Further reflection on life, e-waste and voluntary simplicity...
I just had a long, difficult conversation with my Mom. The discussion began with her questioning my faith, why I wasn't going to church much (or at all), and so on. She was asking me, "wasn't I worried that God wouldn't bless me if I didn't go to church?" She said that God had blessed her with an extremely good life, because when she was young they were very poor, and had to wash all their clothes by hand, etc. But now she had lots of things and didn't have to work very hard, and had a very good life.
And I started to cry.
I told her that even though it seems that way, it was not a good life. A good life would be one where nobody has to suffer or be exploited for the sake of it. This life might be very simple, but it would be great. We would have a lot less things, but a lot more time for one another. And we could be truly happy knowing that all other people had the opportunity to live a happy, simple, good life too. How could a life be good if it is breaking the backs of others? How could someone be truly happy living such a life?
The answer is: through ignorance. Mom said it herself, she didn't know that's what was happening. But now that there's more information available, she tries to make better decisions. (Like to not buy a new pair of shoes just because the style changes.) And that is very good. But the fact remains that for the most part, North America is in what I like to call a "happy bubble." We are self-absorbed in our own little world, and don't think much about where our products come from, how they are disposed, or why they are so cheap. We don't question it.
When someone asks me what I do for a living, I am going to say..."I pop bubbles."
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
From production to destruction.
Reflection on e-waste video.
When I began watching this video I was shocked to find out the location of the city where it takes place. This heartwrenching story is happening very close to where I am taking my vacation this May: Guiyu, Guangdong Province in China. I am staying with my cousin who works at Shantou University which is very close. When I finished the video I immediately emailed her to let her know that I would be taking a day trip to see it for myself.
Something about this just made me snap inside. It's maybe the final straw of realization that I have been living at other people's expense. The only reason I am living my oh so comfortable life is because other people are suffering. I feel like everything I have is tainted. How in God's name did we let it go this far? But the more important question is, now that I know the truth, what will I do about it? And if everyone else knew the truth, what would they do about it? I think it's all too far away. Out of sight and out of mind. I'm going to bring it to them, if I can. The least I can do is take some pictures of what I've seen, and show everyone I know. I want to say, "Can you see what we're doing now? To these people? And to our environment?" 70% of the 20-50 million tons of e-waste/year ends up in China, with most of the rest ending up in other third world countries such as India and Africa. But this little trip is definitely not all that I am going to do. My life can not be the same after this. My heart just won't let it. I feel like I'm getting closer and closer to the thing that I want to do for the rest of my life; as in, my "mission," my career. At the beginning of this year I realized I wanted to be in Environmental Science, but I didn't know what I wanted to focus on. I was too interested in too many things, I couldn't figure out what was most important, I couldn't figure out where I was most needed, what I could actually help with....but somehow I feel like I'm growing closer all the time.
Bodeen, Christopher. China's e-waste mountain growing. November 19th, 2007. Found at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/article798844.ece Retrieved on: April 7, 2010.
When I began watching this video I was shocked to find out the location of the city where it takes place. This heartwrenching story is happening very close to where I am taking my vacation this May: Guiyu, Guangdong Province in China. I am staying with my cousin who works at Shantou University which is very close. When I finished the video I immediately emailed her to let her know that I would be taking a day trip to see it for myself.
Something about this just made me snap inside. It's maybe the final straw of realization that I have been living at other people's expense. The only reason I am living my oh so comfortable life is because other people are suffering. I feel like everything I have is tainted. How in God's name did we let it go this far? But the more important question is, now that I know the truth, what will I do about it? And if everyone else knew the truth, what would they do about it? I think it's all too far away. Out of sight and out of mind. I'm going to bring it to them, if I can. The least I can do is take some pictures of what I've seen, and show everyone I know. I want to say, "Can you see what we're doing now? To these people? And to our environment?" 70% of the 20-50 million tons of e-waste/year ends up in China, with most of the rest ending up in other third world countries such as India and Africa. But this little trip is definitely not all that I am going to do. My life can not be the same after this. My heart just won't let it. I feel like I'm getting closer and closer to the thing that I want to do for the rest of my life; as in, my "mission," my career. At the beginning of this year I realized I wanted to be in Environmental Science, but I didn't know what I wanted to focus on. I was too interested in too many things, I couldn't figure out what was most important, I couldn't figure out where I was most needed, what I could actually help with....but somehow I feel like I'm growing closer all the time.
