecosystem. If the planet on which we live and depend on is irreparably degraded then this could lead to the death of many human beings, therefore weakening our species. This phenomenon can be seen on the small scale in poor rural areas where people are directly dependant on their ecosystem services -- much more directly than most city-dwellers. Here there are generally increased rates of disease, poverty, hunger, and an overall lower quality of life where there are degraded ecosystems.   

Summary: Living Downstream – An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment

This reading selection was taken from biologist Sandra Steingraber’s book with the same title as the selection. In the selection, the author discusses the trend of how cancer – although prevalent in her adoptive family – was not prevalent in her biological family, emphasizing the importance of the environment in causing cancer. She describes a particularly important train ride home to Illinois while she had bladder cancer as a young adult, and reading an article entitled ‘Scientists Identify Gene Responsible for Human Bladder Cancer.’ She describes her dismay at the thought that her condition was caused by a single gene being copied wrongly, and exactly why this seemingly small mistake – with rather large consequences – occurred.

The author goes on to discuss the file she’s collected containing information on the genetic inheritance factors of bladder cancer. She describes tumour suppressor genes, surplus numbers of growth factor receptors, and aromatic amines as bladder carcinogens, and the risk that these pose to “slow acetylators” (those who process those particular carcinogens less effectively), describing how all of these genetic characteristics contribute to either an increased or decreased susceptibility to bladder cancer. She also describes her other information file – the one containing information on the presence of bladder carcinogens in the every day lives of many, such as in cleaning products and as the by-products of water chlorination. She asks questions about what sorts of effects these multiple carcinogens have when a single person is exposed to all of them, potentially simultaneously, and states that cancer research in this area is seriously lacking.

Steingraber then goes on to outline what she feels to be the obstacles preventing research on the environmental causes of cancer. Firstly, she mentions an "obsession with genes and heredity," citing genetic testing (used to assess the likelihood of an individual getting cancer) and research on hereditary mutations (which are fairly rare) as important, but not as important as research on environmental influences which cause cancer, as she argues that regardless of an individual’s hereditary vulnerability to cancer, their environment will always impact their health/likelihood of disease. She also argues that genetic understanding will not alone be the cure to most cancers, as environmental factors are so influential and one's genetic disposition is impossible to change.

The author then discusses the work that Rachel Carson did in regards to advocating for one's right to know what sort of chemicals/poisons they are being exposed to, and to have the right to protect against those chemicals which they feel pose a risk. Steingraber emphasizes that understanding one's past exposure to carcinogens (in childhood, adolescence, during Rachel Carson's time of advocacy if one was alive for it, etc.) is vital in understanding one's current risk of cancer. Steingraber also acknowledges the importance of an individual's present exposure, however, stating that the current system of regulation (of use, release, and disposal) of known or suspected carcinogens is "intolerable", and that a system which prevented the generation of carcinogens in the first place would be preferable. It is also emphasized that the fact that not all individuals are as susceptible to cancer as one another must be acknowledged, and the number who people who die as a direct cause of carcinogen exposure should be made public, despite the difficulty in determining these sorts of statistics. The author then compares the number of people who will likely die of cancer as a result of environmental exposure per year (calculated from a percentage estimate  that was likely low-balled) to the number of people who will die from other tragic causes which draw public outrage and research funds every year: the number of people who will likely die of cancer as a result of environmental exposure is larger than the number of women who will die of hereditary cancer per year, bigger than the number of youth who will be killed each year by firearms in the U.S., bigger than the number of people who will die of second-hand smoke each year, and approximately equivalent to the death of the population of a small city annually.

In closing, Steingraber advocates for the principle of the least toxic alternative, in which toxic substances are not used if there are other methods of accomplishing a desired outcome. A system that adheres to this principle would involve assessments of alternative methods, as well as support those companies/ individuals/ enterprises that are transitioning to less toxic or non-toxic methods. At the forefront of this principle is the questioning of the seemingly inherent assumption of present day society that toxic chemicals must be used at all, and striving for the day that the release of carcinogens into the environment is an unthinkable act.

Critical Thinking Question # 3: Should there be more effort to study the links between cancer and environmental factors?

Yes, there should definitely be more effort to study the links between cancer and environmental factors. What Steingraber had to say about the fact that genetic disposition to cancer is something that is extremely difficult or impossible to change about an individual really caught my attention, as it was something I had never thought about before. I suppose if an individual knew they were very likely to get cancer they could increase the frequency of their health checks, as well as try to avoid environmental mutagens, but increased health checks wouldn't necessarily save someone's life, and in today's society I think it would be extremely difficult to avoid carcinogens, as they seem to be everywhere. I think that if more research was done about how carcinogens can effect people and as a result alternatives were used/created it would be better for the health of all people, seeing as cancer is such a prominent disease in today's society and most people can name at least one (if not more) individuals that they know/love who have died or suffered as a result of the disease.

Summary: Our Stolen Future

This selection was taken from a book of the same title, written by Theo Colborn (a research scientist for the World Widlife Fund) as well as journalists Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, concerning the effects of environmental estrogens on organisms of a diverse range of species, including humans. The selection opens by discussing how the health of wildlife in the face of man-made chemicals is relevant to, as well as very likely indicative, of the way that the health of human populations, too, will change in the face of these chemicals with time. The selection emphasizes the biochemical similarities of all organisms, as well as our common roots in natural systems which support life, and the fact that as a result of humanity's use of persistent chemicals over the past 50 years, humans as well as animals have these synthetic chemicals stored in our bodily tissues. With shared biochemical make-up as well as shared environment, the selection argues, animals and humans should react in a similar manner in the long term to hormone-disrupting chemicals -- especially since the actions of hormones in the body in both animals and humans are well understood, and understood to be quite similar by the scientific community.

The selection then goes on to describe some of this understanding of the hormone system, outlining that endocrine (hormonal) disruptors do not follow the assumptions of classical toxicology, which outline that response of an individual always increases with increased dose; for endocrine disruptors, some responses are less severe at higher dosages. In the minds of many scientific experts on the matter, this means that humans are in urgent danger of being effected by those endocrine disruptors which persist in our environment and bodies, and they may even jeopardize our future. Upon a meeting of many of the scientific experts, a statement was issued outlining these dangers (especially in embryonic development) and advocating for the urgent control of potentially endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Colborn and her coauthors then try to answer the question of whether or not humans have already been damaged by their exposure to endocrine disruptors, and state that many of those familiar with the issue believe that the answer is yes, although the severity and extent of this exposure is difficult to determine due to "the nature of the contamination, the transgenerational effects, the often long lag time before damage becomes evident, and the invisible nature of much of this damage." The selection goes on to emphasize the need for documentation for diseases/abnormalities besides cancer, such as doctors noticing an increase in the frequency of genital abnormalities in children, for which there is no good way to record the perceived trend. In closing, the authors urge for more research to be done, as well as more confidence to be placed, in observing the effects of endocrine disruptors on animals, both in the wild and in the lab setting, so that it can be better understood how our exposure to endocrine disruptors will affect humans in the future.

Critical Thinking Question #1: Is cancer the only health effect of environmental contaminants that should concern us?

No, cancer is not the only health effect of our environmental contaminants that should concern us. The effects of endocrine disruptors, for one, should definitely concern us, as they may cause issues associated with embryonic development, genital abnormalities and altered sexual behaviour. The fact that these sorts of issues have been observed in animals should concern humans due to the similarities of the biochemical make-up of all organisms, as well as because of the shared-exposure source, namely being our environment. Humans and animals are also exposed to other persistent synthetic chemicals which may harm out health in ways that we do not yet know or understand. It was established, for instance, that mercury seriously damages the nervous systems of humans and animals exposed to it because of contamination that occurred in Japan and resulted in the prevalence of Minamata disease in a particular area. Therefore, we should be concerned about the effects of all unnatural contaminants which could potentially be toxic.

