Blog Questions

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

My primary concerns are mostly drawn from the impact of overfishing and the collapse of global fisheries. Seeing that a majority of people rely on the oceans as a source of food and nourishment, the destruction caused by the exploitation of natural resources seems to be of grave concern. Pollution in the oceans and the impact from rising global temperatures are also alarming as we do not currently know the extent and severity these factors have for life on Earth.

I am not sure what can be done to stop the destruction of the ocean that does not require dramatic changes to the practices we currently implement as a society. The least that can be done is to set up reserves for particularly vulnerable places in the oceans, and draft laws that regulate global fisheries. On an individual level, it might be necessary to raise these issues and have educated and rational discussions with people who might not be aware of the environmental degradation caused by overfishing and pollution. It might cause some people to evaluate what they are placing in themselves and the price paid to provide it to them.

Jeremy Jackson: “How we Wrecked the Ocean,” a TED Talk

Jeremy Jackson started out in Chesapeake Bay—diving in the winter which eventually led him to his calling as a coral reef ecologist. He made his way to Jamaica, where beautiful reefs adorned the coast of the West Indies. But something is peculiar when you look at pictures of those reefs from the 60s and 70s: there were no fish in the pictures.

            The reefs of Discovery Bay in Jamaica were the most studied reefs in the last twenty years. What scientists learn most about coral reefs “was based on these reefs without any fish.” Where it was generally accepted that hurricanes may destroy coral reefs, the prediction of Jackson and what would happen just happened to be wrong. Overfishing was the culprit. When natural disasters used to occur, coral ecosystems tend to eventually recover; however, overfishing, pollution, and climate change have now hindered these natural processes—interacting in ways that prevent recovery.

            Industrial fisheries use drag nets that scrape the sea floor to catch and endanger habitats—so it is not only fish which are disappearing. Corals are destroyed by this practice, like the “area of the ocean floor that has been transformed from forest to level mud.” Looking for a perspective, the destruction equates to as if “the entire area of all the forests that have been cut down on all of the earth in the history of humanity”—and we have managed to this in a relatively short time.

Pollution from oil spills and plastic waste also play a pivotal role to the destruction of marine life. Invasive species and nutrient loading exacerbate the destruction. Run-off from fertilizers find their way into waterways. Red tides or toxic blooms are becoming more commonplace.

            In regards to climate change, the warming of earth’s ocean systems will have a deleterious impact for marine life. The warming of polar ice caps and rising levels would not only have a consequence for life in the oceans but for the life on land as well. Coral bleaching is an effect of algae unable to produce sugars which the corals thrive on when ocean temperatures rise.

            The most frightening aspect of these scenarios is that “each thing doesn’t happen in a vacuum.” Instead, positive feedback loops exacerbate the situation at hand. How oceanic life can survive will depend on how humanity moves forward in these undertakings. Physical, chemical, and oceanographic changes are occurring, and unless we change the way we think, and set priorities that include all life on earth, we might see an end to the current ways of living. Jackson implores us to set aside our greed and need for growth—because it is not about the fish, or pollution, or even climate change, it is about how we see ourselves and the example we want to set for generations to come.

Reflections

Jeremy Jackson’s TED Talk incorporated many visuals that demonstrate the plight of marine ecosystems—in particular, the effect our practices have on coral reefs. The extent of humanity’s overfishing has severely depleted the functioning ability of once pristine places on earth such as Discovery Bay in Jamaica. The pollution incurred by mankind is nothing to scoff at, and the loss of biodiversity because of this pollution is weakening natural ecosystems around the world. Mankind has shaped the landscape of Earth on an unprecedented level. We may have a general idea of the consequences we face, but the severity seems unfathomable at times. It is through educating people on the destruction of our oceans that stands the hope we may be able to change our actions in a sustainable way. 

A Summary of Boris Worm’s “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services

The impact of marine ecosystems influenced by human nature has been severely crippled over the past years. Loss of species and their populations are visible evidence that this is occurring, yet there are plenty of unknown consequences as well. What Boris Worm set out to do was see how biodiversity is affected from the long-term practice of global fisheries: they found that “resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased exponentially with declining diversity.” On the other hand, restoring biodiversity seemed to increase productivity; therefore, Worm’s conclusion is that the loss of biodiversity in marine ecosystems is exacerbating the inability of the ocean to provide food, quality water, and recovery from ecological disasters. However, these trends can still prevented.

Research done on land animals tend to suggest the same thing: a richer biodiversity enhances the productivity and stability of ecosystems. The vast expanse of oceans makes it particularly difficult to forecast the scope of our impact on marine ecosystems. Because many people are dependent on water systems as a means of survival, changing the landscape can have deleterious effects on these communities. These effects stem from the practice of “exploitation, pollution, and habitat destruction, or indirectly through climate change and related perturbations of ocean biogeochemistry.” The loss of coral reefs, estuaries and ocean fish communities are a result of these practices.

Biodiversity enhances ecosystems in many ways: they provide stability, resistance to disturbances in habitats, and provide mixed diets to species that prolong survival such as growth and fecundity. The research on biodiversity reports “positive linkages between biodiversity, productivity, and stability across trophic levels in marine ecosystems.”

For coastal ecosystems, a decline of species strongly correlated with the onset of industrialization, and as predicted, ecosystems were able to survive with an increased richness in species and was conclusively more stable. When coastal ecosystems are unable to filter water and increase water quality, there were increases in pollution, algal blooms, and oxygen depletion; as a result, the survival of native species (and at times compromised by invasive ones) were declining.

In large marine ecosystems, the rate of global fisheries have collapsed by 29% since 2003 defined by the recorded maximum. As with current trends from the research above, collapses occurred more frequently in areas which were not rich in biodiversity. In areas where species richness was abundant, these ecosystems tend to be more robust and less susceptible to overexploitation.