I can see everything now. I can see how everything is so intricately connected. As I mentioned in my last blog, I did a research paper on brominated flame retardants for Environmental Chemistry. They put them in our electronics to keep them from catching fire, but they are persistent organic pollutants...bioaccumulative, difficult to degrade, toxic...and released when heated. This means that when our televisions, hairdryers, etc. are on, BFRs are being released...and I thought that was bad. Now my heart is breaking for these people who are burning these circuit boards to get the metals off...and are breathing them in all day, not to mention the heavy metals, and other toxic chemicals, with all their synergistic effects. From production to destruction, our lifestyles are the destroyers of other people's lives.
Bodeen, Christopher. China's e-waste mountain growing. November 19th, 2007. Found at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/article798844.ece Retrieved on: April 7, 2010.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Poop: Just another part of the Circle of Life!
Blog reflection: Where does your sludge ("biosolids") go? Does this surprise you? (Either Winnipeg or your hometown/city)
I grew up on my family farm near Roblin, MB. If you look in the bottom left hand corner you will see Roblin on the map. Follow Highway 83 North until you see the highway make a sharp left and my farm is very close to there. This is where the story of my sludge begins!
The sludge from my family is held in a tank in our basement for a few months until it gets full. Then my Dad calls the Town of Roblin septic people, and they bring their big truck and pump it out. After that my Dad didn't know much else except that it went to the lagoon and go
t "the cell treatment." So I had to do some digging of my own! Online I found the license for the "Wastewater Treatment Lagoon," which is a little way south of Roblin and is used for treating wastewater and sewage from its citizens. I found out that it is an "engineered wetland." This is a designed, man-made lake with clay and soil on the bottom, vegatation that is planted and natural, emerging plants, wildlife and water. There are also poplar trees plants around to absorb moisture. It is supposed to simulate a natural wetland habitat which naturally treats wastes! There are 4 cells and the wastes are moved from one to another. By the time they reach the final cell the wastes are naturally purified and the effluent is spread on farmland for fertilizer. So this is where my biosolids ultimately end up... on farmland.
I'm glad that they are properly decomposed before being spread onto the land, and thrilled to hear that it's done in a way that lets nature do its job. The movie "Crapshoot" that we watched in class showed sludge being mixed in these huge metal tanks, but the lagoon treatment seems so much more natural. I am wondering if all the harmful substances are removed though. Heavy metals are a concern. Also I just finished a research paper on brominated flame retardants (for Enviro. Chem with my "disgusted" lab partner!) and I read that BFRs can be contained in the sludge then spread onto the land, allowing them to be distributed more widely in the environment. BFRs are very difficult to degrade because they are very stable compounds (many are aromatics). I am hoping that several years in the lagoon treatment cells would remove them, but much more research needs to be done on this topic.
I grew up on my family farm near Roblin, MB. If you look in the bottom left hand corner you will see Roblin on the map. Follow Highway 83 North until you see the highway make a sharp left and my farm is very close to there. This is where the story of my sludge begins!While growing up, my brother Frank and I used to always play around the "pump out." It was basically a big tube sticking out of the ground close to the forest which was a short walk from our house. When we heard the water start to come out we would run to watch it. I had no idea where the water was from at that time...if I had known, I doubt I would have played near it!
There are no sewers that extend as far as our property. I called my Dad (again!) and he explained to me about how all this works. Basically we have a mini-treatment system in our basement. The water part gets filtered and is "pumped out" as grey water. Yes. Yes, I used to play in puddles of sewage water! So as I mentioned, there is a little pond that has formed where the grey water gets pumped out. It's close to a small forest, where there are lots of trees and vegetation growing as normal. It seems that it isn't harming the environment as far as I can tell.