Summary: Environmental Justice for All

This selection is written by Professor Robert D. Bullard, who is an authority on environmental justice. The selection begins with Bullard describing the frequent issue of African American communities needing to fight for environmental justice against threats such as chemical plants, refineries, dumps, etc. He describes the formation of the first National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit held in 1991 and how it greatly effected public perception of what is considered to be "the environment" as well as brought attention to the lack of environmental justice received by minority or impoverished groups. It is noted that in the second National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit, held in 2002, dozens of policy papers were highlighted in showing the environmental and health discrepancies between White people and people of colour.

Bullard then goes back in time three decades to comment on how environmental justice at the time was not even on the agenda of many civil rights and environmental groups, despite the fact that it is a large issue that fits under the jurisdiction of both of these focuses. He describes that from the early 1920's - 78, the vast majority of garbage landfills and incinerators were located in predominantly black neighbourhoods, despite the fact that Blacks made up only about a quarter of the country’s population. This culminated in the 1982 Warren County, North Carolina waste facility placement protest, which propelled "environmental racism" to more of a spot light in prompting the United Church of Christ (UCC) Commission for Racial Justice to publish a prominent report titled "Toxic Wastes and Race in the U.S." in 1987. Bullard also cites the publication of one of his books, titled Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality, in 1990 as helping in educating the nation about environmental racism.

The selection then goes on to outline a number of environmental justice successes in which predominantly black communities have succeeded in defeating construction plans for environmentally threatening facilities, as well as in acquiring buyouts for those individuals forced into tolerating particularly threatening environments. Bullard outlines the difficulties in getting government to respond to environmental justice issues in that one administration's progress in the area of environmental justice can easily be eroded by the policies/actions of another administration. Bullard emphasizes the changes in the air pollution rules in the U.S. around the time that this selection was written as troublesome in that they could allow for those minority groups already at risk to environmental threats to be put at even more risk as industry is allowed to expand without installing new controls to sequester additional pollutants. He warns that if the U.S. is to achieve environmental justice it is critical that environmental racism is eradicated and all individuals, regardless of race, are protected equally.

Critical Thinking Question #1: What is "environmental justice"?

To me, Environmental Justice is a way of thinking and a quality of certain social policies in which discrimination against minority groups, the vulnerable, or the impoverished is avoided in setting environmental goals and determining where facilities which have the potential to pollute or damage the environment, and/or cause harm to human health, will be situated. It protects all individuals regardless of race, religious belief, or class equally from environmental harm through avoiding neglect of any particular group. Those who believe in environmental justice also wish to reverse the environmental racism which is still prevalent among many present day societies due to past policies/ polluting facility situation decisions which were largely made by in past racist societies.

Summary: Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ecosystem Services

This reading selection is an excerpt taken from an article by Boris Worm, Ray Hilborn, and a team of other researchers concerning the health of global fisheries as a result of human fishing. In the excerpt, Worm and Hilborn outline that biodiversity is linked to the ocean's ability to provide food (an important resource for millions of people around the world), to recover from disturbances, and to maintain water quality. Extinction of marine populations at the regional level is described as common and as a result of forces such as exploitation, pollution, habitat destruction, climate change and biogeochemistry factors.

Worm et. al. then go on to mention the outcomes of some of the experiments they conducted. Overall, ecosystem diversity was linked to increased primary and secondary production as well as ecosystem stability, defined as "the ability to withstand recurrent perturbations." It is then described how these findings were tested to see whether they apply to large-scale, real-life situations. The scientists describe how the biodiversity and ecosystem service changes which were documented for 12 major coastal ecosystems over long-term periods were compared to their experimental findings and were found to correlate generally as well as on three major factors: the number of viable fisheries, the provision of habitats such as reefs and wetlands, and the health of filtering/detoxification ecosystem services. Overall, the experimental prediction that the more bio-diverse an ecosystem is, the more able/stable it is in providing ecosystem services, was confirmed.

To analyze the validity of this sort of experimental prediction on large marine ecosystems, the scientists analyzed relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services using the global catch database from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as well as other sources. It was found that the rate of fishery collapses has been accelerating, as well as that there has been an overall decline in the productivity of fisheries, from 1950 - 2003. It was also found that the rate of these collapses was higher in those ecosystems with less species diversity, and that positive recovery rates were also associated with species diversity (it is thought that this may be due to the fact that fishers can then rotate between species as the target prey, providing individual species with more chance to recover).

The selection goes on to describe that 44 marine reserves and large-scale fishery closures were analyzed in order to determine to what extent the loss of services may be reversed, provided precautionary/ environmentally conscious measures. It was found that these locations generally acquire an average of a 23% increase in species richness, and as a result also increase in smaller-scale fishery productivity. The stability of the ecosystems was also found to improve, and tourism (especially in divers) was generally found to increase in these locations. Overall, it was determined that the recovery of biodiversity is for the most part possible and reaps benefits in multiple ways.

In closing, the authors emphasize the importance of these findings, as they project the collapse of all species currently fished by approximately 2048. The scientists also acknowledge the short comings of their report in correlating observations on the small-scale to very large-scale ecosystems with complex components. They do, however, remain confident in the general findings of their research: that "high-diversity [eco]systems consistently provided more services with less variability[or more stability]." The scientists urge the need for the sustainable management of fisheries, better control of pollution, and an increased creation of marine reserves in order to invest in the ecosystem services which oceans provide for humanity.

Critical Thinking Question # 2: Why do collapsed fisheries recover better in high-diversity ecosystems?

It is thought by the authors of this reading selection that collapsed fisheries recover better in high-diversity ecosystems because the presence of an increased number of fish species provides an increased number of targets for fishers. Therefore, fishers can target different species more often, giving each individual species more time to recover, and that this puts less stress on the community as a whole. In addition, the availability of a diverse number of food sources available to each species/ at each trophic level also makes an ecosystem less susceptible to disturbances. If one food source for whatever reason collapses, and there are other food sources available which can take its place, the collapsed food source is more likely to recover and the animals that depend on it are less likely to be harshly effected. Overall, a diverse ecosystem is a strong and healthy ecosystem, able to resist stress of all varieties -- whether that stress is human fishing, global warming, pollution, or some other factor having a negative effect.

Reflection - Carl Honore:  "In Praise of Slowness" Ted Talk

In this Ted Talk, Honore discusses the Western World's obsession with doing everything fast, and with filling every moment of every day with something so that one feels as though they are always racing against the clock. He mentions how he believes that this has negative impacts on an individual’s health, relationships, and happiness. He describes his realization of his own former life spent "in the fast lane" when he realized he wanted to speed through reading his young son a bed time story, and it disturbed him that he didn't value his time with his son more. Honore discusses how he believes that the root of the problem of Western Civilization living in such "road-runner culture" as being the way we think about time: opposed to other cultures around the world, who view time as cyclical, Westerners think of time as linear, or as a limited resource. Honore mentions what he calls an international backlash to this notion, deemed "The International Slow Movement". He cites the "Slow Food Movement", the trend toward organic farming, the "Slow Sex Movement", as well as the trend toward homework and extra-curricular bans as aspects of this movement toward a more slow, gentler, holistic, and engaged way of living. Honore argues that "less is more" when it comes to spending our time trying to be productive, and that part of the reason that the fast way of life is so popular is because it serves as a distraction from difficult things that an individual may not want to think about -- such as the state of a relationship or their health, if these things are lacking in quality. He also cites cultural taboo as one of the main obstacles in preventing an individual from slowing down.