The issue is whether these trends can be reversed. The implementation of reserves and closures have been used on regional and local scales. The question is whether it can be replicated on a larger scale. Reserves and closures have reversed some aspects of declining biodiversity and were associated with “large increases in fisheries productivity.” Ecosystems tend to stabilize although not significantly in many cases. Results vary from place to place, but some of the data suggests that it is still possible to recoup some losses in biodiversity from these areas. This trend towards a less biodiverse world has many implications: Worm’s findings demonstrate that “the elimination of local adapted populations and species not only impairs the ability of marine ecosystems to feed a growing human population but also sabotages their stability and recovery potential in a rapidly changing marine environment.” Our efforts must prove prudent if we are to live in a sustainable world, and that begins by rethinking the life of marine ecosystems.

What can we do to prevent a catastrophic decline in ocean fisheries by the mid-21^st century?

In order to prevent a catastrophic decline of ocean fisheries, we must act now. Part of this action includes restoring the biodiversity in our oceans through sustainable practices in fisheries management. We must also be able to control the level of pollutants entering our ecosystems, and maintain the marine habitats necessary for life. The creation of marine reserves can also help curb and prevent a decline in ocean fisheries. If we are successful in our ventures in being sustainable when it comes to marine ecosystems, we might be able to address growing concerns of food security and water quality for habitats conducive to the proliferation of life.

Worm, Boris. “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services.” Sources: Selection in

                Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 92-95.

A Summary of Robert D. Bullard’s “Environmental Justice for All”

Environmental movements often reflect the idealist aspirations of upper middle class whites, but seldom are the poor represented. Sometimes they fail to take into account the needs of the poor and the scope of racial oppression when discussing environmental burdens. In this article, Bullard describes the history of the environmental movement, environmental racism, and call for the action of government to inflict change.

People frequently see media coverage of impoverished African American communities serving as dumping grounds for pollutants and other hazardous waste; and before, the people in these communities will watch helplessly as industry, manufacturers, and even the city throw waste in their backyards. But as early as 1968, the inception and concept of environmental justice provided a means for citizens to speak out and rally against corporations and demand government set forth laws. In 1991 environmental activists marched down Washington D.C. for a summit to “bring national attention to pollution problems threatening low-income and minority communities.”

The protest was simple: put forth the notion that working class and minority communities receive less environmental protection that white or affluent communities. It involved expanding the definition of “environment” to include a social aspect as well as the physical and natural ones. In essence, the “movement changed the way environmentalism is practiced in the United States and, ultimately, worldwide.” The cry for environmental justice lead to two dozen policy papers displaying “powerful environmental and health disparities between people of color and whites”–a movement that falls under the umbrella of civil rights.

The first lawsuit filed using civil rights law, in the vein of environmental justice, was Bean v. Southwestern Waste Management, Inc. in 1979. The issue regards Houston’s landfills and incinerators which were located in predominantly black neighborhoods, “even though Blacks made up only 25 percent of the city’s population.” Although they were ineffective to halt dumping in the landfill, the plaintiffs did manage to enforce waste regulations for the city and state. The environmental justice movement, however, shot into national attention when Warren County, N.C. was selected as a site to dispose of toxic waste. The decision brought forth many protests that lead to over 500 arrests, “marking the first time any Americans had been jailed protesting the placement of waste facility.”

Environmental racism was now front and center on the national stage. The landfill, ultimately, went through the political cycle, but the organization of churches, civil rights protestors, youth, and environmental activists melded the black community together. The efforts of Warren County led to studies produced by such groups. Statistical analysis confirmed that “three of every five Black live in communities with abandoned toxic waste sites.” These instances are only the tip of the iceberg in a long line of environmental atrocities borne by minority communities.

Since then there have been many successes led by the environmental justice movements; decisions in cases that resulted in relocation, government intervention, and million dollar court settlements. The Bush administration had curbed some of this progress. New rules governing air pollution have set back the strides made by the environmental justice movement. In these trying times where clean air is a luxury, it seems that standards have become more lenient when they should have become more stringent. Environment justice should be a right for all, and not just for the upper class of society.

What is environmental justice?

Environmental justice are inequitable environment burdens borne by racial minorities and communities and those of low socioeconomic status. These people and communities often are treated unfairly as their environment is compromised by decision makers who may designate their neighborhoods for disposal of waste and pollutants which prove harmful to those living within the area. 

Bullard, Robert D. “Environmental Justice for All.” Sources: Selection in Environmental Studies. Ed.                 Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 170-172.

A Summary of Colborn, Dumanoski, and Myer’s “Our Stolen Future”

Rachel Carson launched the environmental movement and her message is a “guiding belief among environmentalists, wildlife biologists, and others who recognize two fundamental realities—our shared evolutionary inheritance and our shared environment.” The natural processes that govern our biology, our endocrine system, has been relatively unchanged in our evolution as a species—nearly hundreds of millions of years. Variation among living organisms find ingenious solutions to carry on and pass genes, but the formula remains the same. What makes us unique is miniscule in the grand scheme of things.

We share a common environment with all living things as well as a common ancestor. Although mankind has shaped the environments in ways unimaginable to those in the past, we still rely on natural systems when continuing down our trodden path. They may seem less familiar than the systems of wildlife for an eagle or an otter, but we are “no less deeply implicated in life’s web.”

The exposure in the last half century to persistent chemicals have conveyed this interconnectedness with all living things. All over the world, from the biggest species to the small, we have all, in some way, accumulated a buildup of POPs through our body fat. We partake in a shared contamination, and “there is little reason to expect that humans will in the long term have a separate fate.” There are, however, skeptics, that suggest that results of animal testing do not pose a threat to humans. Although our understanding of cancer is lacking when it comes to the basic mechanisms that induce the disease, we have conclusive data of the mechanisms and actions of hormones.

One example of this is the transferring of chemical substance called diethylstilbestrol (DES) in studies of pregnant women: laboratory experiments have confirmed the existence of DES in the children of women who had consumed the drug during the gestation period. The studies of endocrine disrupters are still in the infancy stage, and as a result, the “extent of the threat is far from complete.” The studies as a whole, however, suggests evidence that we are not immune to the potential harm caused from the persistent pollutants.