The sludge from my family is held in a tank in our basement for a few months until it gets full. Then my Dad calls the Town of Roblin septic people, and they bring their big truck and pump it out. After that my Dad didn't know much else except that it went to the lagoon and go
t "the cell treatment." So I had to do some digging of my own! Online I found the license for the "Wastewater Treatment Lagoon," which is a little way south of Roblin and is used for treating wastewater and sewage from its citizens. I found out that it is an "engineered wetland." This is a designed, man-made lake with clay and soil on the bottom, vegatation that is planted and natural, emerging plants, wildlife and water. There are also poplar trees plants around to absorb moisture. It is supposed to simulate a natural wetland habitat which naturally treats wastes! There are 4 cells and the wastes are moved from one to another. By the time they reach the final cell the wastes are naturally purified and the effluent is spread on farmland for fertilizer. So this is where my biosolids ultimately end up... on farmland.I honestly do not find this surprising or disturbing. It seems like the most natural thing in the world. I was discussing the practice of spreading our "effluent" on the land where our food is grown with my lab partner for Environmental Chemistry class. She seemed genuinely disgusted! She got a horrified look on her face and said, "....I did NOT know that..." Haha! I thought it was funny. Maybe I have been desensitized from growing up on the farm. My Dad has always used decomposed cow poop as fertilizer too. He has several huge hills of poop in a field in various stages of decay. After several years the hill is just dirt, and he spreads it on the fields for fertilizer. We use it in the garden where we grow our own vegetables too. This is the completely natural lifecycle going on! It is not at all disgusting. But, if you live all your life with pavement beneath your feet and a night sky filled with streetlights instead of stars, there is no way to find out what a huge, complex, and wonderful circle of life you are a part of!
I'm glad that they are properly decomposed before being spread onto the land, and thrilled to hear that it's done in a way that lets nature do its job. The movie "Crapshoot" that we watched in class showed sludge being mixed in these huge metal tanks, but the lagoon treatment seems so much more natural. I am wondering if all the harmful substances are removed though. Heavy metals are a concern. Also I just finished a research paper on brominated flame retardants (for Enviro. Chem with my "disgusted" lab partner!) and I read that BFRs can be contained in the sludge then spread onto the land, allowing them to be distributed more widely in the environment. BFRs are very difficult to degrade because they are very stable compounds (many are aromatics). I am hoping that several years in the lagoon treatment cells would remove them, but much more research needs to be done on this topic. I have now discussed composting toilets with my boyfriend as a result of all this waste disposal inquiry. He is not very thrilled with the idea of storing "crap" in our basement! He would be 100% on board with the half flush-full flush toilets though. In any case, I have quite a few years left to convince him....if we even get a house at all. That is the problem with renting an apartment or condo...you have no say on any of the environmental features of the place. Right now they are installing new windows in all the suites at my apartment. They are not the high-efficiency ones, and nobody consulted ME about it... Even though we don't own the place we are still paying quite a bit of money to live here, so I feel like the tenants should be consulted on what renovations need to be done and how! My letter to the owners about starting a community garden on the grounds still hasn't come back yet. But I am determined to start a garden and composting program to complement it! When it goes through we will all be able to put our organic kitchen scraps to good use...we take nutrients out when we grow the food, it's only natural to put them back....and yes that includes poop no matter how strange some think it may be!
Works Cited:
Manitoba Government. (?) Town of Roblin Wastewater Treatment Lagoon License. March 18, 1998. Found at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/eal/archive/1998/licences/2313s1.html Retrieved on: April 6, 2010
Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services
Summary of Selection 20
The rate of resource collapse is increasing as recovery potential, stability, water quality, and biodiversity are decreasing in our oceans. These trends are still reversible if we act quickly. As biodiversity increases, so do ecosystem productivity and stability. However, ocean issues are very complex and vast, making them hard to understand. Experiments have shown that an increase in diversity of primary producers and consumers increase productivity by 80%, and increase resource use and stability by ~30%.
In coastal ecosystems, a decrease in biodiversity led to a decrease in stability, and an increase in the likelihood of collapse, decline and extinction of other species. It also led to the decline of fisheries, nursery habitats (ex. wetlands), and filtering services. These all impact water quality, which increases algae blooms, fish kills and depletes oxygen. Also the ecosystem was more vulnerable to flooding and invasive species.
The Global Catch Database through United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, monitors ocean activity. Their stats show that 83% of fisheries catches are from large marine ecosystems (LMEs). Yields have been greatly decreasing- possibly leading to collapse. Non-collapsed areas showed high diversity. If fisheries are closed and the area examined again after a few years, there are increases in biodiversity. This shows that it is possible for an aquatic ecosystem to recover after collapse. Also responsible fishing can begin again, as well as tourism.
