Blog 4

By Julien Corriveau
April 7, 2014

Selection 10 - Ecosystems and Human Well-being; the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005

     This article, the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, highlights the need for substantial changes to achieve sustainability. Only through changes will we achieve global human well-being and the integrity of ecosystems and its services.

     Every individual depends on Earth's ecosystems and its services. However, in recent decades, growing human demands have substantially altered ecosystems and has threatened the services they provide. According to the assessment, although these transformations have led to better health and nutrition to many, not everyone benefits. Great damage has also been caused as a result. According to the assessment, about 60% of ecosystem services are degraded or used unsustainably. In addition, the changes are enhancing the risk of other irreversible changes such as climate change, disease, decreasing water quality and oceanic dead zones. In addition, cultivation now covers a quarter of Earth's land, carbon dioxide levels have increased 32% since 1750, biodiversity continues to decrease and significant water flow alterations have occurred. However, the assessment does mention of a small improvement in recent years. There has been a large increase in the number of protected areas, which now cover 11.7% of the land surface. These help maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services.

     The assessment then talks about 4 scenarios created to simulate how ecosystems and human well-being would look in 50 years. All of the scenarios pointed to a continued increase in pressure on ecosystems and a continued decrease in biodiversity.

     However, the assessment wasn't all grim as some recommendations were made to achieve sustainable management of ecosystems. Government and societal behaviours must change. Governments must eliminate subsidies towards development that is unsustainable, environmentally friendly technologies must be promoted, corruption must end, but in general, goals towards sustainability must be made and must be fulfilled. However, as the assessment notes, there are and will continue to be roadblocks. Recessions, lack of knowledge and awareness and lack of power among certain groups will limit our moving forward. However, the maintenance of ecosystem services is vital for human well-being.

Critical thinking question:
Q: In what ways does damage to ecosystems affect human well-being?
A: Damage to ecosystems leads to the degradation of the services they provide. This has a detrimental impact our well-being because we depend on these services for everything we do. Well-being is defined as happiness, prosperity and good health, all of which would dissapear if we lost ecosystem services (dictionary.com, 2014). Examples of ecosystem services are numerous, but a few of them include: purification of water and air, climate regulation, recreation and food (Butler and Oluoch-Kosura, 2006). Damage to an ecosystem can reduce or eliminate the effect of these services. As a result, human well-being suffers because we need these services to survive. The loss of recreational benefits can reduce happiness and quality of life, whereas the loss of climate regulation and the purification of water and air can reduce prosperity and good health.

Selection 28 - Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment; by Sandra Steingraber

     In this article, Sandra Steingraber emphasizes the reality that cancer is more often than not caused by our environment rather than by heredity.

     Steingraber starts off by narrating her own personal story of cancer. Not only was she diagnosed with bladder cancer as a young adult, but many of her friends and family members also faced cancer.

     However, the main emphasis was on the importance of environmental exposure to our cancer risk. Steingraber notes that our obsession with hereditary cancer is unjustified. She notes that fewer than 10% of actual cancer incidents are thought to involve inherited mutations. The remainder of cancer incidents are cancer risks that are acquired ''sporatically'' in a lifetime. The chemicals acquired throughout a lifetime are hard to pinpoint and quantify, but they can come from a variety of sources such as from water, air and textiles. She notes that all the attention to hereditary cancers is unnecessary compared to the environmental factors because we cannot change our genes; ''we can't change our ancestors'' (Steingraber, 1997).

     Steingraber also notes that we have a right to know about the carcinogens that are being thrown into our environment. We should also all be able to protect ourselves and not be forced to endure them. Steingraber gives a process of exploration to ''search for our ecological roots''; to find out who we are biologically when it comes to chemical exposure. To do so we must come to the realisation that we may carry carcinogens that aren't even produced anymore because many of them persist and linger for decades. The second realisation is that we accumulate carcinogens in a lifetime; we thus need to ask our neighbours and families about where we grew up.

     Steingraber finishes off by stating the problems we face, but also gives a potential solution. She notes that there is a great disregard for human life and rights in our world today because no one tries to prevent the creation of carcinogens. As a result, death by cancer caused by environmental exposure is a ''form of homicide'' (Steingraber, 1997). There is a disregard for human rights because not all of us are equally exposed. She also notes that we are not all equally vulnerable in that our risk depends partly on genes, but also on age and exposure. She proposes a ''principle of the least toxic alternative'' to help solve the issue. This principle involves not doing anything that involves toxic substances as long as there is a less harmful alternative. In other words, the least harmful alternative always wins. With this principle, we would no longer question about how many chemicals we produce, but rather IF they are produced.

Critical thinking question:
Q: What is wrong with the present system of regulating the use, release, and disposal of known and suspected carcinogens?
A: The big problem today, as Steingraber did note in the text, is that we do not question wether or not it is necessary to produce carcinogens. Instead, we often assume that it is necessary and only question how much will be produced and released. As a result, our exposure to these chemicals has become inevitable and not enough is done to stop it. Cleaner and safer alternatives must be developed and implemented regardless of the cost. Producing these chemicals is not helping us because the cancers that we develop from them could potentially end up costing us more in the long-run than it would cost us to implement cleaner technologies.
     Another problem today is ''environmental discrimination''. This issue is raised in selection 31 (Easton, 2012). The release and disposal of toxicants has been thought to be biased towards minorities and the poor. In other words, landfills, chemical plants, refineries and incinerators tend to be built in these communities. This is a form of environmental discrimination and is a human rights issue. Not one single group of people should be forced to endure the consequences of these chemicals while other groups are not, but unfortunately this has been an issue in recent decades.

Selection 29 - Our Stolen Future; by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers

     ''Our Stolen Future'', by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, focuses on the likely issues associated with persistent synthetic chemicals. The name ''Our Stolen Future'' refers to the ability of these chemicals to alter our destinies. They may alter how we live our lives, but may also be lethal.

     Colborn, Dumanoski and Myers emphasize that the signs of overdose or damage by persistent synthetic chemicals are not always obvious. The consequences may not show up for years. In addition, proving the danger of these chemicals faces criticism due to the nature of animal testing. For one, some believe it is incorrect to assume that what occurs to an animal will occur to us. In addition, animals are often given a high dose of the chemical when tested which some incorrectly believe that this may result in a stronger reaction than with a smaller dose. However, the three authors note that dose response follows an inverted U-curve. This means that a high dose may actually mean a lower impact.

     However, we have a shared evolution and environment with animals. We have the same hormones, such as estrogen for example. In addition, we are part of life's web in the natural world. We are either directly or indirectly related to all living creatures on the planet. As a result, persistent organic chemicals are found everywhere, even in the most remote places. Due to all these arguments, it is hard to believe that humans will face a different fate from other animals. Disruption from chemicals will be similar in humans as with other mammals.

     In this text, the three authors also talked about an historic scientific meeting in 1991 in Wisconsin about endocrine disruption. The scientists concluded that ''hormone disruptors threatening the survival of animal populations are also jeopardizing the human future'' (Easton, p.142). The determined that if nothing was done to control these chemicals, humans face widespread damage to embryonic development in the years to come.

     However, we may already be starting to see beginnings of the consequences of the exposure to these chemicals. According to the three authors, a number of pediatricians in the United States have been increasingly seeing cases of genital abnormalities. Unfortunately, it is hard to say if something serious is really going on yet. We may have to wait until things become more serious before the threat is fully understood. Nonetheless, we must listen to these signs as well as the signs seen in nature and animal tests. The longer we ignore the warnings, the worse the situation may be in the future.

Critical thinking question:
Q: What is an environmental hormone mimic (or disruptor)?
A: An environmental hormone mimic is a chemical that disrupts normal hormonal behaviours in animals by fooling the body into thinking the chemical is a hormone. This can cancel out the effect of a hormone, enhance the effect of a hormone or even block the hormone completely. This can have detrimental effects on animal development, can cause cancers and can affect reproductive systems (Kamrin, 2014).

Selection 31 - Environmental Justice for All; by Robert D. Bullard

     This text, by Robert D. Bullard, demonstrates the issue of environmental discrimination against minorities and the poor. A series of historical events are given to highlight the severity of the problem, especially back in the 20th century.

     For years, a high proportion of landfills, garbage dumps, incinerators, chemical plants, refineries and highways were being built in minority and poor communities, particularly black-majority communities. Beginning in the 1960's and 1970's, activists finally began standing up to corporations and demanding governments to do something about the environmental discrimination. The first environmental discrimination lawsuit took place in Houston in 1979. The problem was seen in the numbers. From the 1920's to 1978, more than 80% of the city's landfills and incinerators were placed in mostly Black neighbourhoods. A similar lawsuit took place in Warren County, North Carolina, a mostly Black community where PCB's were being illegally dumped. Both lawsuits were unsuccessful, but they did raise awareness of the issue. These events were just a couple of several similar events.