In 1991, Theo Colburn and Pete Myers formed a conference of scientists from varying fields ranging from anthropology to zoology, and convened together to present what they know about the effect of pollutants on hormones. Together, the evidence is compelling—and pose a harm to humanity and wildlife. We may very well be paying the consequences from our exposure to these pollutants; to what extent, time will tell. It will be difficult to assess, but the general consensus is that the contamination is evident. The animal studies provide a sort of blueprint to what might happen if we continue down this path of negligence. They act as the canary in the coal mine, risking their lives to alert us of the dangers these pollutants pose.

What effects are environmental hormone mimics known to have on humans?

Because environmental hormone mimics play a role in influencing the endocrine system and the mechanisms and actions of hormones, there is an increasing frequency of genetic abnormalities of children from mothers who may be exposed to these disruptors during the gestation period. Some abnormalities noted in Colburn’s articles are “undescended testicles, extremely small penises, and hypospadias, a defect in which the urethra that carries urine does not extend to the end of the penis.” These disruptors may produce adverse effects that range from developmental, neurological, and reproductive in humans as well as in wildlife. 

Colborn, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers. “Our Stolen Future.” Sources:                            Selection in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 158-160.

A Summary of Sandra Steingraber’s “Living Downstream”

Sandra Steingraber was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a young adult. People might shake their heads and think it is genetic if she had said it runs in her family, but what if she told you that she was adopted? Steingraber explores this fact and goes on to describe “a study of cancer among adoptees that found correlations within their adoptive families but not within their biological ones.” Most people who said it was genetic would draw a blank stare, and then—silence. These silences illuminate some hard facts, how some people are unaware that families not only share similar genetic traits but, more often than not, share the same environments as well.

What struck Steingraber was the volume of science research that focused on genetic mutations as a cause for cancer. For Steingraber, there had to be more than just genetics. Naturally intrigued, she began to research articles that document the genetic changes associated with bladder cancer. Even with all the information we have gathered about genetic mutations, we still fall short in finding an effective solution to prevent the disease. The rate of bladder cancer has risen 10% between the years 1973 and 1979, with significant prominence from the African American population. And while it is believed that cigarette smoking may account for a third of all cases, the most apt question is what is causing cancer in the rest of the population who do not smoke? Steingraber’s research evaluated the known and suspected carcinogens, “their sources, their possible interactions with each other, and our various routes of exposure to them.” What she lacked was conclusive evidence in how these substances interact with each other.

Most cancer research, at the moment, tends to deal with the heretical nature of the disease. The approach focuses on genetic testing which tries to identify genes that are most susceptible to cancer, and the individual’s risk of cancer. Steingraber, however, exclaims that hereditary cancers are not the norm, as “fewer than 10 percent of all malignancies are thought to involve inherited mutations.” When heredity is not deemed as the main cause, cancers are classified as “sporadic” to describe the rest. The evidence suggests that the location of a cancer gene will “not prevent the vast majority of cancers that develop.” What often occurs is that people who carry a cancer gene are more at risk as environmental factors exacerbate the potential risk for malignancy.

The crux of the issue when it comes to cancer genes is that we cannot change who our ancestors are, and focusing the issue on inheritance which we can do nothing about rather than external factors which could be in our control. We are carrying, from the past, carcinogens that are no longer in use but are still present in our bodies. It important that we find and explore the root cause that may stem from our previous use of chemicals in neighborhoods and the products we use. This, in essence, is a search for our ecological roots. The current system of regulation of carcinogenic substances is intolerable; rather, we must prevent the generation instead. Steingraber advises that we choose the least harmful way when solving problems which inexplicably correlates with the “least toxic alternative.”

Should there be more effort to study the links between cancer and environmental factors?

Yes, with Steingraber’s research and personal anecdotes, there does seem to be correlation with cancer and external factors that are not related to genetics or heredity. Everywhere around us, the use of chemicals in our food and water are prevalent. We still carry trace elements of pesticides in us since Rachel Carson exposed the world to the dangers of their use. What else can be affecting our health that may lead to malignancies causing death? By only focusing on genetic mutations of cancer cells, we are limiting the scope of possibilities that may be a root cause to our dilemmas.

Steingraber, Sandra. “Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the                                           Environment.” Sources: Selection in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United                     States, 2014. 153-157.

A Summary of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment’s “Ecosystems and Human Well-being”

Everyone depends on earth's ecosystems and services: food water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual fulfillment, and aesthetic enjoyment. But over the last 50 years, we have drastically changed these ecosystems more than in any period of history just to meet these demands. Although this change has been met with increasing economic and standards of living, it has also harmed many regions and groups of people in the process.

There are three problems which are associated with the management of the world’s ecosystems that affectively harm the livelihood of people—in particular, the poor. Firstly, 60% of ecosystem services examined are used unsustainably which include “fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water purification, and the regulation of regional and local climate, natural hazards, and pests.” Although these losses are extremely hard to measure, the surrounding evidence suggests they are substantial and increasing. Secondly, “there is established but incomplete evidence” that changes in ecosystems are consequently affecting and influencing the state of other ecosystems that have ramifications for human well-being. Thirdly, the effects of a degraded ecosystem are being borne mostly be the poorest of peoples, and are “contributing to growing inequities and disparities across groups of people, and are sometimes the principal factor causing poverty and social conflict”

The goals set forth by the international community in achieving the Millenium Development Goals reached in September 2000 are already hindered by the degradation of ecosystem services, and the extent of this degradation can grow worse over the next 50 years. Many driving forces of ecosystem change are unlikely to diminish by 2050, especially climate change and nutrient loading which will be more pronounced in years to come. People most reliant on ecosystem services, particularly the rural poor, face the biggest challenge as it is unlikely that these goals are sustainable when these services are degraded.

The problems arise from the many challenges we face today and are exacerbated by the interconnected of the situation. Actions to curb or reverse the degradation has shown some results, but they inevitably have not kept up with current demands. There are preliminary discussions to stop degradation in the coming decades: changes in policies, institutions, and practices “can mitigate some but not all of the negative consequences of growing pressures on ecosystems” but they are not implemented at the moment It will take a collected effort and an integration of ecosystem management goals in a wide range of sectors and a new way of thinking if we are to instill some change for a sustainable future.