There are serious consequences for decreases in diversity. The negative relationship patterns can be seen on large scale studies. We need sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats, and a creation of marine reserves to ensure the aquatic ecosystems are safe. This will increase productivity and reliability of goods and services. If there is no action, our food security, coastal water quality, and ecological situation will be in danger.
The rate of resource collapse is increasing as recovery potential, stability, water quality, and biodiversity are decreasing in our oceans. These trends are still reversible if we act quickly. As biodiversity increases, so do ecosystem productivity and stability. However, ocean issues are very complex and vast, making them hard to understand. Experiments have shown that an increase in diversity of primary producers and consumers increase productivity by 80%, and increase resource use and stability by ~30%.
In coastal ecosystems, a decrease in biodiversity led to a decrease in stability, and an increase in the likelihood of collapse, decline and extinction of other species. It also led to the decline of fisheries, nursery habitats (ex. wetlands), and filtering services. These all impact water quality, which increases algae blooms, fish kills and depletes oxygen. Also the ecosystem was more vulnerable to flooding and invasive species.
The Global Catch Database through United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, monitors ocean activity. Their stats show that 83% of fisheries catches are from large marine ecosystems (LMEs). Yields have been greatly decreasing- possibly leading to collapse. Non-collapsed areas showed high diversity. If fisheries are closed and the area examined again after a few years, there are increases in biodiversity. This shows that it is possible for an aquatic ecosystem to recover after collapse. Also responsible fishing can begin again, as well as tourism.
There are serious consequences for decreases in diversity. The negative relationship patterns can be seen on large scale studies. We need sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats, and a creation of marine reserves to ensure the aquatic ecosystems are safe. This will increase productivity and reliability of goods and services. If there is no action, our food security, coastal water quality, and ecological situation will be in danger.
Life and Death of the Salt Marsh
Summary of Selection 10
All along the eastern coast of North America is a long strip of green salt marsh. The border shifts as the tides move in and out. There is a wide variety of wildlife. Healthy marshes smell like salt and grasses, in a healthy marsh the hydrogen sulfide smell is very faint. The matted plant roots and mud make the ground spongy, and it becomes muddier as you move towards the coast as there are fewer roots beneath. At high tide the grasses poking out of the water are places where animals hide from the water.
Damage to the marshes occurs when they are dredged, filled, polluted and build upon. They have benefits to us left in their natural state. Some damage is necessary as roads are build so people can visit and enjoy them and for boat launches. Excessive building brings up the old battle of development vs. conservation. The salt marshes should be preserved as any other natural masterpiece or National Park (for example, the Everglades).
All along the eastern coast of North America is a long strip of green salt marsh. The border shifts as the tides move in and out. There is a wide variety of wildlife. Healthy marshes smell like salt and grasses, in a healthy marsh the hydrogen sulfide smell is very faint. The matted plant roots and mud make the ground spongy, and it becomes muddier as you move towards the coast as there are fewer roots beneath. At high tide the grasses poking out of the water are places where animals hide from the water.
Damage to the marshes occurs when they are dredged, filled, polluted and build upon. They have benefits to us left in their natural state. Some damage is necessary as roads are build so people can visit and enjoy them and for boat launches. Excessive building brings up the old battle of development vs. conservation. The salt marshes should be preserved as any other natural masterpiece or National Park (for example, the Everglades).
Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment
Summary of Selection 31
Families share environments as well as chromosomes. Cancer trends are seen in families, even among adopted children, show that cancer is related to much more than just genetics. This is Sandra Steingrabers story. She was adopted, and MANY people in her family have/had cancer, including herself. She had bladder cancer, which is cause by the substitution of a base in DNA. Bladder carcinogens are aromatic amines, which are found in cigarettes, rubber, dyes, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. Usually your body would detox these compounds, but slow acetylators have a more difficult time with this. Over 1/2 of Americans and Europeans are alow acetylators. Less than half of bladder cancer cases come from aromatic amines from smoking. So it's likely that people are uptaking these toxic contaminents from other sources- the air, water and our products. We don't know what the synergistic effects on our bodies.
Cancer research focuses on genetic/hereditary links to cancer, even though these are rare. We need to recognize that genetics may make people more sensitive to environmental carcinogens, but are not the ultimate cause. Focusing on genetics really only gives us information on something we can do nothing about!