     According to Bullard, since then there have been success stories. A Black community in Florida in 1996 was relocated away from a dioxin dump. More successes followed as governments addressed the issue more and more.

     Bullard finishes off my stating that environmental justice will be achieved only if the minority and poor neighbourhoods are given the same protection as more affluent and white neighbourhoods. Everyone deserves the same protection against pollution.

Critical thinking question:
Q: What is ''environmental justice''?
A: First, let's define both terms. Environmental refers to everything around us, such as where we live, play, work and go to school, as described by Bullard. Justice refers to equitability, or fairness. As a result, the term environmental justice refers to equal treatment when it comes to environmental decisions, benefits and problems. In other words, everybody shares an equal right for protection against pollution and other environmental problems and everyone shares an equal right to receive any environmental benefits. No specific group of people shall be put the burden over another when it comes to environmental problems. Conversely, no group of people shall be advantaged over another when it comes to environmental benefits. To me, I see this term as including other species of animals as well. All species deserve the same amount of protection against an environmental concern as any other species.

Selection 17 - Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services; by Boris Worm et al.

     In this particular text, Boris Worm and his team emphasized the importance of marine biodiversity to ecosystem services and therefore human well-being. Ecosystem services that benefit humanity include the production of food for millions of people, detoxification of waters and flood control. The latter two are important specifically for the billions of people who live near coastal areas. As a result, biodiversity, because it enhances ecosystem services, is beneficial to human well-being. Unfortunately, exploitation, pollution, habitat destruction and climate change are resulting in severe declines in biodiversity and even entire fishery collapses.

     In this text, Worm and his team described the findings of their research. In their experiments, they determined that increased biodiversity was directly related to an enhancement in ecosystem processes, increased production, increased stability (resistance to change or ability to recover after a disturbance) and increased resource-use efficiency. They also found that invasive species decrease native biodiversity.

     Worm and his team emphasized that business as usual over the next several decades would mean a serious threat to global food security and coastal water quality. The consequences would be far-reaching; not just affecting us today, but also affecting our future generations. To combat the loss in biodiversity, Worm and his team gave a few recommendations: sustainable fisheries management and pollution control must be implemented, habitats must be maintained and marine reserves must be created. The implementation of these recommendations would lead to increased productivity and an increased reliability of the goods and services that marine ecosystems provide us.

Critical thinking question:
Q: What can we do to prevent a catastrophic decline in ocean fisheries by the mid-21st century?
A: Of course, the easiest answer to this question would be to stop all fishing and let populations recover on their own. However, this is clearly not realistic because a very large number of people rely on fish for food as stated in Worm and his team's text. A large number of people also rely on fishing for income. Instead, to avoid a massive collapse we must fish more sustainably. People from various parties share this reponsability. For one, governments must create severe regulations and must create marine protected areas. According to Oceanus Magazine, studies show that these protected areas can increase populations and this increase can even spillover into the surrounding areas (Fogarty and Murawski, 2005). Worm and his team had also studied these protected areas and found that biodiversity recovered following protection. As a result, it is essential that we continue to create these protected areas to prevent a massive collapse in fisheries.
     Governments must also create regulations as mentioned above. When a species is becoming endangered, it is necessary that governments come in and restrict fishing in these areas until populations recover. Fishing until the last fish has been fished is intolerable. Fisherman must play a roll by abiding to these regulations.
     Pollution reduction must also be taken into consideration, particularly with the combustion of fossil fuels. Increasing acidity of the oceans can have detrimental effects on habitats and fish. Reduction in fossil fuel combustion is a role that everybody can take part in.

 _____________________________________________________________________________

Activity - E-waste movie - short version - who's dying for your iPad - the truth of ewaste

     This documentary video revealed the truth about what happens to our ''recycled'' e-waste. Although our governments tell us to recycle our e-waste, what we are not told is that as much as 80% of it actually ends up in Asia and increasingly Africa as well. In this documentary, they spoke of the cities of Guiyu, China and Lagos, Algeria, two cities that import a significant amount of e-waste from other countries. Guiyu in particular has become a dumping ground for e-waste, and it now litters the streets, rivers and everywhere in between. This city used to be a quiet rice-growing village but is now equivalent to a toxic waste dump. Studies have shown that the amount of lead in the river water in the city is 2,400 times greater than the WHO threshold for drinking water. Sad thing is, people still live there and an estimated 100,000 people make a living scrapping e-waste. Steel, aluminum, copper, plastic and gold are scavenged for money, and the leftovers are either burned or thrown out on the street or along the river. Due to the extremely primitive conditions, many people suffer illnesses everyday.
     In Lagos, Algeria, much of the e-waste that is imported either is disfunctional or non-reusable. Much of it ends up in local markets, warehouses and in landfills. Scavengers collect anything that is left in the landfill and then the landfill is burned to reduce its volume. In warehouses, the materials sit and collect dust.
     Reflection: I was absolutely shocked and disgusted at ourselves while looking at this video. Although I never knew what really happened to ''recycled'' e-waste, I had always just assumed that they were dealt with in a good manner. This video proved me wrong in an extreme manner. After watching the video, I feel anger towards many people, including myself, for being so ignorant. I cannot believe governments and companies allow this type of damage to happen. What I find so tragic about this story is the fact that we are the ones that create the whole problem but we pass the problem to poor countries so that we don't have to deal with it ourselves. We literally use them to keep us as happy as possible in our consumer world.
     Following this video, I plan to reduce the amount of electronics that I buy and use the ones that I do have as long as possible. I believe we all should do the same. It is not necessary to buy the latest gadgets when you already have older gadgets that still work fine!

_________________________________________________________________________________
Reflections:
Q1: What I am doing to promote sustainability and happiness in my life.
A1: The biggest thing I do to promote sustainability in my life is by biking. From March or April through to November, I bike everywhere. I bike to work, to school, to visit friends or for whatever else I need to do. I'll even bike all the way to the other side of the city if needed. This promotes sustainability because I don't have to worry about fuel. If for some reason, there was no more fuel or the price of fuel skyrocketed, my transportation method would not be overly impacted. In addition, I do not have to worry as much about traffic congestion which makes my life easier and more enjoyable. In fact, I have often boasted that I actually get to the university faster than other people who bus or even drive. I can bike to school in 15 minutes, while bussing can double or even triple that. As for driving, it probably arrives to about the same amount of time. However, then I would have to pay for parking, which is not enjoyable at all. Another benefit of biking is that there is a greater chance for interaction with other people. When you're in a car, interaction with other people is often tense at best due to traffic congestion and the fact that everyone is hidden inside their vehicles. Lastly, biking makes me happier because I get to enjoy the weather at the same time, and also nature. Often, bike paths are in forests or around nice greenery, which is much more pleasant and relaxing than driving in heavy and noisy traffic. As a result, using my bike as a primary means of transportation outside of winter helps to promote not only sustainability, but also happiness in my life.

     I also try to keep my life simple by limiting the amount of media I ''ingest'' and the amount of technology I buy. I do not own a cell phone, ipod, iphone, or any of those gadgets, and do not have ANY plans to get them anytime soon. I only have my laptop and that's all. Most people say I'm crazy not to have a phone, but when I see how obssessed and addicted people are to their phones, I am always the one who gets the last laugh! By not having these technologies with me at all times, it reduces the stress of always wanting to look at them, and it increases interactions with other people. I find it absolutely devastating how today, anywhere you go everyone has their face down looking at their phone. Interactions with other people has diminished. Even when I was at parties with friends, people were still with their phone, texting. I find this very disrespectful, especially when you're talking to a person. As a result, I do not buy these technologies because I do not want to become this type of person. I do not want the constant distraction of being available 24/7 and I prefer the genuine face to face interactions instead of the impersonal screen to screen interactions. As a result, not buying these technologies promotes happiness and simplicity in my life. I also do not watch television. I stopped watching television about a year ago because I was sick and tired of watching commercials. When you watch television, maybe a quarter of the time you are actually watching commercials or promotions of some sort. I quit because I was fed up with these companies telling me what to do and fed up with them telling me that my life is not perfect. I am going to live my life the way I want. As a result, by reducing the amount of media I ''ingest'', I encourage happiness and comfort in my life.