There have been many benefits from the changes made to the world’s ecosystems, primarily when it comes to meeting the demands for food and water. Agricultural gains, which include fisheries and forestry, have provided a means to feed a world with an increasing population, but the destruction inflicted on the ecosystem is unsustainable and have been exhausted and are often borne by the people of impoverished nations. The necessary steps we must take to ensure a more sustainable world will ultimately depend on evaluating humanity’s connection with ecosystems.

In what ways does damage to ecosystems affect human well-being?

Humanity and Earth’s ecosystems are deeply connected on a symbiotic level. We rely on thriving ecosystems as a source of food, water, and materials. We depend on Earth’s biological processes to sustain life. When we take liberties and exploit ecosystems for personal gain, it often affects people in the lowest stratum of economic stability in the world. Oftentimes, the poor bear the brunt of this carelessness, as we destroy natural habitats which threaten the ecosystems they rely on. Because many peoples are located on coastal regions, overfishing is an example that takes food away and their ability to survive as marine ecosystems are slowly being depleted of fish. Resources are being harvested by more affluent societies, primarily at the consequence of the poor. When we damage ecosystems in the search for these resources, humanity as a whole feels the blight from these atrocities.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well-being.” Sources: Selection                  in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 53-59.

Blog Questions

Consider your food system: What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it? Consider taste, nutrition, cost, equity, and environmental issue.

My food system is predicated upon one word: convenience. Although I try not to eat a lot of fast food and try to avoid an unhealthy diet, I do eat out a lot. My groceries are bought at large supermarkets, primarily because the cost is so much cheaper. I cannot tell the difference in taste in nutrition from local farms to mass markets. I hate the idea that the meat I buy came from large animal farms that do not provide their livestock with an adequate way of life, but cost and convenience is definitely a determining factor. These supermarkets transit a huge bulk of their inventory via trucking systems which increase the amount of CO2 being placed into the atmosphere. I know that by buying locally I can reduce my environmental impact, but sometimes I am of that mindset that my choices—if I were to change—will have virtually no impact whatsoever.

What role, if any, should zoos play in conservation/education? Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos? If so, what size / type of animal or zoo? Do you enjoy visiting zoos?

I believe that zoos can play a very important role in conservation and educating people about animals in the wild. It is, however, difficult to accomplish in a manner that is ethically sound when providing a proper habitat and way of life for these animals. Elephants should not be kept in zoos, as it is clearly evident that elephants live longer in the wild than in captivity. I am not sure what animals might benefit from an artificial habitat; the best, I would assume, would be some birds, reptiles, and fish and other marine animals. The larger the animal, the more adequate housing and resources needed to provide proper care for the animal. Keeping animals in captivity definitely draws a fine line that divides two ends of the spectrum: one might reason that animals, especially endangered animals need protection (and some zoos advocate in restoring these species in hopes they will one day return to the wild); another might reason that the best way to promote care for animals in the wild is to educate and view them in captivity. I have been to three zoos in my lifetime: Assiniboine Park Zoo, the Kansas City Zoo, and a zoo in Brisbane, Australia. Some of these were kind of deplorable, and I felt bad for these animals (the cheetah exhibit in Kansas City was so enclosed that the animals were never able to run if they wanted to), and others were great experiences where I learned a lot and got to interact with animals native to the country (the zoo in Brisbane). Nonetheless, the argument whether zoos do more harm than good is an issue that will be continued to be argued for many years to come.

What I am doing to promote sustainability and happiness in my life?

In the past year, I have already made some major changes that, I think, have affected my lifestyle for the better. With the hopes of living a more sustainable lifestyle and reducing my environmental impact, I moved into a smaller place that still accommodates my needs. I try not buy extravagant things anymore without making a conscious decision whether I need it or not. I have been accustomed to buying used things now, and have liquidated many of my assets as well. In the past year, I have also tried to rely more on public transportation and carpooling, and have started riding motorbikes as an alternative to driving a vehicle.

What I would like to do?

I would like to continue and live as I currently do, and have others be able to follow suit. Education is the most important thing to promote a conscious connection to the environment, and I intend to pass the message along. I would also like to shop more locally, and be able to eat healthier as well. Composting, being important as it is, will be another practice I will begin in order to live a more sustainable and environmentally friendly lifestyle.

I pledge to: do my best to reduce my carbon footprint in the world, and encourage others to do the same.

E.O. Wilson’s "My Wish: Build the Encyclopedia of Life," a TED Talk

E.O. Wilson begins his lecture with a plea to humanity: “If we were to wipe out insects alone, just that group alone, on this planet—which we are trying hard to do—the rest of life and humanity with it would mostly disappear from the land.” It is certainly a grave statement to begin a lecture, but one that has merit.

            As Wilson grew up, he became fascinated with the diversity of life on Earth. From butterflies to snakes, birds to fish, and many other assortment of animals, he found his calling as a biologist. With the variety of life in the world, and what it means for us as a species as a whole, he reflected on how little we understand it and the dangers our practices imposes on the natural world. When he was seven years old, he was blinded in the eye by a pinfish, and coupled with his difficulty in hearing, he dedicated his life as a naturalist to the very small—insects. Insects, according to Wilson, “compose the foundation of our ecosystems, the little things . . . who run the world.”

            The discoveries humanity has made in the last thirty years demonstrates how little we know about life on this planet. Bacteria alone, in a ton of soil, contains nearly four million species that are yet unknown. The purposeful nature of these bacteria we do not know. But with the advancement of genomic technology, we are able to sequence genetic codes and find out more with our connection to life on Earth. We may ultimately depend on these species of bacteria for survival, but unbeknownst to us the importance to our ecosystems, we may be “destroying them with ingenuity and ceaseless energy.”

