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.