This talk really resonated with me as I often feel the stress and anxiety that comes with the "road-runner" lifestyle, especially being a university student. Since entering university I've found that relationships with friends and family have become more strained, as well as that I don't really have the time to do the sorts of things that I used to love doing in my spare time, like reading and writing recreationally, since I don't have any free time anymore. I appreciated a lot of the things that Honore had to say about life being more fulfilling when you're able to take it slowly and enjoy it, but unfortunately I think that until society on a wide-scale, including institutions like schools, take this notion more seriously, there are only so many changes an individual can make to "slow down" their life, and still be able to do the things that they enjoy.

In - Class Blog Questions:

1)      What are your primary concerns about the oceans? What, if anything, do you plan to do about it?

My primary concern about the Ocean is the amount of pollution that goes into it. I find the fact that all pipes lead to the ocean, and all run-off leads to the ocean, extremely scary and worrisome. The amount of plastic making its way into the Ocean especially disturbs me, and the photos that we witnessed in class of what was in the stomachs of some marine life were very eye-opening. Reading about the sheer amount of plastic in the Ocean in the book “The World without Us,” was also eye-opening, in how it explained that on top of plastics creating hazards and ruining habitats for marine life, they are also slowly releasing toxins into the ocean and breaking into particles so small that they are often taken up into the food web by small animals. This especially frightens me because I’ve always enjoyed eating seafood, and I wonder what sort of negative health effects these sorts of occurrences could be having on me and my family. I plan to be a lot more aware of where my seafood comes from and to cut back on that coming from the oceans, and to overall eat less seafood, because as one of the videos we watched put it, “no one can guarantee you all-organic fish.” I also plan to in the future cut back on my used of plastics, and perhaps even one day try to faze them out of my life. I’m thinking about adopting the use of a reusable mug for my almost-daily coffee purchases, as well as switching my family over to using bio-degradable plastic bag alternatives once school is over for summer and I have time to do some research into what brand(s) would be best to purchase.

Blog # 3

READING SUMMARIES AND CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

1. Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?– Lester Brown  

In this selection, written in 2009, Lester Brown begins by warning that despite the public tendency to pretend that food shortages couldn’t possibly become an issue world wide, the threat of this occurring is real. He goes on to say that one of the biggest global threats to political stability worldwide (linked to local food shortages) is the phenomenon of “failing states” which are nations that become unable to provide basic services such as safety (of both person and food supply), education, and healthcare to their people. As a result, chaos, disorder, and power struggles emerge amongst terrorists and drug and weapons dealers in the failed states, which in turn cause international threats to global stabilization.

Brown then goes on to describe the high grain prices of 2007 – 2008 as disturbing due to their likelihood to remain high, due to their linkage to trends (which vary to some degree between countries, but on the whole are fairly global) including increased population growth, and increased consumption patterns. Brown states that these trends have substantial opportunity to increase/ worsen their demand on grain as they continue, and also cites the diversion of significant amounts of U.S. grain towards producing ethanol fuel as another trend which is driving up the demand, and therefore, price of grain. He warns that the food and energy economies have begun to merge in a worrisome way as the U.S. has begun to transfer to using more of this local energy source in order to curb dependence on foreign oil, despite the fact that even if the entire U.S. grain harvest were devoted to fuel production, it would only satisfy 18% of the U.S.’s total automotive energy needs. Brown then outlines 3 major environmental trends as limiting the ability of our planet to expand grain supply, namely being a shortage of freshwater, the loss of topsoil, and rising temperatures/ other effects of climate change. The impacts of water shortages on grain production are described as the most pressing environmental factor, and the likely effects of this phenomenon are focused on in the world’s 3 largest grain-producing countries: the U.S., China, and India. Brown discusses the fact that many of these countries largest aquifers are un-replenishable by nature, and that the water tables in all three countries are dropping. He forewarns against China potentially needing to import massive quantities of grain to feed their huge population once their ground water runs out, and that approximately 175 million Indians are at risk of losing their grain supply in the near future, when their ground water runs out as well. In discussing soil erosion, Brown describes the massive amount of time needed to develop soil for agriculture, and how extensive agricultural practices are using it up much faster than it can be replaced. Brown then describes increasing surface temperature due to climate change as perhaps the most “pervasive” environmental factor, having the ability to affect crop yields on a global scale, simultaneously.

Brown then launches into a discussion of the political implications of such trends, including self-serving measures put in place by particular nations in the hope to preserve their own country’s food supply which, in reality, only harm the global market for food in the long run, as well as the break down of social order on the local scale, in certain areas where the global shortage of food is already being felt.

As a potential solution to all the global-scale issues Brown describes, “Plan B” is introduced. Plan B is described as a 4 part plan including the reduction of Carbon emissions by 80% from 2006 to 2020 through the investment into alternative energy and through the use of measures such as a carbon tax; the eradication of poverty and the stabilizing of the Earth’s population (described as two components that work together); and lastly, a global restoration of the Earth’s natural resources and resource-producing systems through world-wide initiatives such as increased water efficiency and soil conservation through alternative agriculture methods. Brown deems Plan B as potentially vital to saving human civilization as we know it, and urges for it’s implementation to occur quickly.

Critical Thinking Question 1: According to Lester Brown, what is the greatest threat to global political stability?

Lester Brown cites today’s greatest threat to global political stability as failing states. He says that, “In the 20th century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states. It is not the concentration of power but its absence that puts us at risk.” However, Brown outlines one of the main causes of failed states to be the collapse of governments due to their inability to provide basic services for their people, one of these main services being the supply of food. Therefore, despite the fact that Brown never explicitly says that a global food shortage is the greatest threat to global political stability, the above article suggests that he certainly believes that it could be vital in bringing about an increase in the number of failed states that occur globally. Thus, I would argue that while failed states are, in Brown’s mind, the greatest threat to global political stability, he is particularly concerned with global food shortages bringing them about if global environmental stresses are not reduced, and so food shortages are also a major threat to global political stability, in Brown’s mind.  

Women’s Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation -  Vandana Shiva

In this selection, Vandana Shiva argues that the “marginalization of women and the destruction of biodiversity go hand in hand”, citing an inherent of fear of diversity which dominates patriarchal world views in seeing women as different or inferior, as equivalent to the same maltreatment of biodiversity that “capitalist patriarchy” has executed in its traditional treatment/ valuation of the environmental diversity and self-sufficiency of our Earth. Shiva likens diversity to womanhood, and suggests that women’s knowledge of diversity could be vital in remodelling traditional production and technology practices world wide in order for ecologic diversity to be truly conserved, with economic prosperity still achieved. Common characteristics of modern production such as homogeneity and monocultures (especially in agriculture) are outlined as major inhibitors in the conservation of biodiversity, and Shiva argues that their supposed benefits in producing higher yields than diversity-based practices are one-dimensional and biased in that they evaluate the production outcomes of only a few crops of commercial interest, rather than productivity/wealth in a broader sense. This broader sense of prosperity includes the well being of people in third world countries and around the world who cultivate resources and benefit from the increased labour demand of diversity-based practices, which create job opportunities and protect against poverty and dispossession.