Q2: What I would like to do.
A2: Even with the things I do already, obviously I am still not always a happy person. There are some things that I can still do. For one, it would be nice to spend more time with my friends and family. In recent years, work and school have become so dominant in my life that I rarely have the time and energy to spend time with family and friends. As a result, it would be nice to work less. However, of course this is not always possible. I am not the one giving the homework at school, and I am not the one choosing my work hours at work. However, what I can do is be more efficient in my time. I can do my homework at more efficient times of day when I can do more in less time, and perhaps I could ask my employer for less hours. This way, I can have more time to spend with the people that matter to me.
     I would also like to bike in the winter months. Right now, I bus, and this has become a hassle. As mentioned before, it takes longer to bus than it does to bike. As a result, it would be nice if I could bike because I could save money, save time and extend the sustainability of my yearly transportation. However, it is difficult to bike in the winter because roads are icy, snowy and narrow, making it a challenge to fit in with other vehicles. Quite frankly, the way the roads are handled in the winter, biking is a dangerous activity in the winter. It is unfortunate, because biking would promote sustainability and happiness in my life in the winter.

Q3: I pledge to...
A3: I pledge to spend more time with my family and friends. I have already considered and am planning to work less hours this summer. This will give me more time to myself and more time with the people that matter. I have already communicated with my mother to let her know that I plan to come visit her more often this summer and walk in the parks around her place. I also enjoy gardening and storm watching with my friends, and this will be something that I will have more time to do this summer. Last August, I was working almost full-time, and what surprised me was how badly my social life suffered. My friends were having fun without me and I rarely saw my family. I hope this plan will help turn this around this coming summer. All I need to do is ask for less hours, which I know wont be a major issue. In addition, I will have to do my homework and study for my exams at more efficient times of day. This just so happens to be in the morning and afternoon. Often, I have found myself waiting until the end of the day to start, and this has rarely worked out. As a result, by working at more convenient times, I could do more homework in less time and therefore have more time to spend with the people that matter to me. This would encourage happiness in my life especially.

Course reflection:
     Now that the end of the semester is nearing, it is time to reflect on the course. I must say, this was one of the better courses that I have taken. I especially liked not having exams. When I first heard there were no exams in this course on the first day of class, I thought to myself that this was a little odd. But then I realized the benefits of not having exams. I have noticed that my level of stress associated with this course was very low this semester compared to other courses. This makes me realise just how stressful exams really are. In addition, the assignments were informative and really opened my eyes to the issues we face in our environment. I knew about many of the issues we learnt this semester before taking this course, but this course opened my eyes to the seriousness of them much more than anything else has. This has encouraged me to continue doing the things I am already doing to help the environment and improve my quality of life. I will definitely consider continuing environmental studies in the coming semesters. I also enjoyed the guest speakers. It was nice to have more variety of people talking in front of the class. I think my favourite guest was Randy Park from the City of Winnipeg. His talk about the recycling and composting program in the city was very informative and made me appreciate what the city has established with the new system. I hope to continue to see more improvements in the years to come!

References:

- Kamrin, Mike. Environmental ''Hormones''. Retrieved on February 27, 2014 at [ http://extoxnet.orst.edu/tics/env-horm.txt ]
- Butler, C.D., and W. Oluoch-Kosura. 2006. Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecology and Society [online]. Retrieved on March 1, 2014 at [ http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art30/ ]
- Fogarty and Murawski. 2005. Do Marine Protected Areas Really Work? Oceanus Magazine [online]. Retrieved on March 1, 2014 at [ http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/do-marine-protected-areas-really-work ]
- Dictionary.com. Well-being. Retrieved on March 1, 2014 at [ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/well-being ]
- joetube97217.  E-waste movie - short version - who's dying for your iPad - the truth of ewaste. Youtube [internet]. Retrieved on March 6, 2014 at [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnqvfNstr_4 ]


 - Easton, Thomas A. Classic Edition Sources - Environmental Studies, 4th Edition. New York. McGraw Hill. 2012. p. 41-47, p. 135-142, p. 150-152, and p. 76-79.

Blog 3

By Julien Corriveau
March 17, 2014

Selection 25 - Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?; by Lester R. Brown

     Brown talks about the issue of global food shortages in this text, focusing on why they are or are about to occur and how do we avoid disaster.

     Brown emphasizes that a collapse in our global society is possible if we do not deal with our environmental problems. Demand for food on this planet is growing faster than its supply. Food shortages have already lead to the fall of some countries such as Somalia and Iraq for example. These ''failing states'', countries where government can no longer provide basic needs, threaten global political security. Piracy, terrorism and hijacking of resources are growing issues in these countries.

     Brown notes that the cause of food shortages has changed in recent years. In the 20th century, shortages were ''event-driven''; driven by droughts, floods and heat for instance. Today, they are trend-driven. Trends include, but are not limited to, population increase and the diversion of grain to ethanol. The diversion to ethanol is of serious concern because the ''grain required to fuel one 25-gallon SUV with ethanol could feed 1 person for an entire year.

     Freshwater shortages, loss of topsoil and soil fertility, and rising temperatures are the key causes of limited growth of food supply. Wells and aquifers in many coutries are drying up and in some countries this could mean the end of agriculture. In addition, according to Brown, a third of the world's croplands are seeing rates of erosion that are faster than soil replenishment.

     A growing concern in the past few years has also been an increase in export bans and restrictions. Some countries have been doing this for their own benefits and threaten food security for other countries.

     Finally, Brown proposes a ''Plan B'' to fixing the food shortage crisis. This includes cutting carbon emissions by 80% by 2020, stabilizing Earth population to 8 billion by 2040, eliminating poverty and restoring forests, soils and aquifers. Brown emphasizes that this plan needs to be adopted NOW, because time is ''our scarcest resource''.

Critical thinking question:
Q: According to Lester Brown, what is the greatest threat to global political stability?
A: According to Brown, the greatest threat to global stability is ''failing states''. The root causes of failing states are especially food shortages and overpopulation. However, the consequences that result from failing states are what result in significant threats to global political stability. Law and disorder are rampant in failing states, and these consequences spread across the globe. These countries are sources of piracy, terrorism, drugs, refugees and weapons. As the number of failing states increases, the global security threat will only worsen. In fact, if food shortages worsen, even healthy, affluent countries may begin their decline. This would have catastrophic consequences on global civilization becausem as Brown notes, these countries control the spread of disease, manage the international monetary system and control terrorism. If these controls were lost in addition to the food shortages, we as humanity may be in serious trouble.

Selection 37 - Women's Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation; by Vandana Shiva

     In this text, Shiva compares the views of women farmers in Third World countries and multinational corporations towards biodiversity. She emphasizes that women's knowledge is key to preserving biodiversity.

     First, Shiva relates our destructive nature towards biodiversity to the marginalization of women. Man has trouble coping with differences. In addition, diversity is seen only for its commercial gains.

     If we are to protect biodiversity, Shiva emphasizes that we must look at how women treat nature. Women produce through biodiversity whereas corporate scientists produce through uniformity, or monoculture. Women see biodiversity as having intrinsic value, while corporations view biodiversity only as raw material. Women farmers in Third World countries have developed these views due to the role they play in their societies. They perform a very large number of tasks and have gained knowledge through millenia. Their knowledge includes the production and preparation of plant foods, breeding and feeding animals, and the use of the forest to do these.

     Women's biodiversity conservation is much different from the notion of biodiversity conservation to corporations. Women see all the elements of the farm as interrelated and biodiversity is culturally-embedded. In contrast, corporations only see these elements as independent.

     The seed is a great example of the difference of views between women farmers and corporations. Women farmers see the seed as the continuation of life, whereas corporations see it more as a discontinuity in life. Corporations, for profit, do not allow ''their'' seeds to have offspring so that farmers have to buy their seeds every year. Corporations see seeds as their ''creation''. Shiva notes that this is not correct because nature and Third World women farmers have made these seeds themselves for millenia. They are being robbed by corporations. 

     Unfortunately, according to Shiva, indigenous women's knowledge is being lost. ''Progressive'' technologies that destroy biodiversity have been replacing traditional methods in Third World countries. Unfortunately, this shift from polycropping to monoculture leads to loss of employment, poverty and the destruction of livelihoods. This is because less manpower is needed with these monoculture technologies.

     In summary, Shiva emphasized in this text that women's knowledge about biodiversity needs to be conserved to preserve biodiversity.