            What Wilson exclaims is that we are destroying the biosphere by a combination of factors that follows the acronym “HIPPO”: Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Pollution, Population, Over-harvesting. If humanity continues at its current rate, half of the surviving animal and plants species alive today can be extinct by end of the 21^st century; climate change can force a quarter of surviving species into extinction within five decades. We stand to lose many scientific discoveries that may very well be our solution to many of life’s burdens today if this happens.

            The result can be cataclysmic: many mass extinctions in the past have occurred already, and do we want to be part of the next one? There must be a sense of urgency to study the biosphere. Until we feel confident we know what all life has to offer, we will not be able to competently tend to the survival of the planet. Wilson implores the listeners to begin a new chapter, one where we “inspire preservation of Earth’s biodiversity.” Let’s call it the “Encyclopedia of Life.” Let’s make this information accessible to anybody willing to look for it. The practical application of this knowledge can create a world that will transcend the human consciousness. It can encourage the wonders of science that will benefit all realms of society, and it can inspire a whole generation that views all life on Earth as a whole.

Reflection

A call to science in order to discover the mysteries of this world and our growing connection to this planet has been proposed by many like-minded thinkers before. E.O. Wilson drives this point home: every single organism on Earth has a right to survival as do our own human species. The fact that every biological organism shares the same genetic structure is something to marvel at. The evolution of life on Earth is so highly improbable that it is hard to be ungrateful when you view life from the scope the size of the universe. It is our duty, as Wilson points, to understand the meanings and practicalities while we still can. With the current rate of extinction on this planet, there may very well be a solution to many of the fears and doubts that predicate our society. A loss of a species can have an irreparable impact to Earth’s natural order, so it is better to preserve and conserve what little we have before it is too late to make a difference.

A Summary of Vitousek, Mooney, and Melillo’s “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems”

            Environmental degradation only used to occur on a local scale, but with the onset of increasing globalization, the impact on the environment and biodiversity has reached an unprecedented level. In Vitousek, Mooney, and Melillo’s “Human Domination,” they give a brief overview to “the extent to which human activity has exerted a global impact on the Earth’s ecosystems.” The extent is enormous: over 50% of Earth’s land surface is transformed by humans, increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, half of the freshwater is already being used, 25% of bird species are going extinct, and many other consequences as a result of human influence. Humans modify their environment like every species, but the extent of which has grown significantly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

            There is no place on Earth where mankind has left no imprint. Everywhere we go, and just the daily routines of our everyday lives, we see the impact man has had on the world. Land transformation is the most impactful of mankind’s alteration of Earth. We shape the terrain in order to foster practices of agriculture to feed ourselves, and divert waterways to construct buildings and houses, but in consequence, we destroy biodiversity by displacing native species from their natural habitats—the “primary driving force in the loss of biological diversity worldwide.” It is hard to quantify the effect man has on the land, but there is no arguing that there is an effect.

            Oceans are even harder to measure. With more than 60% of the human population situated near the coast, the environmental impact man has contributed to the oceans may result in dire circumstances for these populations. Wetlands, which act as filtering agents for larger waterways, are slowly disappearing and exacerbating the detrimental effects of natural ecosystems. The unsustainable practices of fishing top predators has dramatically altered the natural qualities of the ocean. The overexploitation of ocean fisheries as they fish near or at capacity can propel the life of the ocean into disrepair.

            What is even more troublesome is the alteration of the biogeochemical cycles on Earth. The mining and burning of fossil fuels has increased global temperatures dramatically and inexplicably affected climate since the industrial era. Coupled with the destruction of grasslands and the practice of deforestation, it is becoming harder to sequester the carbon in the atmosphere. Water is becoming more crucial as the amount of freshwater from aquifers is being slowing depleted as water tables are not able to recharge with rainwater. We create dams and reservoirs to harness a source of energy and divert water from their natural systems. Utilizing the power of nitrogen as fertilizer and the use of pesticides are only a number of other ways mankind has affected the world’s ecosystems.

            Extinction is inevitable; survival is the exception—and the current pace is inexcusable. The introduction and spread of invasive species has severely crippled the ecosystem for those species native and natural to the land. The consequences of our actions is not something we have to deal with eventually, it is something to deal with now. The ongoing change is accelerated by our actions. What Vitousek et al. suggests as solutions requires a sense of urgency: we must reduce the rate in which we alter the Earth, place an added effort to understand Earth’s ecosystems and its numerous components of global change, and place the onus on mankind in responsibly managing the planet. If we act now, humanity may still have a fighting chance.

Would it help to reduce the human impact on the Earth if we could reduce the human population?

Yes, reducing the human population will have a direct impact in reducing the human impact on Earth. With a lower population, basic necessities needed to survive will require a lower level of resources. With fewer mouths to feed, the more sustainable our food sources can become. At the current rate we have exhausted many of Earth’s resources that are unreplenishable. We are draining aquifers faster than rainwater can restore them, even mining the water deeper below. All in all, there has to be a human capacity to life on Earth (although there is no definite number), and it is better to be cautious than to unwillingly cross it to a point of no return. 

Works Cited

Peter M. Vitousek, Harold A. Mooney, and Jerry M. Melillo. “Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 45-52.

A Summary of Vandana Shiva’s “Women’s Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation”

Gender plays a pivotal role in our everyday lives. Some people choose to ignore it, but the disparity of sex and the inequality between men and women is inherently evident in society today. What Vandana Shiva argues in this article is that gender also plays a role in the environmental policies and practices of the present: they are inexplicably linked to a notion that women are subservient to men, and subject to the hierarchy of patriarchy that is prevalent today.

As early as history seems to dictate, women have played a lesser role to men in society. They were unequal, treated unfairly, and scapegoated as the reason of sin and suffering in the world. Shiva links these ideas together, and views the ideology of patriarchy as a reasoning in why humanity has chosen to neglect and displace different species in the biological world. The result is a loss of biodiversity as patriarchal models push “towards monocultures, uniformity and homogeneity.” The result is a system where the “marginalization of women and the destruction of biodiversity go hand in hand.”