Shiva then launches into the discussion of the important role women play in production – particularly food production – as well as the difficulty in defining this large contribution of work through statistical or economic terms. This is largely due to the fact that many women are involved in the many different aspects of work it takes to produce goods, but much of this work, as well as the knowledge and  skill it requires,  is often not directly attached to/ measured by a wage, or recognized by formal institutions of knowledge as men's work contributions more commonly are. Therefore, plenty of women’s contributions/roles related to the preservation and use of indigenous knowledge and its role in biodiversity conservation is lost when viewed through the economic lens of analyzing distinct “sectors”, and their importance is especially dwarfed in the analysis of third world or developing nations, such as India, in which women’s practices in conserving biodiversity provide the backbone for productivity in such resource-limited conditions. Shiva maintains that the biodiversity conservation strived for through women’s indigenous knowledge is different (and superior to) that strived for through the western-science based, “dominant patriarchal notion of biodiversity conservation” in many ways, the most prominent most likely being the value placed on the life of a seed. Shiva outlines the issues concerning seed patents, which effectively allow a certain type of seed to be used only once (this is an aspect of western monocultural farming practices) and transform farmers into consumers, contrasting this attitude with the reuse of seed in developing nations, whose farmers are more like custodians of seed. Issues with other “dominant patriarchal” practices are also discussed, including genetic engineering and the potential adverse health risks they pose.

Critical Thinking Question 1: What is an “ecofeminist”?

An ecofeminist is an individual who views the exploitation of women and anti-feminist views as linked to the domination of nature, both caused by some extent to the patriarchal social and political frameworks which are prevalent in many of today’s societies. Ecofeminists such as Vandana Shiva may see an intrinsic/ naturally superior link between women and nature (or specifically, between women and understanding the importance of conserving biodiversity), while other ecofeminists merely feel that the experiences that men and women have in male dominated societies differ, and thus the two genders’ understanding of and way of thinking about ecological issues and phenomenon are different. Ecofeminists challenge the norms and inherent ways of thinking involved in both dominant/traditional views about the status of women and the status of the natural world simultaneously, drawing parallels between the two.

Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems – Peter M. Vitousek, Harold A. Mooney, and Jerry M. Melillo

This selection, published in 1997, contains an overview of how humans have affected the Earth’s ecosystems, focusing on the human population’s effects on land transformation, oceans, alterations of biogeochemical cycles, and biotic changes. A conclusion which provides recommendations is also included. For simplicity’s sake, each section will be summarized individually.

In discussing the changes that the human population has caused to the face of the earth, or, in other words, land transformations, it is outlined that the most change due to humans has been caused by the alteration of land to produce (both goods and services). The selection states that 10-15% of the Earth’s land is currently being used for row-crop agriculture and another 6-8 % is used as pasture land. Since agriculture is an entirely human practice, this implies that 16- 23 % of the world’s land has been transformed by humans for this industry alone. It is outlined that it is difficult to measure human effects on land at the global level due to the variations which occur from site to site, as well as that it is certain that human use of land effects ecosystem structure and function, biogeochemical cycles, and other long-range processes everywhere. It also is stated that the amount of land affected/ changed by the practices of humans is difficult to put a number to, but all information points to the fraction being large, and that land transformation is the primary cause of loss of biodiversity worldwide, impacting climate change, air pollution, as well as severe weather trends.

The human impacts on the world’s oceans are defined to be even more difficult to quantify than that of human- caused land transformations. A specific negative human impact outlined included the exploitation of marine life caused by commercial fishing, which has lead to a depletion of fish populations in many areas as well as a depletion of other marine life due to the high death rates of non-target animals, and damage to important marine habitat caused by fishing practices. Another example of a negative human impact on oceans given by the selection was the drastic increase in the frequency of algal blooms world wide, which are thought to be largely due to pollution caused by humans (both through nutrient run-off as well as temperature changes driven by human-caused climate change) and which kill marine life through the large-scale excretion of toxins.

In the section of the selection that dealt with human- caused alterations to biogeochemical cycles, carbon, water, nitrogen, ­­­and organic synthetic chemicals were discussed separately. The general trend found for carbon is that humans are causing an increased concentration of it in our atmosphere, through both the increased combustion of fossil fuels as a result of the industrial era, as well as through practices such as deforestation and other land changes which inhibit the ability of the earth to sequester CO₂ emissions. It is projected that the changes to the concentration of the atmospheric carbon caused by humans will cause drastic climactic changes over the next century, as well as other drastic changes in the species composition and other dynamics of terrestrial ecosystems which are difficult to predict, due to the different ways that atmospheric carbon effects different life-forms, and the extent of this effect varying with location. The general trend found for water is that the increased demand for fresh water by humans on the world’s limited supply has lead to alterations to freshwater ecosystems even more prominent than terrestrial ecosystem alterations caused by land transformations. Only 2% of the U.S.’s rivers remain unimpeded/transformed by man. These changes to fresh water systems are generally made so that more water can be available for consumption, irrigation, and use for hydro-electricity--  humanity now uses more than half of the runoff fresh water that is reasonably accessible on Earth, with about 70% of this going to agriculture. These man-made alterations to the water cycle also effect regional climate trends, as irrigation often causes an increase in atmosphere humidity in semiarid climates. The nitrogen cycle was also found to be drastically altered by humans, mainly via an increase in the amount of nitrogen fixation occurring on the global scale. Humans industrially fixate nitrogen for use in agriculture, as well as inadvertently fixate nitrogen during fossil fuel combustion and the mass production of naturally nitrogen-fixing legume crops. Consequences of this human alteration to the nitrogen cycle may include a global increase in the green house gas nitrous oxide, substantial flux increases of reactive nitrogen-containing gases, substantial contributions to acid rain and photochemical smog creation, a loss of biodiversity due to "N saturation" in ecosystems, and increased eutrophication and toxic algae growth in marine ecosystems. It is also discussed that in addition to these three biogeochemical cycles, humans effect other cycles which significantly impact climate, air quality, and biogeochemistry around the world. The human production of organic synthetic chemicals is also cause for concern, as these chemicals are often toxic to biota and persist in environments/ecosystems, and can also cause alterations to atmospheric composition.

Biotic changes caused by man-made alterations to the earth's biological resources and systems are also noted to be drastic. Widespread mass extinction, much higher than background rates of extinction without the impacts of humans, is one such change, largely caused by land transformations. Another change is the arrangement of the Earth's biotic systems via the widespread introduction of invasive, non-indigenous species, which is causing a general trend of global loss of genetic variability and homogenization of the Earth's biota.

The selection concludes with a message that global changes caused by human activity are something that should be dealt with sooner rather than later, as our understanding of the consequences of these changes lags behind the change that we cause. The authors warn that the earth is largely in our hands, and advises that we reduce the rate of change that we cause, increase efforts to understand the Earth's ecosystems and our effects on them, and accept responsibility for managing the planet and, by extension, the effects of the human impact on it.

Critical Thinking Question 1: Almost 50% of the land surface has been transformed by human endeavours and more than half of all available fresh water is presently being used by humans. We thus have a long way to go before we run out of land or water. What is wrong with that statement?

What is wrong with that statement is that it fails to recognize a lot of conditions and factors which make the second part of it untrue: we do not have a very long way to go before we run out of land or water. This large fraction of land and fresh water that is currently being used by humans was largely acquired since the industrial revolution - approximately within the last 100 years. It accompanied soaring population rates and consumption patterns that continue to grow at ever-increasing rates. Therefore, since the Earth's human population and consumption patterns continue to increase, the remaining fraction of the Earth's land and fresh water that is not currently transformed/used by humans will not take long to run out, and before long human demand will exceed that which the Earth has available for us.

ACTIVITY:  New York- Before the City Ted Talk

In this Ted Talk, Eric Sanderson  discusses the development of a  project he's been working on called the Mannahatta Project, in which he and a few colleagues have tried to recreate/figure out what New York looked like before the arrival of Europeans and its development into a mega city. Sanderson discusses how, as a landscape ecologist, he tries to understand how landscapes create habitat and ecosystems for animals, and became interested in doing this same thing for New York. He shows pictures that he discovered during investigations into the history of the landscape of New York City, which display New York as appearing significantly more natural.