Critical thinking question:
Q: In what sense, according to Vandana Shiva, is Third World-women's work in agriculture ''invisible''?
A: According to Shiva, Third World-women's work in agriculture is invisible especially because they work in a way that is different from how corporations view things. For example, women farmers work in between 'sectors', or in other words, they bind the forest, the crops and the animals together. This is in sharp contrast to the view of corporations where the elements of and around the farm are viewed independently and the interrelations between them are insignificant. For this reason, women farmers who work in between these elements, or 'sectors', are often overlooked.
     In another sense, the work of a woman farmer is overlooked because what they produce never actually ends up on the market (Women's Agricultural Community, 2014). What they produce is used to feed their livestock, their families and their own communities.
     According to Shiva, there are yet two other reasons why the work of women farmers seem invisible. For one, gender bias creates an underestimation of women's work. Finally, it is also due to today's view that science is above all. Women testing seeds at cultural festivities are viewed as unscientific and therefore are not valued.

Selection 9 - Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems; by Peter M. Vitousek, Harold A. Mooney, and Jerry M. Melillo

     In this text, biologists Peter M. Vitousek, Harold A. Mooney and Jerry M. Melillo talked about how humans have substantially altered and dominated Earth's systems. They illustrated this with numerous statistics showing the extent of our influence and its resulting consequences. The biologists emphasized that the extent of which humans have modified the environment is uncomparable to any species at any other time in history. Human enterprises such as agriculture, industry, fishing and international commerce have had profound impacts on the environment. These enterprises have led to great land transformations, the alteration of Earth's cycles, changes in our oceans and changes in genetic diversity.

     According to the biologists, direct human impacts on land include agriculture, urbanisation and industrialisation (which now cover 10-15% of Earth's land surface) as well as conversion to pastureland (which cover 6-8% of Earth's land surface). Indirect impacts include increasing carbon dioxide, hunting and fragmentation. Increased carbon dioxide in particular affects 100% of Earth's land. All of these land transformations are the main drivers to the loss of biodiversity.

     Oceans are also impacted by humans in many ways. For one, 60% of humanity lives within 100 km of a coastline. Wetlands along coastal regions have thus been greatly impacted. Fish declines have resulted thanks to increased algal blooms and fishing. In fact, as of 1995, 22% of recognized marine fisheries were overexploited or depleted and this number continues to rise. In addition, fisheries tend to focus on fishing top predators which causes great alterations to marine ecosystems.

     Humans have also severely altered Earth's carbon, water, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur and other natural cycles. Carbon dioxide in particular has been added by fossil fuel combustion, land alterations and mining. Different species react to increased carbon dioxide differently leading to great changes in ecosystems. As for water, humans currently use more than half of the available freshwater and 70% of this is used for agriculture. Humans also alter the flow of water, increasing evaporation rates. Increased evaporation as well as transpiration by agriculture have led to increased precipitation and storms in semiarid regions.

     Lastly, humans have caused great changes in genetic variability and have increased extinction rates beyond the background rate. According to the biologists, a quarter of Earth's bird species have gone extinct in the past 2,000 years. The loss of genetic diversity has led to reduced resiliency of species. In addition, accidental and intentional introduction of invasive species have also caused health concerns to native species and humans and have caused further extinctions.

     The biologists finished their text with some recommendations. First, we need to reduce the rate at which we change Earth's systems to allow for sufficient time for ecosystems to adapt. Second, we need to increase our understanding of the Earth's systems and how we affect them. Lastly, we need to maintain ecosystems and species.

Critical thinking question:
Q: Would it help to reduce the human impact on the Earth if we could reduce the human population?
A: Yes, our impact on Earth would definitely reduce if our population reduced. However, I believe it is only one piece of the puzzle.
     Increased population means an increase in demand for the basic necessities to support us. Food, water and shelter demand increase as population increases. As a result, as our population increases, more land and resources are needed to be extracted and altered to meet our demand. In addition, more people means more fossil fuel combustion as more people need vehicles to get from point A to point B. These may all lead to a continual decrease in biodiversity as habitat destruction and fragmentation increase. As a result, I believe it is very important that our population stop increasing at such a rapid pace if we want to reduce our impact on the Earth.
     However, I do want to note that consumption plays another major role in human's impact on Earth. What this means is the more each person consumes, the more impact humans have on Earth. As a result, in my opinion, both population and consumption are the two major factors in human impact on Earth.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Activity - Eric Sanderson pictures New York -- before the City:

     This was a presentation by Eric Sanderson about a project him and his collegues worked on named ''The Mannahatta Project''. They took an old map of Manhattan from all the way back to the time of the American Revolution. With this map, they tried to visualize and understand what the island may have looked like centuries ago. In addition, they overlayed an existing map of today's Manhattan with its streets, parks and skyscrapers. What they found was quite impressive. Manhattan was once an immensely diverse system comprising of as many as 55 distinct ecosystem types. Wetlands, numerous streams, beaches, forests, hills, grasslands and ponds were just some of the features that once dominated the island. The vast majority of these no longer exist. They also found there would have been a very diverse interconnected web among various species.
     They made visualizations of how the island may have looked 400 years ago. I found these were particularly amazing to look at. Me, being born in the early 90's, I have never known a Manhattan differently from what it is now. Seeing those visualizations gives a huge impression of how much humans have altered the landscape.
     Sanderson and his collegues also made some visualizations of how Manhattan may look a few centuries away from now. Transportation by then would be mainly by bicycle, by foot or via public transportation. Streams and forests would be rehabilitated and replace sewers and some streets. Roofs would be green, covered in vegetation, and wind mills would provide electricity. The city would also be downsized. The 12,000,000 people that currently live in the city would only cover 36% of the land they currently do as the city significantly densifies. Farms, wetlands and marshes would replace the land that is no longer habited.
     I found this talk an eye opener into some of the issues with cities. I particularly approve the idea of densification. I believe it is very important that cities densify instead of expand almost what seems to infinity. Here in Canada, suburbs, particularly in cities like Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto, keep expanding and taking up more and more farmland and natural landscape. I disapprove this form of development because it is expensive, invasive and is built in a way that supports cars rather than people. I have lived in suburbs my entire life, and I can't believe how difficult it is to get from point A to point B. Everything is far away, requiring automobile transportation. Not only is this expensive and bad for the environment, but it reduces the amount of interaction we have with people. Instead of biking and walking where interaction with people is stronger, we're stuck in our cars locked away from everything else and everyone else. To me, a world where you could bike and walk anywhere you needed to go would be ideal. The suburbs also eat up a lot of natural habitats and ecosystems and agricultural lands, reducing biodiversity and our ability to grow more food.
     The talk made me wonder of how I would like Winnipeg to change in the next few centuries as well. I believe densification is key, which means attracting people around the urban core. The city cannot keep growing outwards forever. Traffic in and out of the suburbs is already a serious problem in the city and will only get worse if the suburbs keep expanding. The costs of upgrading roads in and out of them is high. As a result, I hope to see more high rise projects in the urban core in the years to come. These and additional parks and open spaces could replace all the nasty-looking parking lots in our downtown, moving our city from a car-city to a walkable-city.

_________________________________________________________________________

Reflections:

Q1: What roles if any should zoos play in conservation/education?
A1: Zoos can help to conserve biodiversity, and can also educate and show people the importance of the animals. Overall, I think zoos are important for these reasons. For one, people visiting zoos can see how precious these animals are and seeing them may begin to influence their thoughts about them. I believe it is easier to attain a sense of empathy for these animals when you can actually see them in real life, instead of just on a tv screen or in a book. Seeing them in real life may remind people that these creatures are real. This along with educational tours or educational bilboards or flyers can help to educate the public about the importance of these animals and make people more aware of how they impact them in their everyday lives.
     I also personally believe zoos can help to conserve biodiversity, as long as the enclosures of the animals are suitable to their needs. If a species does not exist in the wild anymore, then at least we have managed to conserve them in zoos. Scientists can also study animals in a zoo by monitoring their behaviours and needs, to better understand them.

Q2: Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos?
A2: Although there are some advantages to zoos, I still do not believe it is ethical to ''imprison'' animals in zoos. I tend to compare a zoo to a prison for humans because the animals are confined in a tiny space compared to their natural habitat and are hand fed. In addition, taking them from the wild also seperates them from their pack (''family''). As a result, I do not believe it is ethical to trap innocent animals in the wild and forceably confine them in a zoo. I find this analogous to the government coming to my house and forceably, without my consent, banish me to prison for life, despite doing nothing illegal. Sure they would feed me, but I would prefer being able to choose my diet instead of being forceably fed something. In addition, I would no longer be able to see my family and friends. This is how I see animals that end up in zoos. Morally, it is just not fair for the animals.

