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.

A Summary of Aldo Leopold's "Sandy County Almanac"

            Have you heard the howling of the wolf? It means a lot of things for different species: for some it means the promise of the next meal; for others it means mortal danger is near; and sometimes it means a threat to livestock. It was on one faithful day when Aldo Leopold was out in the mountains, and finally heard the cry of the wolf and saw his surroundings from a new perspective: he realized that “a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain lives in mortal fear of its deer." An epiphany arose for Leopold. He used to assume that fewer wolves meant more deer, but that is not the case—because over time, more deer meant a more degraded land and fewer deer in the long run. It takes much longer for a mountain to revive than the death of one deer. Leopold now encourages mankind to strive for “peace in our time.” But what does this entail?

            There are ethical quandaries that arise when we debate the use of natural resources. With surging populations and new technologies, these issues become more complex than ever before. Ethics continue to evolve over time. The first ethic dealt with the relation between individuals; the second ethic later dealt with the individual and society; but there has been no ethic, so far, that has dealt with “man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it." The issue with land and the individual has, Leopold argues, been based purely on economic terms.

            Leopold urges that the embrace of the land ethic is not only possible, but an ecological necessity. The current societal landscape does not agree on its importance. The issue is so new—so complex—that the individual cannot relate and does not see the urge or expediency to ameliorate the problem at hand. Where the community concept of ethics rests on the premise that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts, the natural instinct for the individual is to compete for a place in the community; ethics, on the other hand, implies that we cooperate.

            An ethical relation to the land cannot exist without an appreciation rooted on principles of “love, respect, and admiration” and a “high regard for its value.” The lack of educational understanding of the issues and an economically driven world are the main impediments to the land ethic. Distracted by a world of gadgetry, the outlook is dire. There is a fallacy that economics determines land use, and it is more important than ever that the land ethic takes place as a social evolution. A growing fondness for ecology is not only an intellectual pursuit, but an emotional one—and unless we think critically of our choices and the consequences of those actions, the present predicaments will only worsen over time.

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

The anecdote provided by Leopold of the wolf, the deer, and the mountain, conveys a message of dependence: we are connected with each other as species, and we depend on each other more than we know it. It is from viewing nature from a different perspective—that we depend on nature for our nourishment, our way of life—that strongly enforces this message. The interconnectedness of the landscape described by Leopold outlines the fragile balance of life on Earth. Whereas the wolf depends on the deer, the deer depends on the mountain, and without the wolf, the mountain will suffer of natural degradation from the deer. We must conserve and preserve natural landscapes for the greater good—one that involves more than humanity itself. 

Works Cited

Leopold, Aldo. “A Sand County Almanac.” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed.
                     Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 23-25.

A Summary of Lynn White Jr’s "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis"

            The past is a sufficient starting point in learning from our mistakes, and it places ourselves in a position to not repeat these mistakes in the future. White argues that ideas which have permeated the belief that man has dominion over nature is deeply rooted in Christian ideology. Man’s transcendence over nature, therefore, is only a proliferation of an ideology that has contributed to the degradation of the natural world.

            “All forms of life modify their context,” is given as an example of the coral polyp which shapes the environment of the sea. Man has similarly shaped the environment: overgrazing, overhunting, and slash and burn agriculture are a few examples of humanity’s dominion over nature. The proliferation of science and technology as a tool to evaluate the natural world with theoretical and empirical approaches have rendered old ways of thinking obsolete when understanding how the world works. The traditions of technology and science derive most significantly from a western perspective. According to White, these movements achieved dominance during the Middle Ages—so when we delve back into our historical roots of science and technology, it is appropriate to examine “fundamental medieval assumptions and developments.” So what are these assumptions?

            How people react to their environment “depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them.” Nature became conditional to our beliefs and destiny, and no ideology put forth the idea of destiny greater than religion. Christian ideology inherited the concept of time and creation from the Book of Genesis, where God created man in his image; because of this belief, Christianity remains the most anthropocentric of all world religions. The dichotomy between man and nature reinforced the Christian belief which “insisted that it is God’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.” Natural theology scholars claim two positions: 1) because God gave man the bible, nature is symbolic of divine biblical texts, and 2) the effort to understand God’s mind is possible by seeing how he operates within his creation; thus, understanding nature is a comprehension of God’s divine work. Science and technology have been driven by some of these beliefs.

            White doubts whether more science and technology can rectify the plight of impending ecological disasters. What it will ultimately depend on is humanity’s relationship to nature. He argues that science and technology will not help the natural world unless we find a new religion or it evolves into something else. The parables of St. Francis shed light into White’s thoughts, for Francis preached humility and nature as “not merely for the individual but for man as a species.”

            White does not suggest we all live virtuous like St. Francis, but merely suggests that by realizing our connection to the natural world—as not separate, but a part of it—we can begin to curb these catastrophic changes that are taking place on a global scale. The ecological world will only worsen unless we reject the Christian axiom of man’s transcendence over nature.

Critical Thinking: What makes Saint Francis an appropriate candidate for the position of patron saint of ecology?

The belief that man has dominion over nature is deeply embedded within the biblical texts studied by theological scholars since the death of Christ. Where White has argued for a new way of thinking, of a religion evolved to incorporate all aspects of life, St. Francis had rejected the anthropocentric view of the bible in a time where he would be persecuted for his beliefs. St. Francis’s perception of the natural world is one that embraces all aspects of life, however small or big. His preachings is one of humility, not hubris. If humanity can embrace nature like St. Francis—regardless of beliefs, religions, and ideologies—the natural world would only prosper as mankind’s realizes his place in the cosmos.

Works Cited

White Jr., Lynn. “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis.” Sources: Selection in

                Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 31-35.