In Third World countries, communities rely on biological resources as a source of economic prosperity. Biodiversity, therefore, becomes a means of production. These communities make their living by using aspects of conservation and sustainable practices in order to survive. These practices, however, are often seen as primitive compared to the practices we are accustomed to and are “displaced by progressive technologies that destroy both diversity and people’s livelihoods.” In these countries, agricultural responsibilities are dominated by women’s work; however, these responsibilities are often ignored. The various jobs of women that relates to inside and outside the household cannot be tacitly measured in wages or salaries. It often goes unnoticed while women provide the means of sustainability for families and communities.

In many cultures, women have played an important role in the conservation of biodiversity. But seeing that women are marginalized in the agricultural sector, the concern about biodiversity, in this sense, stems from the resistance to the expansion of monocultured-based agricultural production: “crop uniformity . . . undermines the diversity of biological systems which form the production system as well as the livelihoods of people whose work is associated with diverse and multiple-use systems of forestry, agriculture and animal husbandry.” Farms are fragmented as a patriarchal model based on maximizing profits enters into the fold. The traditional roles of women in these communities are brushed aside as a new way of living emerges—one that chooses to neglect the importance and need for a biodiverse world.

Biodiversity has intrinsic value: “women produce through biodiversity, whereas corporate scientists produce through uniformity.” The increasing technological advancements in agriculture, Shiva argues, have displaced women’s roles in rural communities in India. Where the traditional roles of women were seen as custodians of the land, they are now seen as consumers who need to subsist off the product. This new model of agriculture, under a patriarchal hierarchy, chooses to undermine the importance of women in these communities, and pushes towards a practice that is complacent in its destruction of a biodiverse world.

In what sense, according to Vandana Shiva, is Third World women’s work in agriculture “invisible”?

Because gender inequality exists in the developed world, it comes as no surprise that women are marginalized in the Third World as well. It is especially true given the circumstances of agriculture of rural communities in India. Women’s work is not viewed as important in these societies. Their work is often neglected, trivialized, and ousted as a new form of technology displaces their traditional duties of the household. Not only have women’s work in these agricultural communities lost their importance, the work in and around the home go unrecognized as well; raising children, cooking and cleaning, are all jobs that cannot be tacitly measured in wages or salaries. Time allocated to the completion of these tasks are crucial to the lives under the household.

Works Cited

Shiva, Vandana. “Women's Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 200-203.

A Summary of Lester R. Brown’s “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilizations?"

           With the continued growth of world populations, the issue of sustaining food quantities to feed the world is of increasing concern. Issues concerning food have been espoused before, and the themes argued by Brown implicitly evokes a Malthusian way of thinking. The demand for food will grow faster than we are able to supply it, and the yield loss of crops will continue to be exacerbated by environmental issues such as shortages of fresh water, eroding top soils, and climate change.          

            We project the future relying on past trends. The trends culminated from global agriculture, population, environmental and economic factors—Brown argues—coupled with “the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies.” The growing severity of environmental degradation that will lead to food shortages—factors such as falling water tables, eroding soils, and rising temperatures—has led Brown to believe that catastrophic collapse of global civilization is possible. States fail when governments are unable to provide the basic freedoms and necessities that we have known to become the norm in developed countries: access to food, security, education, and healthcare—all things we take for granted today.

Part of this trend includes the increase of world populations, demand for livestock products which contributes to grain yield, and “massive diversion of U.S. grain to ethanol fuel distilleries.” As developing countries become more affluent, an extra demand for grain follows. In first world countries such as the U.S. and Canada, the consumption of grain is consumed “indirectly as meat, milk, and eggs from grain-fed animals”, nearly 90%. A large portion of grain is also diverted for use of fuel in automobiles which is a portion that can feed half a billion people in India alone.

The shortage of water poses the most significant threat to the collapse of the food supply. The challenge is irrigation and, at the moment, we are pumping water out of aquifers faster than rainwater can recharge them. The result is falling water tables, and the subsequent procedure to gather water for irrigation requires drawing water from deeper aquifers which are not replenishable. With the lack in yield of grain from falling water tables, more nation states will have to import their grain elsewhere in order to support the growing population. With the diminishing returns due to shortage of water and loss of topsoil, the inaccessibility of food is sure to arise which will lead to increasing social conflict.

            Crops currently grow at the near or thermal optimum. As climate change has an increasingly profound effect in rises in temperature, it will correspondingly diminish and shrink the harvest of grains and crops. Past technologies that significantly have increased the yield of crops have already reached their limits with no further increases in the production of grain. The political landscapes begin to shift when there are growing concerns in the ability to feed its citizens. Countries acting in their own self-interests are exacerbating the plight of the poorest demographic which leads to a cycle of lawlessness.

            What Brown argues for is Plan B, what he calls “our only option.” Because the circumstances of world food shortage is trend-driven, the environmental trends that lead to the exacerbation of the predicament must be reversed. It requires strict measures and a sharp decline from the way things are handled now. It consists of four components:

-          Cut carbon emission by 80% from 2006 levels by 2020

-          The stabilization of the world population of 8 billion by 2040

-          Eradication of poverty

-          Continued restoration of forests, soils, and aquifers

Measures such as banning global deforestation, issuing a carbon tax, a shift to smaller family sizes, basic education, a focus on family planning, are prudent measures if we are too live in a sustainable world. Restoring natural earth systems and resources is a global effort, one that would take a united front from all nations around the world. Time is the scarcest resource. Brown’s Plan B not only calls for a drastic overall to our current aspects of living, but for the implementation of these practices in order to achieve these goals quickly. It will take a new way of thinking, of challenging the preconceptions of what we find important today.

According to Lester Brown, demand for food is growing faster than the supply. What are the effect of this trend likely to be? How can we prevent the worst effect?

The increasing growth of human population will accelerate the demand for food as world nations desperately try to feed its citizens. If there is exponential growth around the world, communities around the world will have to find new innovative ways to increase the yield of crops in order to provide food security for its population. In a perfect world, food insecurity is non-existent; however, the world is far from perfect, and places where poverty and hunger run rampant, crimes rates skyrocket upwards and governments corrupt. These nation states will serve as a microcosm for the whole global community if we do not finds ways to prevent this from happening. The best thing to do to ensure a better way of living is through education, family planning, and less harmful means of agriculture and a smarter way to manage resources.