Q3: Do you enjoy visiting zoos?
A3: I do find a certain amount of interest in visiting zoos, because I love seeing the diversity in animals. Biodiversity is not something that we get to see in the city, and as a result, visiting a zoo is a unique experience. However, I always have a guilty feeling when I'm in a zoo. Seeing the animals in tight enclosures, alone and depressed, can be very depressing at times. I don't believe it is ethical to keep animals in zoos as discussed in question 2. These guilty feelings make my visits to zoos quite rare, and it must have been at least 7 years since I last visited a zoo.


References:
- Women's Agricultural Community [Internet]. Who are women in agriculture? Retrieved on February 22, 2014 at [ http://www.safs.msu.edu/womenag/aboutus/worldwide.htm ] 
- TEDGlobal. 2009. Eric Sanderson: New York -- before the City. ted.com [internet]. Retrieved on March 2, 2014 at [ http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_sanderson_pictures_new_york_before_the_city.html ]

- Easton, Thomas A. Classic Edition Sources - Environmental Studies, 4th Edition. New York. McGraw Hill. 2012. p. 121-125, 180-183 and 33-40.

Blog 2

By Julien Corriveau
February 14, 2014

Selection 6 - The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis; by Lynn White, Jr.

     In this text, White writes about the history of human's attitude toward nature and how we have reached an ecological crisis today.

     White notes that humans have profoundly impacted the environment ever since our species became numerous. For centuries, hunting has profoundly impacted other species and ecosystems. In addition, deforestation to build communities and to farm and graze have created a human-made landscape that would have been entirely different without human intervention. These are just some of the impacts humans have had. 

     Man's desire to conquer nature goes back many centuries. As early as the 7th century, the invention of a new kind of plow for agricultural fields was one of the first steps. The new plow worked well, moving man from a part of nature to an exploiter of nature. For many centuries afterwards, gradual improvements in a variety of machinery reduced the amount of labour and increased automation, making it easier and easier to exploit nature.

     White puts a lot of blame on Christianity for man's desire to conquer nature. He calls it the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen. In other words, it is a religion that believes that all phyisical items exist solely to serve man. This way of thinking has become so engraved into the culture that we still act this way today.

     Another contributor is the combination of science and technology in the 18th-19th centuries. This combination was the fusion between the intellectual and the action-oriented. This fusion was in large part thanks to an emerging democratic culture which allowed for social barriers to be lifted. Scientific knowledge begun to mean technological power over nature. As a result, White notes that we cannot rely on our current science and technology to solve our ecological crisis. Instead, only a new religion can offer hope; ''we must rethink and refeel our nature and destiny'' (White, 1966). 

Critical thinking question:
Q: What makes Saint Francis an appropriate candidate for the position of patron saint of ecology?
A: He is an appropriate candidate because of his very pro-ecology beliefs. According to White, his beliefs were far from the traditional beliefs of his time about man being a conquerer of nature. He believed in modesty and a democracy among all creatures; no creature had authority over another. To him, all creatures were brother and sister, and none had dominance over the other. He believed that all creatures praised to their Creator in their own ways, much like how man did in his. Each creature was sacred. All this was very different from the Christian belief that all objects were made to serve man. Francis' belief was an alternative Christian view of man's relation to nature. Unfortunately, this belief did not become prominent.
     According to White, records show that Francis urged the birds to praise God. He had a very special connection with creatures, both inanimate and animate (Wintz, 2007). In this sense, he was a patron saint of ecology.

Selection 4 - A Sand County Almanac; by Aldo Leopold

     In this text, we started off with Leopold's personal story of when he saw a wolf die. He and some others were having lunch in the mountains when they saw a wolf and her pups in the distance. Because back then no one gave up an opportunity to kill a wolf, they shot the wolf. However, when they walked up to the wolf afterwards, Leopold witnessed the fierce green fire dying in the eyes of the wolf. This became a ''wake up call'' for Leopold as he realised the selfishness of the act. In the time following, Leopold realised the consequences of losing the wolves. A loss in wolves ultimately lead to the destruction of the land by deer as the deer population would be able to grow exponentially with the loss of their top predator. The exploding deer population would overgraze the vegetation leading to erosion, the loss of a food source and the overall decline of the ecosystem.

     Leopold then talks about a land ethic which needs to be implemented in our society. However, first he talks about the evolution of ethics over the centuries. It all started over 3 milleniums ago when the concept of right and wrong lacked. For example, woman were seen as property to men. However, since then we have evolved and many ethics have been established. Leopold mentions two types: ethics dealing with relations between individuals and ethics dealing with relations between individuals and society as a whole. The land ethic is the third ethic, an ethic that has yet to be established. Today, land is still seen as property and is strictly seen for its economic advantages. However, Leopold notes that the evolution of the land ethic will be slow, but we have already begun working towards it. The present conservation movement is only the beginning. To continue working towards a land ethic, there needs to be love, respect and admiration for the land and all its parts. There needs to be a deeper understanding for ecology and an understanding that land is not purely economic.

     However, as Leopold notes, there are obstacles to developing a land ethic. All our technologies push us further and further away from the land. Man has grown to unappreciate it thanks to these technologies, but also thanks to the economic and educational systems. In addition, the farmer attitude, that land is an opponent that keeps him in slavery, is also another obstacle. 

     ''A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise'' (Leopold,1949). This quote is one of Leopold's most famous, and explains well the general idea of a land ethic.

Critical thinking question:
Q: What is the basic lesson of Aldo Leopold's ''Thinking Like a Mountain''?
A: The basic lesson was to have appreciation for the interconnectedness of all the elements (biotic and abiotic) in an ecosystem. In other words, to appreciate that everyone in an ecosystem is connected and affects one another. 
      This was demonstrated in Leopold's story with the relationship between the wolves, deer and the land. All these three elements are interconnected and the loss of one of these leads to the loss of the other two. For example, if the wolves for some reason dissapeared from the ecosystem, the deer population would explode. This explosion would lead to overgrazing of the vegetation, leading to erosion, loss of food (vegetation) and the general collapse of the ecosystem. The loss in vegetation would then eventually kill off the deer. With this example, it is easy to see how interconnected everything in an ecosystem can be.
     To have appreciation means to surpress selfishness. To kill wolves simply for the joy of it is selfish and shows a lack of appreciation for the animal and its importance in the ecosystem. ''Thrill-kill'' is intolerable. We must leave an ecosystem work itself and not disrupt its functions.

Selection 23 - Summary for Policymakers: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis; by the IPCC

     The IPCC report starts off by making it clear that human activities on this planet in the last several decades has had a profound impact on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Increases in carbon dioxide have been mainly due to fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes such as deforestation. On the other hand, methane and nitrous oxide increases have been mainly due to agriculture. By 2005, carbon dioxide levels sat at 379 ppm, methane at 1774 ppb and nitrous oxide at 319 ppb. All of these levels are outside the natural range over the last 650,000 years. The IPCC also notes that since 1750, human activities have contributed to a net radiative forcing increase of approximately +1.6 watts per square metre.

     There are some real changes that have been observed. Land and ocean temperatures and sea level have all risen since the 1800's, and average snow cover has decreased since the early 1900's. In fact, the Earth has warmed 0.76°C from 1850-1899 to 2001-2005. The warming was especially great in the Arctic where the warming rate was almost twice the global average. This has resulted in reduced sea ice and land permafrost. Meanwhile, sea level rise has been in large part thanks to expansion due to warmer temperatures as well as from melting land ice. The average water vapour content of the atmosphere has also increased which is an expected result of warmer temperatures. The increased water vapour is believed to have lead to more heavy precipitation events over most land areas.

     The IPCC report then finished off with a long summary of projected future changes. Warming of about 0.2°C per decade for the next 2 decades is expected. Even if green gas and aerosol concentration remained constant at 2000 levels, there would still be a warming of 0.1°C per decade. Using a variety of models, they project an increase of 1.4 to 4.0°C in global temperatures by the end of this century, with the greatest warming on land and in high latitudes. Wind and precipitation patterns are expected to change notably as a result. Sea level is expected to continue increasing and the oceans are expected to acidify significantly. In addition, sea ice in the arctic is projected to be almost non-existent in the late-summer by the end of this century. 

     Due to the timescales associated with climate, ocean and atmospheric processes, warming is expected to continue on Earth even if we stopped producing greenhouse gases. This is a scary thought in that this means we may we have created a problem that is now beyond our control.