Sanderson then discusses how he discovered a map (which he shows) from the American Revolution that shows New York as it was at the time, with its many marshes, hills, and streams in place of modern-day structures, the "Collect Pond" which served as the main water source for the first 200 years of New York's existence, as well as how this map combined with other geologic and historical information led to the creation of a model of New York as Henry Hudson would have found in 1609. Sanderson says that Manhattan had 55 different ecosystem types, which is a large number, and that it was an extraordinary landscape which supported extraordinary biodiversity.

Sanderson then explains the studies that were performed concerning the animals that were present on Manhattan, and how he and his colleagues created a network of habitat relationships for species they knew to be present which helped them learn more specifics about the landscape of New York at the time of Henry Hudson's discovery. He also shows the "Muir Webs" that he and his colleagues created, and how these webs allowed for the creation of specific, detailed visuals displaying the ecosystems in the different parts of present-day New York City.

Sanderson then urges for his audience to visualize New York 400 years into the future, and to imagine it with all the same diversity and abundance of present Manhattan, but with aspects of sustainability drawn from the Manhattan of the past with its diversity and abundance in ecology and in nature.

My impressions of the video are that it was very eye-opening to see New York as it was naturally and to be able to contrast this with all the man-made changes of its present day appearance. The images presented allowed for a true appreciation to be fostered for the type of biodiversity and abundance of life that was present before its industrialization into a mega-city. I find it very interesting that even before the huge human population of present New York, New York was still a busy place, booming with life. I also found the obvious differences between the types of life that were present in 1609 versus today very  striking. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the video and I think that this project by Sanderson and his colleagues, as well as other projects like it, could be a vital tools in promoting a public appreciation and respect for the Earth's nature.

IN-CLASS BLOG QUESTIONS:

1. Consider your food system:

·        What do you like about it?

·        What do you dislike about it?

·        Consider taste, nutrition, cost, equity and environmental issues

Things that I like about my food system include the fact that since places such as grocery stores carry such a range of products, food is easily accessible for my family. I also like the fact that in Winnipeg, there seems to be a trend toward restaurants using local food and/or free-range food products, providing more vegetarian/ vegan options on menus, and overall seem to be more conscious about promoting ethical food sourcing practices. I also like that, on a global scale, while groceries/ food don't always seem to be a fair price for a consumer, the fact is that in other places around the world food is much more expensive/less accessible, so I'm thankful that my experience with food and my food system is not lacking in accessibility for me, personally. I also like that, in general, the food I consume is of good taste and of seemingly good quality. 

Things that I don't like about my food system are firstly, the amount of waste that occurs within it. In class we discussed the large amount of food that gets harvested that doesn't make it to the shelves for people to buy, and I really dislike the notion of so much energy going into the production of food for no reason. I also don't like the amount of environmental pollution and degradation that goes along with most modern agricultural practices,  including the destruction of natural ecosystems for farmland and monoculture crop practices, especially in light of the fact that so much of the damage that occurs doesn't even result in food making to the tables of families due to all the waste that occurs during transportation and in grocery stores. I work in the Produce department at Sobeys, so every week I see first hand the sheer amount of produce thrown out at just this step in the food system, and it troubles me to think about the amount that must go to waste in other steps of the food system. I also dislike the fact that in our present food system at big-box grocery stores there aren't many options for buying locally or buying free-range products. Although these food options are available in Winnipeg, they often require going to specialty food stores rather than grocery stores that are close to home, and in this sense I think that my food system could be improved upon by making local, organic, free-range products more easily accessible than they currently are.

2. What role, if any, should zoos play in conservation/education?

I think that zoos can, and should play a role in conservation/education, although I think this role should be fairly significantly different from their current role. I think that zoos conserving and breeding species at risk in captivity for the purpose of keeping some species to educate the public about the challenges that the species face, while at the same time fostering ways to release some of these captivity-bred species to the wild in the hopes of helping to repopulate the species, is a good and helpful purpose for zoos. However, after our discussions in class, I think that the level of education and success of breeding species at risk in captivity for releasing into the wild could definitely be improved upon, and should be, in order for zoos to play a helpful role in conservation/education. I think that human entertainment in viewing the animals should be secondary to public education and animal conservation, which right now, I'm not convinced that it is.

3. Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos?

I think that it could be ethical to keep animals in zoos, depending on the types of enclosures that animals are kept in and the reasons behind certain animals being present in zoos in the first place. If animals are kept in zoos in conditions that satisfy their needs in order to educate the public and to conserve the species from extinction, then yes, I do think keeping animals in zoos is an ethical practice. However, achieving zoo conditions that stimulate animals and really do meet their needs is a very difficult goal to achieve, and I'd argue that not many zoos worldwide are achieving that goal at present. I think the happiness and healthiness of animals should be the most important goal of zoos, however a lack of funds/ means to achieve these goals often gets in the way of their achieving these goals within zoo walls. Therefore, if I'm perfectly honest, I find this question difficult to answer and I'm not sure that there is a good way to answer it. Perhaps the minimum number of animals should be kept in zoos solely in order to educate and conserve species, and all the rest should be kept in the wild whenever possible. I think that every wild animal that I can think of would most likely be happier in the wild than in a zoo, so I am tempted to say its not an ethical practice, but I also believe that education about and conservation of animal species is important, so I am unable to give a straight answer.

4. Do you enjoy visiting zoos?

When I was younger, I loved visiting zoos. I've always loved animals and cared for their well-being. As I've gotten older, however, my attitude towards zoos has changed to producing mixed feelings. On the one hand, when I see beautiful, interesting exotic animals up-close and personal a feeling of awe is inspired which is hard not to appreciate. But on the other hand, it is sometimes disturbingly obvious that the animals I'm observing are kept in small spaces, and that what I'm seeing them do in their tiny enclosure (which most of the time, they look bored doing) is what their entire life will consist of . It's a depressing thought. It makes me feel bad for the animals, because I know if someone forced me to stay in a small area for the rest of my life, I'd be bored to tears and depressed. It makes me wonder if animals kept in zoos are happy, which I know is an impossible question to answer. So, while yes, I can still enjoy visiting zoos despite having thought about this, that enjoyment feels a bit wrong, and, in general, the last few times I've gone to the zoo, I left feeling a bit troubled by it. Therefore, once again, I'm not entirely sure I can give a yes or no answer to the question.

5. What am I doing to promote sustainability and happiness in my life? What would I like to do? I pledge to ______.

Currently, in my life, things I do to promote sustainability and happiness include:

• Taking the bus to school everyday and taking that time to myself to listen to music or read recreationally (which I thoroughly enjoy)
• Taking my dog for regular walks around the neighbourhood (rather than driving us to the nearest dog park)
• Walking to my friends' houses in summer/ going for walks with friends
• Regularly having potlucks with friends at someone's house where we all make our own food together
• Working out at home rather than driving to the gym as I used to
• Buying good quality local/organic/free-range food whenever possible / supporting those causes whenever possible

I would like to....

• Get in the habit of buying more local/organic/free-range food on a regular basis
• Eat at less fast-food restaurants
• Enhance my cooking abilities so I can make delicious food at home where  I know where all the ingredients come from (rather than at a restaurant)
• (Eventually) buy a more eco-friendly vehicle
• Start composting
• Grow some of my own produce in my backyard in summer

I pledge to grow some of my own produce in my backyard this summer so that I can decrease the amount of my money going into supporting unsustainable food systems and because it's a hobby I've always been interested in picking up since I enjoy being outside.