Works Cited

Brown, Lester R. “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilizations?” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 139-144.

Blog Questions

Can parks meet its dual mandate of access and protection? How can this be achieved in Wapusk?

Certain difficulties arise when parks try to meet a dual mandate of access and protection. Allowing people access to the park often threatens natural ecosystems within the park, causing encounters with different species from humans encroaching onto their natural habitat. Although the notion of designating a natural space used primarily for the protection of animal species seems unquestionably a good thing, the practice of letting people into the park actually becomes counterintuitive in its approach. Some parks across Canada have been havens for tourist attractions. Places such as Banff National Park, labeled a must-visit destination, have seen such a high volume of visitors that the degradation of the ecosystem is clearly exacerbated by human influence. Parks protect biodiversity, but they also may lure species to danger. When species are curious, such as bears, they pose a threat to patrons of the park and are sometimes dealt with by deadly force.

Wapusk National Park is a different story. Because of Wapusk’s remote location in the Hudson plain south of Churchill, Manitoba, access and protection can be more likely achieved as human contact with species is minimal in the preservation of the natural ecosystem. It becomes easier to protect species of the park when access is possible only by plane or helicopter. Certain measures can be implemented to reduce species contact with humans: for example, fenced off zones separating people from polar bears serve as a barrier of protection in some areas.

Allowing people into parks may violate the protection of some species, but connecting people with nature also has its benefits. A deeper understanding of ecology will create more empathic people involved with environmental issues, and these people will care more in protecting the diversity of life on Earth.

What future would you like to see for the Alberta Tar Sands project? Continue on current path? Stop development entirely? Some modified continuation?

The scope of the Alberta Tar Sands project is massive in scale. The destruction of the ecosystem by extracting bitumen from the surrounding area has ravished the land beyond repair. From viewing satellite pictures of the mining area, it would almost seem impossible to even recover a fifth of the area to something resembling a natural habitat. The future of the Alberta Tar Sands will depend solely on economic policies of provincial and federal governments; however, the lucrative nature of oil will be a strong deterrent to do anything when it affects the national GDP as much as it does. One thing is for sure: the Alberta Tar Sands cannot continue on its current path.

The situation, nevertheless, is so complicated that it would be impossible to stop development in the area completely. The demand for energy produced by the Tar Sands commands a hefty price. Although it would be prudent to stop development in the area immediately—for the environment’s sake, and just for the sake of ethics—a slow transition away from oil may be the next best option. The development of clean, renewable energy is what we will strive for if the production of oil in the Tar Sands cease to exist. Unless there is an alternative form of clean energy, set up with the infrastructure needed to sustain itself, the giant dirt pit of the Alberta Tar Sands will remain in the foreseeable future.

Rob Hopkins: Transition to a World Without Oil, a TED Talk

            Rob Hopkins is an educator: he teaches people practical skills in the everyday world such as basic agriculture, skills for sustainability, construction using local materials, and fostering energy to be used locally. For many years, Hopkins viewed the world through a globalized economic growth model—“moderating what comes in at one end, and moderating the outputs at the other end”—until one day his perspective had shifted.

            On stage Hopkins unveils a liter of oil, and describes the power and the allure which people of the past century have marveled at its output. He explains how the current design of economy, government, and transport have come under “the assumption that we will have this in perpetuity.” For many generations, humanity’s whole way of life revolved around this dark, viscous matter. But the unavailability of oil is constantly increasing. The gap falls farther apart each day, and it is inevitable that one day oil will be gone. Hopkins does not exclaim we are doomed when the last drop of oil has vanished. Human ingenuity has prospered throughout history before, but to overcome this obstacle it will take a clear hard look of where we are and how we approach the situation.

            Stories describe a picture. What stories will be told of us from future generations? Overcoming the obstacle of climate change is not simple. It is a problem that involves many aspects, and much more people are involved than we would like. We cannot necessarily invent our way out of the problem. Hopkins is interested in a transition response—facing the problem of oil head on while “responding with a creativity and an adaptability and an imagination that we really need.”

            Hopkins’ transition model involves people who are excited about an idea. The people use the knowledge they have gained over the years, and work together to raise awareness and form groups to tackle a problem—all the while looking at the challenge from different perspectives and “there emerge a whole lot of projects which . . . the transition project itself starts to support and enable.” Some projects that have emerged for Hopkins were food and agriculture projects, community owned energy companies, and local currency to keep money within the local economy. The key to transition is approaching the problem differently, having plans outside the norm as a precautionary in case a project fails.

            Transitioning does not mean drastic change. It means that change is inevitable and constantly occurring and we should work towards a goal and ask the right questions during the transition. Slow increments of change can influence the lives of generations to come. By leaving and embracing the past of the oil age, Hopkins believes we are able to see the beginning of a world “more resilient, more nourishing . . . more skilled and more connected to each other.”

Reflection

I do not particularly agree with Robert Hopkins’ approach when tackling the problem of oil consumption. Whereas he would like to see the Oil Age peter out into non-existence, I would like to see the flame of the Oil Age extinguished with one single breath. The difficulties that arise on a global scale if oil simply vanished would prevent such a thing from happening. All around the world, people depend on oil as a means of transportation (myself included) and it would be impractical to bite the hand that feeds you when you depend on that hand for the next meal. Hopkins’ approach does have certain aspects which I find appealing. Looking at the problem from many different perspectives and working together as a community to tackle the problem is definitely a prudent approach to finding solutions. But the transition away from oil, I feel, must be more abrupt. When there are oil companies that argue to drill in nature reserves, and a U.S. congress dialectically opposed, more drastic approaches might be preferable in the long run—especially when greenhouse gas emissions have risen the way they have. The transition away from oil may prove more adversarial than what Hopkins’ would like to imagine.