Critical thinking question:
Q: Given that projections of global climate change are not certain, should we act now? If not, how long should we wait?
A: I personally believe action needs to be taken as early as possible because if the projections are true, we are likely heading towards catastrophe and a mass extinction. I don't see why we should be taking this risk. We as a global society need to rethink our values; the future of this planet before economics. If things do get as bad as expected, we would not be able to turn back the clocks and change what had been done. This would be a very grim reality to experience. According to the IPCC in the text, even if we did stop producing greenhouse gases and stopped all our negative impact on the environment, temperatures on the planet would still increase for several decades. I find it is therefore necessary we start taking action now BEFORE things get out of hand. I don't believe it is worth risking the lives of our future generations for the 'nice' things that we have today.

    

Selection 13 - A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030; by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi

     In this text, Jacobson and Delucchi presented us their plan to powering 100% of the world's energy through wind, water and solar (WWS) resources by 2030. In other words, to completely shift away from our dependence on fossil fuels, from the construction to the operation to the decommissioning stages of technologies.

     According to a 2009 Stanford University study which this text mentioned, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power are the best choices of clean energy to use. Coal with carbon sequestration, nuclear power, ethanol, oil and natural gas were poorer options due to the amount of GHG emitted during construction, mining, processing and transportation. In addition, transportation could become fossil fuel free by converting to battery-electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options.

     Using these cleaner energy options are beneficial. They are more efficient, produce more power and are more reliable if done correctly. In fact, cleaner energy options can have as much as 75-86% efficiency compared to the 17-20% efficiency of today's fossil fuel technologies. It is because of this efficiency that if we had completely converted to clean energy by 2030, we could actually reduce our energy consumption from today's despite growing populations and increase in living standards. Approximately 11.5 terawatts of energy would be needed for the entire planet in 2030 using clean energy. Clean energy sources such as wind and sun actually produce more energy as well. Over an entire year, as much as 580 terrawatts from the sun and 40-85 terrawatts from wind could be 'harvested'.
  
     Cleaner energy solutions can be more reliable as well. They have significantly less downtime than today's traditional coal/fossil fuel energies. In addition, the loss of one wind turbine, for example, would have minimal impact on the total grid supply, whereas the failure of a coal plant for instance may impact thousands of people. However, a balance between various clean energy solutions will be needed to ensure that power is always available, even during less-windy or cloudy periods.

     There are roadblocks to break however. Some materials needed to create the clean technologies are rare on Earth. As a result, recycling will have to be considered and the technologies will have to be updated to use less of these rare-materials. In addition, these technologies are still quite expensive today. However, their costs are expected to drop by 2020 and likely become just as competative as coal power. Governments will have to play a major role in encouraging clean energy developement by eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and creating carbon taxes and clean energy subsidies. Clear leadership is thus needed.

Critical thinking question:
Q: What is the most effective way to cut back on greehouse gas emissions?
A: The most effective way to cut back on GHG emissions is to tackle their key sources. According to the EPA, carbon dioxide is by far our largest contribution to emissions. Methane is also a large contributor. 
     Much of the carbon dioxide that we emit is from transportation and energy for power. These are the two things we must tackle to reduce our emissions the most. As stated in the article by Jacobson and Delucchi, all transportation emissions can be eliminated by using battery-electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by wind, water and solar energy. Switching to clean forms of electricity is also needed to put a big dent on our carbon dioxide emissions.
     Planting trees is another way to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions as the trees ''suck up'' the gas from the atmosphere.
     As for methane, our major sources are from farming and landfills. Technologies to capture the methane before it rises into the atmosphere already exist and should become standard if we want to reduce our emissions. New technologies to make these captures more efficient will need to be developed.

_____________________________________________________________________________
     

Activity

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

A: I don't feel very comfortable with my overall dependence on fossil fuels. Although I think I do more to reduce my fossil fuel dependence than the average person, I still think there is much, much more left for me to do. 

     The biggest thing I do to reduce my dependence on fossil fuels is with transportation. Whenever there's no major amounts of snow on the ground, I bike everywhere (usually from April to November, but it depends on when winter is, which varies from year to year). I don't care where in the city I am going, I bike. Although part of me does this because it reduces traffic congestion and reduces my dependence on fossil fuels, my biggest motivation is actually saving money. In the winter, I bus or walk everywhere I need to go. Therefore, I am still reliant on fossil fuels for transportation in the winter, but still less than most people. To encourage and force myself to not drive, I don't even have a driver's licence and do not plan to get one anytime soon. Considering all this, overall I feel that my transportation methods are sustainable for the next 10 years. In fact, if needed I would even bike in the winter. I don't already because I don't think it is necessary for me to go through that pain right now when buses are available.

     My key source for fossil fuel dependence when it comes to transportation is with storm chasing with my friends. We storm chase in the summer months because we are quite interested in meteorology and it is a great experience. We do this perhaps 10-20 times a year. However, this is a fossil fuel dependence that we will have to consider reducing. Perhaps we should start by reducing the frequency of our chase trips...

     Despite this, my dependence on fossil fuels is based more on indirect sources. For example, I still depend on the grocery store for my goods. Although I may not burn any fossil fuels for transportation to the store, the products at the store themselves have a very large fossil fuel footprint. Transportation, manufacturing, farming, etc... all combust significant amounts of fossil fuels. In addition, I do not have a garden and therefore I must buy my produce at the store as well. This dependence on fossil fuels, in my opinion, may be sustainable for the next 10 years, but not necessarily beyond that. If one day we no longer had fossil fuels to burn, I would be stuck because I cannot produce my own goods. As a result, I believe that a big thing that I can do to reduce my dependence on fossil fuels is to plant a garden to grow my own produce and try to buy food that is local. 

     Because of my indirect dependence on fossil fuels, I don't feel very comfortable with my level of dependence. Although I got my transportation fairly figured out, I need to reduce my indirect dependence. Gardening, buying local and reducing the frequency of my storm chasing trips are the main things that I plan to consider in the coming years.

Reflection questions

Q: Discuss and reflect on the talk by Randy Park.
A: I really enjoyed the presentation made by Randy Park on January 31. He talked about the waste management department. Some of his statistics were intriguing, and got me thinking about things I could do to help reduce my wastes. For example, he noted that grass blades were 98% water. As a result, it is a good idea to leave your cut grass blades on your lawn instead of throwing them into bags which end up in the landfill. This is something that I could do, and that I plan to do from now on. It may not look overly beautiful, but I think reducing my wastes and using less water is more important than having the nicest lawn in the 'hood.

     I found it fascinating how a lot of the things we recycle actually get re-used. For example, the presenter mentioned that plastic bottles can actually be used to make carpets. He also noted that the city actually MAKES money off of our recyclables. The city sells our recycled goods to manufacturers which use the materials to make other things. I like this because it takes off a bit of the burden off tax payers wallets whilst actually re-using the materials.

     Overall, I think the city made a good step with its new garbage and recycling program implemented in the last couple years. The added composting program is great by reducing the amount of waste ending up in the landfill. It makes me feel better when I can send things to the compost instead of the landfill. Like what Randy Park stated, the program brings Winnipeg one step closer to being competitive compared to other major cities in the country when it comes to its garbage, recycling and composting program.
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Q: Do you think you are doing a good job of diverting your waste? How or why not?
A: Although I do a lot to reduce the amount of waste I throw to the landfill, I do not believe that I do enough to divert my waste overall. 
     Some of the biggest things I do to reduce my wastes is to reduce, reuse and recycle. I throw a lot in the recycling for instance. As for reducing, I try my best to not buy anything that I do no need. For example, I rarely buy new clothes and I do not buy unnecessary decor just to show off my home. 
     Some of the most interesting things I do have to do with reusing and reducing. For instance, instead of buying paintings or whatever else to put on my walls, I actually reuse pictures from old calendars. This way I do not throw my calendars out to the landfill and I am reducing by not buying anything else for my walls. I also intensively reuse paper. I keep a stockpile of paper that I have finished using and keep them to reuse as scrap paper to scribble and write notes or calculations on. This way I am using less paper. Sometimes, if my stockpile is running low, I will actually erase the writing on some of them if the writing is in pencil, allowing me to reuse them again. Once I am finished with the paper, I throw it in the recycling bin.
     Not only do I rarely buy new clothes, but I also rarely throw any out. If for some reason one of my clothes gets a hole or stain on it, then I will set it aside and only wear it around the house. I mean, who cares what I wear in my own house? If for some reason I have clothes that do not fit or that I do not need, then I always donate it if it's in acceptable shape. If it's not in good shape, then too bad, I'll just set it aside and just keep it to wear when I'm at home.
     However, my worst area for diverting my wastes is in the kitchen. I do not compost, therefore all my food scraps end up in the landfill. This is an area that I have to work on. In addition, after mowing the lawn I used to throw the grass in the garbage as well. However, after Randy Park's presentation on January 31, I plan to keep the grass blades on my lawn from now on. When it comes to my leaves in the fall, I send them in the compost via the city's compost program which just started last year. Prior to last year, I sent them to the landfill. As a result, slowly but surely I am making gradual steps to diverting my wastes.
 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Q: In your opinion, is recycling worth the cost?
A:  Yes, I strongly believe recycling is worth the cost. This is especially true when you consider the environmental costs to not recycling. 
     Landfills have a whole host of issues with them. They smell and look horrible, reducing the attractivity of the surrounding area. People may not be particulary willing to live or work near a landfill and therefore this would be a loss money-wise to the city. To compound this loss of attractivity, landfills take up a lot of space and they keep growing. 
     Landfills are also, in a sense, piles of lost treasures and lost possibilities for revenue for the city. According to Randy Park in his presentation on January 31, the city actually makes money from selling our recycled materials. This generates revenue to the city and therefore recycling can actually be used to generate some revenue to cover the costs of the program. You wouldn't get this with landfills because we just pile everything up at the landfill and do not do anything with it.
     The environmental costs of not recycling are also a problem. Bacterial reactions in landfills actually cause methane to be released into the atmosphere. This greenhouse gas only increases the further warming of our planet. In addition, animals, particularly birds, seem to like scavenging these landfills. In addition, winds blow garbage away landfills. These materials, ingested by animals, can be detrimental to their health. Recycling also reduces our need for exploiting more materials from the environment. It is therefore more sustainable because by recycling and reusing we ensure that we always have materials available for ourselves.