Blog # 2

READING SUMMARIES AND CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS

1. The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis

            "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" reading is a selection from a lecture with the same title given by Lynn White Jr. at the 1966 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The selection begins with White discussing how all organisms have effects on their surrounding environment, focusing on humanity's impacts in a few select areas including the Nile (and humanity's turning it into a human artifact zone rather than its natural African jungle), how Pleistocene humanity's growing and migrating populations combined with their hunting practices may have caused the extinction of many large animals, as well as how humanity's past agricultural practices have shaped the current landscape of France. White then goes on to describe the "concern for the problem of ecologic backlash" at the time that he held his lecture as "mounting feverishly". White discusses the relatively new unison of science and technology -- as opposed to their regular, separate roles of science as an intellectual, higher-class, speculative practice, and technology as something that was used only in the lower class to get work done -- as directly related to the immersion of  democratic societies where the gap between high and low class peoples and thinking is smaller. White also mentions that this new unison forced the concept of ecology to be created as the unison greatly increased the impact humanity has on the environment, and because humans use the unison to dominate and control natural processes of the Earth. White then launches into an examination of Western technology and science, questioning whether democratic societies (ie:  Western ones) can "survive their own implications," citing that while Western science is certainly a culmination of all science that has come before it,  in the modern world it is also the most successful and superior type of Science. White states that the domination and development of Western science began in the Middle Ages, focusing on a group of Northern Europeans who switched from subsistence agricultural practices requiring "scratch plows" pulled by a couple of Oxen, to a more efficient plow that needed 8 oxen to operate, requiring peasant farmers to pool their resources and divide the profit in correlation with the contribution of each farmer; thus, the switch from subsistence farming to exploitation of the land to the fullest possible extent occurred, and was copied no where else in the world. White cites the Western tendency to dominate over nature, which was born in this phenomenon in Northern Europe, as a direct result of the "victory of Christianity over Paganism" and "Judeo-Christian teleology", calling Christianity in its Western form "the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen". To support this argument White points out the notion inherent in Christianity that the world and the universe was made for man to use, and in contrast to other religions Christianity promoted that man exploit/ act as though superior to nature, as man was set above nature in the eyes of God.  White also supports his argument of Christianity as the root of environmental exploitation by discussing how natural theology, or the study of God through nature, evolved from its original interpretations of nature as a method for God to communicate with men (ie: a rainbow was a symbol of hope), to an analysis of understanding the ways of nature becoming a way to understand the mind of God, or "to think God's thoughts after him", as many scientists may be quoted as saying. White then summates his arguments by deeming modern science an "extrapolation of natural theology" and modern technology "at least partly to be explained as an Occidental voluntarist realization of the Christian dogma of man’s transcendence of, and rightful mastery over, nature," stating that Christianity shoulders much of the blame in man's current extreme power over nature and the resulting negative ecologic effects. The lecture then moves on to discussing what should be done about the world's current health, and recommends against using more technology and science in attempts to solve the problem, as these ideas, White argues, are far too interlaced with the Christian ideal of superiority over nature. White states that what will be done about the Earth's ecological crisis is directly linked to the  popular view of the man-nature relationship, stating that a shift in the popular Western religious outlook is the best way to combat the current ecological crisis, as it's cause is so intrinsically linked with "orthodox Christian arrogance toward nature" and "the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man." White urges Western culture to take steps toward a more Franciscanism outlook, which entails a more equal relationship between man and nature, and the selection concludes with White proposing Saint Francis  (from which Franciscanism was born) as a  "patron saint for ecologists."

Critical Thinking Question for " The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis":

1. What is the “purpose” of nature?

            I would argue that the "purpose" of nature is something that can not be defined. As is demonstrated in "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis", it seems that the question of the purpose of nature is a concept that is deeply linked to individual religious beliefs, specifically ones concerned about the birth of the Earth and questions such as "Where do we all come from?" and "Why are we really here?" To me, the question of the purpose of nature is equally as unanswerable as these questions, as I believe that the existence of nature as it is, is just as big of a miracle as the existence of  humans, or human consciousness. As a science-oriented individual who believes in evolution and other scientific theories concerning these questions, I am tempted to say that nature has no other purpose than to exist, and be here for as long as it may, because our planet was brought about by a series of coincidental universal occurrences, and therefore may be destroyed or cease to exist with just as much ease/ chance. Despite my firm belief in science however, even this explanation for the purpose of nature doesn't seem quite right; it's hard to imagine something as complex and beautiful as nature not serving some higher purpose. So therefore, overall, I think the purpose of nature is a question that can not be assigned one absolute answer, but is a matter of opinion. Addressing the content of the article, I think it is important to note that I, personally, firmly believe that nature's sole purpose is NOT to serve humans. It does seem to me that nature serves a higher purpose than to just exist, but I certainly do not believe that humans should be considered this higher purpose.

2. A Sand County Almanac Excerpt

            The "A Sand County Almanac " reading is as selection taken from twentieth century American preservationist Aldo Leopold's writings about nature of the same title. Since the sections of the reading are from different sections of Leopold's work, it is best to summarize them individually.

Thinking Like a Mountain:

            In this section, Leopold addresses the inherent connectedness of all nature. He addresses the different ways of viewing natural occurrences depending on what species one may be a part of by going through the different ways the howl of a wolf may be interpreted: as an ominous reminder to deer,  a forecast of provisions for coyotes, a threat to his cattle for a cowman, and to the mountain as insignificant. Leopold also addresses that even if you don't explicitly hear a wolf's howl, their presence is implicit in many other aspects of their ecosystem so that their presence is hard to miss. Leopold discusses the day he saw a wolf die, and how that event changed his outlook of nature and gave him the idea that the mountain might have an opinion of the wolf; Leopold argues that the mountain needs and likes the wolf for keeping deer populations down, which, when allowed to swell, erode and damage the mountain side. Here again, Leopold is demonstrating the interconnectedness of nature, and he does so again when he points out that even cowmen, who dislike the wolf for hunting their herd, depend on the wolf for the basic need of keeping their herd numbers at capacity for the range, to keep their range healthy. Leopold argues that even though all species strive for security, longevity and stability in survival, that this may not be the most healthy approach in the long run, proposing that this sentiment may be the true meaning of the wolf's howl, as understood by the mountain.

The Land Ethic

            In this section, Leopold discusses how ethics evolve throughout time, mentioning the hero Odysseus's hanging of a dozen slave girls because of their supposed misbehavior as not being seen as unethical, despite the definite existence of the concepts of right and wrong during Odysseus's time. Leopold goes on to equate the extension of ethics over time to ecological evolution, citing as proof that both originate from the condition of individuals/groups attempting to cohabitate interdependently, stating that an ethic, in ecological terms, is a limitation on freedom put in place by the struggle to exist, while an ethic, in philosophical terms, is "a differentiation between social and anti-social conduct." He then goes on to point out that there is no definite ethic set in place between man and nature, equating man's treatment of the environment to Odysseus's treatment of the slave girls -- as mere property -- and arguing that it is an "ecological necessity" to evolve this outlook.  Leopold then outlines his proposed land ethic, stating that all ethics originate in the premise that an individual is a member of a community and that an individual's instincts promote competition for ones place in the community, while ethics promote co-operation with other members. Leopold then continues that " The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land," and that the ethic can not exist without a communal notion of love, respect, and admiration for the land. Leopold cites the current modern man's removal from nature, the modern farmer's view of the land as an adversary, and a lack of education concerning ecological processes in all fields of study, as well as other issues which oppose society's development of a land ethic. He promotes changing thoughts about the use of the land as purely an economic concept, and encourages consideration of ethics and esthetics in land use policies. The selection closes with Leopold's reiterating the complexity of the evolution of a land ethic as both an intellectual and emotional process, contrasting its roots in preservationist ideas with conservationist attitudes and arguing its superiority.