A Summary of the 2007 Climate Change Report

            It is no surprise that climate change damages economic growth. All over the world—as irregular patterns of weather wreak havoc on land development, agriculture, and natural landscapes—the issue is being pressed as a priority to ensure our survival as a species. In 2007, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the following report on the effects of climate change, and the impact it might have for future generations.

            Global atmospheric conditions have risen significantly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Due in part from increases in the burning of fossil fuels, land use, agriculture, etc., emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have steadily risen in the past centuries. Unprecedented levels of CO2 (379 ppm in 2005 from 280 ppm in the pre-industrial era) have increased the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Earth is heating at an alarming rate. The combined radiative forcing due to the increase of these gases have reached the level of atmospheric conditions not seen for more than ten thousand years.

            The report outlines direct observations that are believed to be affected by anthropocentric practices which have contributed to global climate change: from 1995-2006, the warmest 12 years were recorded for global surface temperature; tropospheric warming as evidenced by the use of weather balloons; water vapor increase, an effect from warmer temperatures; snow melt and glacial retreat; warming of ocean to depths of 3000 metres below; changes in precipitation and ocean salinity; extreme wind patterns; extensive droughts, increased cold temperatures; warming of arctic permafrost; sea level rises from concurrent ice melts; and overall widespread changes in extreme temperatures—the list really does go on and on.

            The report is an invaluable outline of major changes occurring in the natural world. The data collected is extensive, backed up by empirical evidence through decades of observations from places all over the world. The predictions are conclusive with the growing changes and increases in temperature we see each year. Although there are some difficulties in extrapolating the data to predict trends further into the future, scientific models reinforce the overall trend as evidenced by the data collected by climatologists.

            The next two decades predict a rise in global temperatures of a range .2 degrees Celsius from the emission scenarios of current atmospheric levels. Even if it were possible to retain a rate of temperature increase to the minimum, the slow response of the oceans’ recovery will prove to be a problem for the future. We are already seeing the impacts man-made climate change is having on Earth. The predictions of future weather patterns are murky in how they will effect humanity and the species who inhabit the Earth. Past and future human transgressions will continue to contribute to carbon dioxide emissions, and it is only through time where we see how our practices affect and shape the Earth.

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

It is imperative as a species that we act now and place our best efforts to stop the increasing problem of climate change. The evidence is all around us: everywhere around the world, more chaotic storms wreak havoc and decimate communities; of course, storms and natural disasters are not out of the norm, but the frequency in which they seem to be occurring are. The models that predict the outcome of current trends are only a blueprint for what might happen. Nevertheless, the data does seem to suggest that things are getting worse, not better. We must be prudent and enforce the precautionary principle—because even though there is a lack of scientific certainty to the degree of danger climate changes imposes on humanity, the danger is real and it should not be used as an excuse when there is a serious threat of irreversible damage.

Works Cited

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Summary for Policymkakers: Climate Change 
                        2007: The Physical Science Basis.” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed. 
                        Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 123-131.

A Summary of Jacobson and Delucchi's "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030"

            Every now and then, world leaders converge to discuss the current issues regarding the environment and global climate change. They discuss a shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and enter agreements to cut back emissions by a certain percentage. Jacobson and Delucchi suggests that by finding new methods and developing technologies that already exist, we are able to become 100% independent from the use of fossil fuels.

            It is a bold endeavor, one that has been in the fold for over a decade, and complicated from a logistical point of view. A Stanford University study had determined the impact of global warming supplied by current available energies. The best options that had little impact on climate were wind, water, and sunlight, what they have labeled WWS energy. The energies which had major impact—not surprisingly—were nuclear, coal, ethanol, oil and natural gas. By trading these carbon emitting energies with renewable energy, the fight to curb climate change may not be an impossible task.

            But replacing our current energy systems with WWS options requires a major overhaul of our current practices. The massive scale of the project requires a coordinated effort from world nations embracing a community model of energy. The plan would call for millions of wind turbines and new power plants that run strictly on solar power. If it were possible to achieve the desired goals proposed by Jacobson and Delucchi, it would ultimately depend on the technologies implemented, and the “availability of critical materials, and economic and political factors.”

            There are, however, certain obstacles which stand in the way; the infrastructure and scope of the project is not the barrier, but the availability of limited or scarce materials which pose a greater challenge. The lack of rare-earth metals like lithium can impede the production of battery cells used in electric vehicles, and other metals such as neodymium used for wind turbines can be in short supply. Assuming we are able to replace the existing model of energy with new infrastructure that is reliable in providing clean energy, the rewards can surpass our wildest expectations. WWS technologies can drive down the price of energy to less than the current price of coal, and the “cost of capital, land, operations, maintenance, and energy storage will help offset intermittent supply, and transmission.”

            The analysis of new energy resources provided by Jacobson and Dulucchi suggests that the costs of WWS will be competitive with current sources of energy. The initial cost may seem steep—but in the long run, the benefits outweigh the negatives. It will take changes in political policies (which may include removing tax benefits for current industry, and providing subsidies to developing technologies) and the phasing out of burning fossil fuel to alternative clean energy. With good policies in place, ones with clear objective goals for the future, it is not impossible to be completely independent of carbon emitting energy in the span of 20 to 30 years—if we are aggressive. The obstacles in the way do not stem from a lack of technical know-how, but rest solely on political motives of nations around the world.

Critical Thinking: What is the most effective way to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions?

There are many ways where we can cut back on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions released into the atmosphere. In the highest level, it would involve putting policies in place which would discourage companies and corporations from over-polluting, such as a carbon tax. Subsidies can also be provided to new developing technologies in order to transition away from the burning of fossil fuels. Educating people of the detrimental effects greenhouse gases have on the environment provide another means in the efforts to curb climate change by developing a more intimate connection to the natural world. When it comes to the individual, finding other means of transportation as an effective alternative to getting around can also help the growing problem of greenhouse gases released in the air. The most important step is admitting there is a problem.

Works Cited

Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi. “A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030.” Sources:                                    Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 73-75.