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.
No comments:
Post a Comment