 Critical Thinking Question for " A Sand County Almanac":

1. What is the basic lesson of Aldo Leopold’s “Thinking Like a Mountain”?

            I found the basic lesson of Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain" to be the interconnectedness of nature and the strong influence that all species have on one another and the land. Connected with this basic lesson, I found a demonstration of the importance of preservationist attitudes come out as well, as through Leopold's discussion of how humans lessoning of the wolf population would affect the deer population, the health of the mountain as an ecosystem, as well as the duties of cowmen, I understood why preservationism and the absolute absence of human interference might be the best way to manage the health of certain ecosystems. I think that Leopold's main point in writing the "Thinking Like a Mountain" section was to demonstrate the complexity of ecosystems and to refute the common outlook that ecological relationships are as simple as "less wolves means more deer to hunt," and that having more deer for people to hunt isn't necessarily the most desired outcome. In this section Leopold inspires an appreciation for nature as it naturally is, in all its interconnectedness and health.

3. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

            The "Climate Change 2007" reading is a selection taken from the fourth assessment report made by the International Panel for Climate Change. The report states that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased significantly since 1750 due to human activities, and that carbon dioxide increases are primarily due to fossil fuel use and secondarily due to land-use changes, while methane and nitrous oxide emission increases are mostly linked to agriculture. The report deems carbon dioxide as the "most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas",  and cites values for the increased concentration of all three of the greenhouse gases as rising, reporting the rate of this rise to be very likely unprecedented in more than 10,000 years. Both methane and nitrous oxide emission rises are suspected to be due mostly to anthropogenic activities, like carbon dioxide,  although it is allowed that some other processes may be contributing for these as well. It is also stated that due to improved understanding of human impacts on climate change, there is a very high confidence that the "globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W/ m²," which is a very large number considering the size of the atmosphere. The affects of anthropogenic emissions of: aerosols (generally a cooling affect, although this is seemingly the least understood type of emission),  ozone-forming chemicals (heating), and halocarbons (heating), as well as changes in surface albedo (both heating and cooling) are also discussed.

            The report then reviews "Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change", including the facts such as:

·        11 of the last twelve years rank among the warmest 12 years since 1850

·        the warming trend over the past 50 years (degrees C per decade) is nearly twice that for the trend of the last 100 years.

·        average atmospheric water vapour content has increased approximately in correlation to the increase that would occur due to warmer air being able to hold more water

·        mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres

            The report then goes on to recount trends and changes that suggest long-term climate change such as changes in Arctic ice and temperatures, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, changes in ocean salinity, and extreme wind and weather patterns, stating that it is very likely that most of the observed increase in average temperatures globally -- and that it is likely that ocean warming, average continental temperatures, and temperature extremes -- can be attributed to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.  A very important point from this section to be noted is that only models that include anthropogenic forcing can simulate the real-life observed patterns of warming.  It is stated that even if greenhouse gas emission levels were to stay at their 2005 levels, anthropogenic global warming and sea level rise would still occur over the next few centuries, but if the current rate of increase in greenhouse gas emissions is maintained it is likely that the 21st century will exhibit a lot more dramatic environmental and climactic changes than even those recorded for the 20th century. A detailed account of the likely outcomes of different emission rate scenarios is included, based on a variety of potential future economic, environmental and social outlooks as well as different rates of population growth on the global scale. The report cites increased ocean acidification, and decreased snow and arctic ice cover as likely outcomes of all (even the most optimistic) emissions scenarios for the next few decades.

Critical Thinking Question for " Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science

Basis ":

1. Given that projections of global climate change are not certain, should we act now? If not, how long should we wait?

            Yes, despite the fact that projections of global climate change are not certain we should definitely act now, because even though we may be uncertain that the projections are true, I think that we are more uncertain of (and the much bigger threat is) what effects these changes could have if they do happen -- not only on our environment and natural resource stores, but also on our way of life and even health.  In addition, the report states most outlined outcomes as either "likely" or "very likely", which although are not 100% certain designations, in my mind these designations instill quite a bit of confidence, especially due to the quality of the scientists who work at the IPCC and the amount of research that goes into writing such reports. As a race, we have been blessed with the intelligence to foresee potential changes to our world and have been given the opportunity to both prepare for the unavoidable and to mitigate the effects that we can as much as possible, and therefore I think it is our responsibility to implement the Precautionary Principle as soon as possible and do what we can to avoid problems that will most likely be more complicated later on down the road.

4. A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030

            The "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030" reading is a selection taken from a proposal written by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi on how best to adjust 100% of the world from depending on fossil fuel energies, to depending completely on alternative, more sustainable ones by 2030 (the proposal was published in 2009). The proposal cites that the best options for alternative energies (with the least contributions to global warming) are wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal and hydroelectric power (or those powered by wind, water, and sun), and that sources of energy in the report were only considered for use if they had near-zero emissions levels, including during the manufacturing process and in practical use (for example, to power vehicles). The proposal also notes that the energies considered for use by the report do not involve significant amounts of waste disposal, and note the heating and transportation industries as industries who's change in energy sources is vital in the hope to move away from fossil fuel energy. Jacobsen and Delucchi then discuss the fact that electric energy is more efficient than fossil fuel energy, and if the conversion was made to this clean alternative energy less energy would be in demand in the future worldwide, as well as point out that the available energy that can be acquired from the wind and sun alone far exceeds the projected future need of 11.5- 16.9 trillion watts by about 50 times. The proposal then considers limitations on the other aforementioned methods of clean energy: that wave energy is only practical in coastal areas, that much of the large reservoirs capable of producing hydroelectric energy are already in use, and that much of the Earth's geothermal energy can not be tapped economically.  

            Having established that enough energy exists to power the Earth via only alternative methods, the report moves into discussing how to make the transition from fossil fuels. Jacobson and Delucchi suggest wind should supply about half of the world's energy through 3.8 million large wind turbines across the globe, that another 40% of the power should come from photovolaics and concentrated solar panels, and the last remaining percent of the world's power should come from water-related methods, including hydroelectric ones(of which about 70% of the needed infrastructure is already in place). The academics also point out that despite all the needed infrastructure to produce this green energy, the infrastructure needed to create the projected needed additional fossil fuel processing plants to account for overpopulation will cover more of the Earth's surface. The proposal then discusses the potential difficulties that may arise in acquiring the materials needed to put the proposed infrastructure in place: dependence on China for the rare metal neodymium in building wind turbines,  and a shortage of other rare metals needed for the production of solar panels and batteries (lithium especially) are emphasized. It is noted that improved recycling practices could change this equation slightly, but shortages would still most likely remain. The proposal then compares the reliability of traditional fossil fuels to that of alternative energies, stating that in general, alternative energies need less time out of use for maintenance, but seeing as they rely on the presence of wind and sun, intermittency (which is a minor issue that can be solved by smartly using/storing the different types of alternative energies) must be accounted for. It is also noted that presently, alternative energy is approximately the same cost or slightly more expensive than fossil fuel energy, but it is projected that by 2020 alternative energy will become cheaper by almost 50% (much less than that of current fossil fuel prices), while the cost of fossil fuel energy will rise slightly. It is also stated that the projected cost of cars run by electricity/batteries is comparable to that of a car run by fossil fuels when gas is about $2/gallon.