Rachel Carson's final legacy was to fight for recognition of an individual's right to know about poisons introduced to our environment and the right to protection against them. We must examine our past, present, and future to find out what we have been exposed to. We should ask questions about what kind of body burdens we carry from our past. In the present we should take the human rights approach. We should stand up and say that our current system of regular use, release, and disposal of toxins is intolerable. And we need to recognize that we do not all bear equal risks- factory workers, people living near disposal sites, etc. are in greater danger.
The lowest estimate is 2% of people die from cancer due to environmental cancinogens. This works out to 10,940 people per year. This is more than the amount of people who die from hereditary breast cancer; accidental firearm accidents; and lung cancer by second hand smoke. All of these last 3 causes of death have HUGE campaigns, laws and research being invested into them. Why should environmental carcinogens not? We should be using the Principle of Least Toxic Alternative. This states that "toxic substances will not be used as long as there is another way of accomplishing the task." A departure from ZERO use should be preceded by a finding of absolutely necessity. Society assumes these substances will be used, the only question is how much...but this way of thinking is very distorted.
Families share environments as well as chromosomes. Cancer trends are seen in families, even among adopted children, show that cancer is related to much more than just genetics. This is Sandra Steingrabers story. She was adopted, and MANY people in her family have/had cancer, including herself. She had bladder cancer, which is cause by the substitution of a base in DNA. Bladder carcinogens are aromatic amines, which are found in cigarettes, rubber, dyes, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. Usually your body would detox these compounds, but slow acetylators have a more difficult time with this. Over 1/2 of Americans and Europeans are alow acetylators. Less than half of bladder cancer cases come from aromatic amines from smoking. So it's likely that people are uptaking these toxic contaminents from other sources- the air, water and our products. We don't know what the synergistic effects on our bodies.
Cancer research focuses on genetic/hereditary links to cancer, even though these are rare. We need to recognize that genetics may make people more sensitive to environmental carcinogens, but are not the ultimate cause. Focusing on genetics really only gives us information on something we can do nothing about!
Rachel Carson's final legacy was to fight for recognition of an individual's right to know about poisons introduced to our environment and the right to protection against them. We must examine our past, present, and future to find out what we have been exposed to. We should ask questions about what kind of body burdens we carry from our past. In the present we should take the human rights approach. We should stand up and say that our current system of regular use, release, and disposal of toxins is intolerable. And we need to recognize that we do not all bear equal risks- factory workers, people living near disposal sites, etc. are in greater danger.
The lowest estimate is 2% of people die from cancer due to environmental cancinogens. This works out to 10,940 people per year. This is more than the amount of people who die from hereditary breast cancer; accidental firearm accidents; and lung cancer by second hand smoke. All of these last 3 causes of death have HUGE campaigns, laws and research being invested into them. Why should environmental carcinogens not? We should be using the Principle of Least Toxic Alternative. This states that "toxic substances will not be used as long as there is another way of accomplishing the task." A departure from ZERO use should be preceded by a finding of absolutely necessity. Society assumes these substances will be used, the only question is how much...but this way of thinking is very distorted.
Why Political Questions are not all Economic
Summary of Selection 33
Our devastated environmental landscape can be seen in 2 ways. Some see it exactly as is - environmental degredation. Others see efficiency, utility, and the satisfaction of wants. Is their vision true? Is this a miracle just like the vision of the Lady of Fatima?
Viewing environmental problems as problems of distribution consider people only as consumers. The value of a thing is based on people's "willingness to pay." But we are not only consumers. We are when we are getting what we want for ourselves. We act as citizens to achieve what is best for the community. These goals are not always consistent! For example, an individual might speed, but wants the police to enfore laws against speeding. How should public finance represent these 2 different roles of people?
As illustrated by the American textile Manufacturer vs. Donovan case, the law does not need to justify its standards on cost-benefit grounds. The Occupational Health and Safety Act proteccts employees from workplace hazards including exposure to toxic substances. But in the case of the American Petroleum Institute vs. Marshall the Supreme Court weighed the benefit of workers health against the cost to the company, and decided that the company's costs were greater; therefore the safety threshold should be lowered. This does not treat workers as "ends-in-themselves" (holding intrinsic value), but as merely a means for the production of overall utility.
There are competing conceptions of what our society should look like.
1) Worker quality and environmental degredation should be protected as long as benefits of protection balance the costs.
2) Neither should be treated as a commodity to be traded for other commodities.
This conflict should be solved by legistlative debate, not cost-benefit analysis.
