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.