            The report addresses the fact that some forms of alternative energies will be more expensive than fossil fuels for a short period of time, and suggests carbon taxes and subsidies to be used to encourage the transition in the interim, stating that at least fossil fuel subsidies encouraging extraction/exploration should be abolished, as well as should subsidies for energy sources less environmentally friendly and productive than suggested by Jacobson and Delucchi, such as biofuels. Jacobsen and Delucchi end their proposal with a call to politicians to implement ambitious emissions and energy goals, stating that even with moderate polices a 100% transition of energy being produced could be made to alternative energy sources from fossil fuels in approximately 40-50 years.

Critical Thinking Question for "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030":

1. Over the years, society has spent enormous amounts of money to build the current energy system. Why does this make it difficult to change to a new energy system?

            The fact that over the years society has spent enormous amounts of money to build the current energy system makes it difficult to change to a new energy system because it makes investing in alternative energy sources seem like a waste of, or a "throwing away" of the money that has previously been invested in the current system of fossil fuels. I don't know the exact numbers, so therefore I do not know if, in total, the amount of money invested into harvesting energy from the current energy system has been recovered by the money made by the current energy system, but I do know that at any one time individuals have money invested in fossil fuel energies, and that these individuals, in general, would like money to be made on their investment, and therefore would be hesitant to support a movement such as alternative energy, which might cause them to lose money or not make a profit. In addition, I think that many of the world's richest and most influential people are somewhat involved in the current energy system, and are not convinced that an alternative energy system could be equally as profitable, and therefore prefer the idea of "playing it safe" and "sticking with what they know" because, so far, the fossil fuel industry has brought a lot of money into certain nations, such as Canada. It is hard to find the money to begin building a new energy system without taking some of it from the existing energy system, and the people involved in the existing energy system have invested (literally) interest in keeping the old energy system around.

ACTIVITY

The Rob Hopkins: Transition to a World without Oil Ted Talk begins with Hopkins discussing his work in the field of promoting sustainability, and that sustainability, to him, had always meant looking at the global economic market, and moderating what goes in and what comes out into a sustainable model. Hopkins hints that perhaps this old way of viewing sustainability is not the best way. Hopkins then launches into a discussion of how oil has become an intricate part of modern day society, shaping policies as well as being involved in the production/ manufacture of a multitude of things that people need/use on a daily basis; Hopkins illustrates our dependency on oil, and reminds his listeners that our supply is limited, stating the fact that for every four barrels of oil consumed, only one is found. Hopkins then goes on to discuss climate change, and how the information coming in to climate scientists creates fear in their eyes as they realize that climate change issues may be much more severe and culminating quicker than previously thought. Hopkins says that the need for large scale de-carbonization of the Earth's atmosphere is urgent and the only option, introducing his unique solution to the imminent energy crisis -- namely being the "Transition response" movement. He describes this movement as self-organizing, focusing on what people can do locally, for themselves and those in close proximity, to respond to the energy crisis and do what they can to start transitioning to a world not powered by fossil fuels. He cites resilience, rather than sustainability, as the core concept of the program in the way that it promotes the evolution of more adaptation, and more questioning and evaluating of the system in place, as opposed to sustainability, which encourages more of a "do what you can with what's existing" approach. Hopkins then describes the development of this transition movement that he's leading, stating that there were over 200 "Transition" projects in progress worldwide, including local food and energy production initiatives, town-specific currencies; as well as government interest and support in the movement. Hopkins asks the audience to think about the needs and characteristics of their own communities, and how they might grow and develop into communities with lower carbon emissions.

            My impression of what Rob Hopkins had to say was that he brought up a lot of interesting and good points. More and more I've been hearing from authorities on sustainable/renewable energy of the future that it needs to be locally sourced, so I found it interesting that here, too, the sentiment was repeated. I also thought his idea to create and movement which effectively "grows itself" through exciting people about a renewable future and allowing locals to take the initiative on local change, was very innovative and a" resilient" way to run things, which is in keeping with the core value of his movement.

IN-CLASS BLOG QUESTIONS

1) Can parks meet their dual mandate of access and protection?

            Yes, I do think that on the global scale, parks can meet their dual mandate of access and protection, however I'm not entirely sure if this dual mandate can be met on a park-by-park basis.  I think that if there is extensive research into the way a park's ecosystem functions, as well as how a human presence/ human access affects the health and function of a particular ecosystem, then human access can be permitted with conditions for human behavior which could be enforced by law. For example, if a park contains a population to which roads are extremely harmful (because they migrate a lot, or for some other reason) then perhaps human access can be granted, but without the construction of roads. This would force people to only explore the park through hiking and navigation, which would lesson the negative affects that they have on the ecosystem. If, however, human presence (even if it is small) is found to have huge negative effects on a park ecosystem, then perhaps human access should not be permitted in that park, in the spirit of preserving a small portion of the Earth's natural beauty, or a particular species.

2) How can this be achieved in Wapusk?

            I think that the amount of access being granted to humans in Wapusk National Park is already in accordance with the dual mandate of access and protection. The delicate, relatively large polar bear population present there, the threat that they pose to humans if they interact, and their likely death in such a case, makes me believe that the park should not allow accessed by outsiders without an escort, as is the current practice. People are still able to access the park, they are just asked to do so on a supervised basis, and I think this is completely appropriate. After all, if they did grant unsupervised access into the park, they would not be meeting of their mandate of protection, especially of the polar bear population. There would also no doubt be damage to other aspects of the park's ecosystem as the necessary infrastructure would put in place to accommodate the presence of humans. Further access to humans, to me, does not seem to achieve the dual mandate of access and protection, but rather places one as more important over the other.

3) What future would you like to see for the Alberta Oil Sands project?

            The future that I would like to see for the Alberta Oil Sands project is one of continued modified use, and minimal development moving forward, to a certain point. I think the need for all of humanity to switch from depending completely on fossil fuel energy is obvious, as the amount of fossil fuels present on our Earth is limited and running out quickly. I also, however, think that this transition will take some time. I think that in the time it takes to educate the public about the urgent state of the energy crisis, create the infrastructure that is needed to switch from fossil fuel-dependant energy to renewable energy, and to research how best to accomplish these things, continued use of fossil fuel energy is necessary and inevitable. However, during these processes, the amount of fossil fuel energy being used can be lessened as renewable energy sources develop, and many different carbon-emission minimizing practices can be implemented to the oil/energy production processes. I also believe that more environmentally-friendly, as well as environmentally/socially just practices could easily be implemented, through oil companies putting the time, money and research needed into trying to solve the water and ecosystem pollution issues associated with the Alberta Oil Sands. Eventually, when there is enough renewable energy being harvested to support our country without the use of fossil fuels, I think that the Alberta Oil sands project should be halted, and research should begin into how best to recover/remediate the face of the Oil sands into useable, safe, productive land available for all life forms, human and non.

4) Consider your reliance on fossil fuels. Are you comfortable with your level of dependence? Do you feel that this is sustainable for the next 10 years? Are there steps you would like to take to reduce this reliance?

             No, I am not very comfortable with my dependence on fossil fuels, although I do think that it is most likely sustainable for the next ten years. I do not think that the energy crisis will hit consumers too hard in the next ten years, although I do think that at the end of the next ten years, the fossil fuel situation will be precarious enough that the public will not be able to ignore the fact that changes must be made and something must be done. I would like to reduce my reliance on fossil fuel energy, and eventually take steps toward doing so, but as for in the immediate future, I don't think that there's all that much I can do that is within my economic means. Eventually, I'd like to buy a low-emission/ electricity-run vehicle, but at the moment such car is out of my price change. I also think that one day, when  I own a home, I'd like for it to be designed in a way such that my carbon footprint is as small as possible, either through it being powered via solar power, or using green design techniques to build it, or both, but again, at present, such a home is too expensive for my budget.