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.