News article discussion

     On January 21, a story about the Yukon government opening up wilderness to mining was published on CBC. The government plans to open up 71% of the Peel watershed to mining. This watershed is pristine and not touched very much by humans yet. 

     I think it is unfortunate that such a large chunk of the watershed will be opened to mining. However, I personally think that some of the blame for this rests in the consumers. Mining continues to grow in extent due to the demand. Consumers themselves need to reduce their demand on these minerals by reducing and reusing. By reducing our demand, we would not need these vast mining operations.  

     According to Yukon News, the watershed is a key tourism area. As a result, the mining in the area may impact tourism numbers. There weren't any mentions in the articles of exactly how much and what parts of the watershed will actually be mined, therefore it's hard to say what the impact will be on tourism. I hope the Yukon government at least enforces SOME regulations in the area!

References: 

- CBC News North.  Yukon releases its Peel River watershed land-use plan. CBC News. Published January 21, 2014. Retrieved February 1, 2014 at [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-releases-its-peel-river-watershed-land-use-plan-1.2505658 ]
- EPA. Globa Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data. EPA. Retrieved February 4, 2014 at [ http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html ]

- Ronson, Jacqueline. Tourism and environment sidelined on Peel. Yukon News [Internet]. Published November 9, 2012. Retrieved February 1, 2014 at [ http://yukon-news.com/news/tourism-and-environment-sidelined-on-peel ]
- Wintz, Jack. St. Francis of Assisi: why he's the patron of ecology. American Catholic [Internet]. Published October 2007. Retrieved on January 21, 2014 at [http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Oct2007/Feature1.asp]

- Easton, Thomas A. Classic Edition Sources - Environmental Studies, 4th Edition. New York. McGraw Hill. 2012. p. 11-13, 19-23, 58-61, 107-115.

Blog 1

By Julien Corriveau

January 24, 2014

Section 38 - Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed; by Jared Diamond

     Diamond emphasized in this text how our choices today determine how tomorrow will be like for our younger generations as they grow older, and for our future generations. In addition, when making our choices today we must consider the lessons that can be learned from past errors. Some of the errors that past societies made helped lead to their collapse. Diamond defines a collapse as ''a drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time'' (Diamond, 2005).

     According to Diamond, discoveries made by numerous scientists from various fields over the years confirm that many past collapses were partly or entirely caused by environmental problems. Diamond notes 8 processes associated with human-acitivity that caused environmental problems in the past: deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems, water management issues, overhunting, overfishing, introduction of exotic species affecting native speicies, overpopulation and increased human ecological footprint. He also notes that in our current society we have added 4 processes: human-caused climate change, accumulation of toxins, energy shortages and the full usage of the planet's photosynthetic capacity.

     However, Diamond adds that no collapse can be completely due to environmental damage. Instead, a collapse is the result of multiple factors. Diamond specifically notes 5 factors: environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbours, friendly neighbours (trade's impacts) and society's responses and choices. A collapse may result from the combination of all or a few of these factors. Diamond also emphasizes that not all societies will collapse when environmental damage is occurring. Societies that manage to change their ways and solve environmental problems have a much higher likelihood of surviving.

     In our society today, Diamond notes that although we must learn from past errors, we must not blindly and automatically transfer the solutions into our societies today. This is because we are different from past societies. We have advanced technologies and medicine and the entire planet is interconnected. However, Diamond notes that these both increase and decrease our risk. For example, technology can be used to fix but can also be used to destroy.

     Diamond concludes this text by stating that the only way we can solve our environmental problems is for both environmentalists and big businesses to work together.

Critical thinking question:
Q: How do the choices of people (individually and as societies) affect whether a society collapses due to environmental damage?
A: Choices made by societies determine whether or not environmental damage leads to their collapse. A society really has its own fate in its own hands. If a society is destroying its environment and this becomes a serious issue, the society has two choices: either it continues living the way it has for years, only worsening the condition of its environment, or it can make the difficult choice of changing its ways.
     If a society continues its old ways, its environment will only continue to worsen. At some point, the environment may not be able to sustain the society anymore and the damage may be irreversible (for example, perhaps the people overconsumed the water resources and at some point there is no more water for human-consumption). The society may collapse as a result. People who manage to survive would have likely relocated somewhere else.
     On the contrary, if the society managed to make some difficult decisions about changing its old ways, the society may survive. By creating regulations and bans to reduce the human-impact on the environment, the surrounding environment may be able to handle the society's demands. Diamond had given the example of Iceland in his text. When the Norwegians colonized the island, they destroyed the topsoil and forests. After adopting environmental protection measures, Iceland recovered and has done quite well ever since (Diamond, 2005). 
     Also of note, individual people can also help out to reduce the human ecological footprint. An individual can choose to not buy anything from a company that uses unsustainable practices, become self-sufficient (planting a garden and using solar power for example) and waste less. If every individual chose to do these practices, the entire society's impact on the environment would lessen, potentially avoiding society's collapse.

Selection 35 - Human Carrying Capacity; by Joel E. Cohen

     Cohen emphasizes in his text ''Human Carrying Capacity'' that the concept of a human carrying capacity on Earth is complex, and determining it is very difficult and dependent on a variety of factors.

     Cohen states that the ideal tool to estimate Earth's human carrying capacity is a model. A model allows us to specify characteristics and choices of societies. It also allows us to specify what type of result we want to reach in the future when we run the model. The model would then create a variety of different possibilities of human population sizes. 

    However, the planet's human carrying capacity is only an estimate because in reality we cannot perfectly predict the future. The carrying capacity depends not only on the choices we make today, but on the choices we make tomorrow. Furthermore, the carrying capacity depends on the natural restraints of the environment, which also changes with time. Yet another difficulty in estimating the Earth's human carrying capacity is the fact that it also depends on the activities all around the globe. This is because we are no longer isolated; trade and transport of goods around the world help bring goods from areas of excess to areas of deficiency.

     Cohen also used the example of Easter Island to show what the entire planet's future may bring. Because the island is extremely isolated, it was a good analogy to the planet Earth, which is isolated from the rest of the universe. We only have the resources that are present, and if we abuse these resources, we may run out, or they will not regenerate quick enough. After a boom in population, resource depletion can lead to a collapse of population in the future, such as what occurred on Easter Island.

Critical thinking question:

Q: In what sense does the Earth not have a single carrying capacity for human beings?

A: We cannot say that Earth has a specific number of humans that it can carry. This is because the number is constantly changing depending on human activities and the condition of the environment. For example, in periods of widespread drought and unproductivity, the human carrying capacity on Earth may be much lower than it would be during a very productive period with a balanced mixture of precipitation and sunshine. Keeping this in mind, the human carrying capacity is thus constantly changing because weather is constantly changing and alternating between dry and wet periods. 

     Human activities also cause the Earth human carrying capacity to constantly change. Trade as well as resource depletion are two factors. Trade between countries helps raise carrying capacity because it allows us to bring resources from areas of excess to areas of deficit. As a result, we now live in a world where we are no longer isolated and reliant solely on what is in our very immediate surroundings. However, if for some reason trade would cease, human carrying capacity might diminish because areas that are deficient in resources would no longer be receiving external resources. 

     How humans treat the environment also changes our carrying capacity. Abusing Earth's resources may lead to a sharp decrease in carrying capacity in the future because after a certain point, the planet may not be regenerating its resources quick enough to sustain such a large population. An example of this was given by Cohen where planet Earth was compared to Easter Island (as discussed in the text summary above).

Selection 7 - The Tragedy of the Commons; by Garrett Hardin

     In this text, Hardin describes a scenario created by William Forster Lloyd in 1833 about a pasture that is open to all. Herdsman who use the pasture feel inclined to maximise their own gains. To do so, they bring in more and more animals with them to the pasture because the personal benefits of doing so outweigh the personal consequences and there is no limit to the number of animals one can bring. However, every single herdsman does the same, leading to severe erosion and overgrazing of the pasture. The conclusion to this scenario is that freedom in a commons leads to destruction for all. The scenario may also be referred to as the ''tragedy of the commons''.

     Hardin notes that the tragedy of the commons relates to three problems: resource depletion (as seen in the scenario above), pollution and overpopulation. Pollution is actually the cosequence of privatized properties. People realise that it is cheaper to discharge their wastes directly into the environment rather than purifying them beforehand. In addition, because their properties are theirs, they see it as they are able to pollute their own land as much as they want. The consequence of this is that the pollutants get transported through the air and water and end up polluting the commons. Overpopulation only worsens the problem by increasing the amount of pollutants.

     Overpopulation is a consequence of the commons in breeding. Families are able to have as many children as they want. Hardin gave some solutions and non-solutions to the overpopulation problem. He notes that there are no technical solutions to the problem. In other words, we cannot solve it without reducing some privileges. He also notes that we cannot rely solely on people's conscience because not everyone is the same in that regard. Some people who are more conscient would have less children while the others would not. As a result, this would lead to ''a selective system that works toward the eliminiation of conscience from the race...'' (Hardin, 1968). 

     Two solutions that Hardin gave were education and ''mutual coercion mutually agreed upon''. Education may prevent people from making the wrong decisions and denying the truth. Mutual coercion on the other hand means that as a society we agree that some actions are not allowed. Fines and imprisonment are created so that people follow these agreements. Restrictions are also placed (for example, fines for parking so that people don't park for excessive amounts of time). 

Critical thinking question:

Q: List some examples of resources held in common by all the citizens of society that have suffered by overuse.

A: Marine fish are a great example of a common resource that has been overused. Once a fish is caught, it is the property of the fishermen. The fish are not previously owned by any one entity. This makes overfishing a problem because restrictions are not present (world ocean review, 2014). Extinctions have occurred in the past as a result, and many species are dwindling in numbers today (National Geographic, 2014).

     As mentioned in Hardin's text, air and water, common resources, have been overused as dumps for many of our pollutants. The result has been excessive pollution which is bad for the health of plants and animals.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Activity - Ted Talk, John Francis Walks the Earth

     John Francis' story is an inspiration. 

     After witnessing an oil spill, he gave up riding and driving and only walked to help the environment. In addition, on his 27th birthday he stopped talking for 17 years because he used to argue and talk a lot and therefore he wanted to see what that would be like. His journey would bring him around the US and the world as he walked from California to Washington to Montana and east to the east coast. He went to a few universities and graduated a few times, eventually working for the Coast Guard for 1 year and becoming a UN ambassador. In addition, he taught some classes and wrote regulations for oil spills. Afterwards, he sailed through the Caribbean to Venezuela. All of this done without riding or driving and without talking. 

     There are few lessons that Francis learned from his journey. First, while he taught he learned that if you are not still learning while teaching, you probably are not teaching very well. Learning as a teacher implies listening to your students. Personally, this makes me realise how important it is to listen to what others have to say. In other words, it is important to remind ourselves that our personal thoughts and actions may not always be correct (and may be biased). We must remain open to new ideas or else things will never change.

     However, for me the most striking lesson that Francis learned was that we must care for each other because the way we treat each other is how we treat the environment because we ARE part of the environment. This was interesting for me because it makes me realise how much we have forgotten this fact. We have become so disconnected from nature that we forget that we are a part of it. The fact that we are part of the environment means that if we are damaging the environment, we are ultimately causing harm to ourselves. Francis also mentioned that while he remained silent, what amazed him was how important listening really was. When you truly listen to someone you learn a lot. Personally, I see this as being able to be applied to the environment. We must listen to the warning signs that the environment sends us. Extinctions and climate change are just some of the warning signs and we must listen to these to better understand our impacts and learn how to reduce them.

Blog Reflection

Q: In your opinion, is Canada doing all they can to tackle one of these world issues (choose one) discussed in class? How or why not?

A: I do not believe Canada is doing enough to combat climate change. One of the reasons is the continued expansion of oil extraction (Munro, 2011). Although an economic benefit, this is certainly not helping the climate change situation. The increased extraction leads to more burning of fossil fuels which is just adding to all the carbon dioxide that we're already adding to our atmosphere. If we were to actually do something about climate change, it would be more wise to consider more environmentally friendly energy solutions such as solar power, wave power, hydro power and wind power for example. We need to turn our backs to the old ways of using so much fossil fuels.

     In 2011, Canada was the first country to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, it established a much less aggressive commitment (The David Suzuki Foundation, 2014). In addition, according to CBC, Canada's carbon dioxide emissions actually increased 16.9% between 1990 and 2009. I find this quite unfortunate because it shows that the country is not doing enough to reduce its emissions. An increase in emissions is not doing anything to combat climate change. In addition, by creating weaker commitments to reduce emissions, this again shows that the government is not taking the climate change issue seriously enough.

News article discussion: 

      On January 7, 2014, an interesting article was posted on Global News about protesters in BC interupting Harper's conference. Two protesters entered on stage during the conference. They were protesting about climate change as well as the pipeline that is planned to be built to the coast.

     What I find sad about this story is that really the only thing that came out of it was the security implications. I find it unfortunate that we did not get to hear what the protesters had to say. On video, Harper looked really unphased about what was going on, which to me really shows how the environment is not at all a priority for the government.

Course materials discussion:

     One thing that stood out for me during these first 2 weeks of courses was the idea that hypothesis testing is not perfect. We learned that scientists can never be 100% certain about anything. This is because when we test, we can often only find things that contradict a hypothesis, and thus making it false. However, what I had not realised was that the majority of hypotheses that are considered true are considered true only because we could not find evidence against it. I just found it interesting that we are actually never 100% certain, yet some hypotheses are shown in the news and everybody thinks they are true. Sometimes, they are only true because we could not disprove them. This is something we must consider everytime we see these types of scientific ''discoveries'' in the news.

     I more or less enjoy this course so far, mainly because it focuses a lot on current issues we face, which I find more interesting and appropriate than learning problems that occurred decades or centuries ago. I can relate to what we're learning.

REFERENCES:

 - David Suzuki Foundation. Canada and the Kyoto Protocol. David Suzuki Foundation [internet]. Retrieved January 18, 2014 at [http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/canada-climate-change/canada-and-kyoto/]

 - Francis, John. John Francis: Walk the Earth... my 17-year vow of silence. TED [internet]. Published in 2008. Retrieved January 18, 2014 at [http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/john_francis_walks_the_earth.html]

 - Munro, Margaret. Canada not doing enough to stop 'dangerous' climate change: study. iPolitics [internet]. Published April 6, 2011. Retrieved January 18, 2014 at [http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/04/06/canada-hasnt-done-enough-to-stop-dangerous-climate-change-environment-canada-study/]

- National Geographic. Overfishing. National Geographic [internet]. Retrieved January 18, 2014 at [http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-overfishing/]

- Stastna, Kazi. Kyoto exit leaves climate fight up to provinces. CBC News [internet]. Published Dec 29, 2011. Retrieved January 18, 2014 at [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kyoto-exit-leaves-climate-fight-up-to-provinces-1.1021985]

- The Canadian Press. Environmental activists follow Harper on Vancouver Island visit. Global News. Published January 7, 2014. Retrieved on January 18, 2014 at [http://globalnews.ca/news/1067859/environmental-activists-follow-harper-on-vancouver-island-visit/]

 - World ocean review. The causes of overfishing. World ocean review [internet]. Retrieved January 18, 2014 at [http://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/fisheries/causes-of-overfishing/]

- Easton, Thomas A. Classic Edition Sources - Environmental Studies, 4th Edition. New York. McGraw Hill. 2012. p. 24-28, 169-172, 184-189.