Values are not subjective, merely statements of preference, attitude or emotion. But cost-benefit analysis treats them this way. This effectively makes whoever can pay the most "right" on any particular issue- no matter how irrelevant, stupid, uninformed or irresponsible that particular issue might be. The Kantian view is that some values are more reasonable than others. Objective standards of reason and criticism must apply. Should public policy be efficiency/weath maximization based, or should policy be justified or refuted on objective grounds? Environmental questions involve more than just economic principles, but also moral and aesthetic. Society is more than a market system, we must take our place as citizens and stop living solely as consumers.
Our devastated environmental landscape can be seen in 2 ways. Some see it exactly as is - environmental degredation. Others see efficiency, utility, and the satisfaction of wants. Is their vision true? Is this a miracle just like the vision of the Lady of Fatima?
Viewing environmental problems as problems of distribution consider people only as consumers. The value of a thing is based on people's "willingness to pay." But we are not only consumers. We are when we are getting what we want for ourselves. We act as citizens to achieve what is best for the community. These goals are not always consistent! For example, an individual might speed, but wants the police to enfore laws against speeding. How should public finance represent these 2 different roles of people?
As illustrated by the American textile Manufacturer vs. Donovan case, the law does not need to justify its standards on cost-benefit grounds. The Occupational Health and Safety Act proteccts employees from workplace hazards including exposure to toxic substances. But in the case of the American Petroleum Institute vs. Marshall the Supreme Court weighed the benefit of workers health against the cost to the company, and decided that the company's costs were greater; therefore the safety threshold should be lowered. This does not treat workers as "ends-in-themselves" (holding intrinsic value), but as merely a means for the production of overall utility.
There are competing conceptions of what our society should look like.
1) Worker quality and environmental degredation should be protected as long as benefits of protection balance the costs.
2) Neither should be treated as a commodity to be traded for other commodities.
This conflict should be solved by legistlative debate, not cost-benefit analysis.
Values are not subjective, merely statements of preference, attitude or emotion. But cost-benefit analysis treats them this way. This effectively makes whoever can pay the most "right" on any particular issue- no matter how irrelevant, stupid, uninformed or irresponsible that particular issue might be. The Kantian view is that some values are more reasonable than others. Objective standards of reason and criticism must apply. Should public policy be efficiency/weath maximization based, or should policy be justified or refuted on objective grounds? Environmental questions involve more than just economic principles, but also moral and aesthetic. Society is more than a market system, we must take our place as citizens and stop living solely as consumers.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Viva la Tiny Revolution!
Blog Reflection:
Consider the evidence of Affluenza that you see around you. Do you see it in yourself, your friends, family, or North American society? Can you take action to combat affluenza?
I made a New Years Resolution to not buy any more DVDs and have stuck with it so far. I mainly did it for financial reasons. It's a horrible thing to be a poor person with affluenza stuck in North American society. It feels like there is no possible way to be happy. If you think the only way to be fulfilled is through possessions and stuff, which you can never afford because you're in debt and work a minimum wage job, what a miserable life you will lead! My Grandparents and parents really drilled that into me when I was growing up. The absolutely crucial importance of getting a really high earning profession, preferrably a doctor. Then you will be happy with your huge house, 3 door garage, white picket fence and mountains of stuff. The thing is...that's exactly what my Grandparents, parents, and Aunts and Uncles have...but honestly they don't seem very happy with their lives a lot of the time anyways.
Works Cited:
Consider the evidence of Affluenza that you see around you. Do you see it in yourself, your friends, family, or North American society? Can you take action to combat affluenza?
Affluenza is a tough disease to beat because it has a very attractive exterior. It promises you wealth and happiness but really brings only emptiness and desires that can never be fulfilled. The definition we learned in class is "a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more." The evidence of this is definitely all around me, and unfortunately within me (although I've been trying to fight it).
In the past I have had a much stronger case of affluenza than I do now. I can even remember when it started, I was around 8 years old and began getting an allowance. My cousin Jenny who is around my age had a sticker collection, and I decided I wanted one too. From then on I spent every dollar I got on stickers, trying to build a more beautiful, bigger and better collection. It seems that the urge to compete is strong even at a young age! From then on I considered myself a "collector." I went through all the usual crazes...marbles, beanie babies, CDs, etc. But the addictions that have persisted are my DVDs and books. I'm ashamed but I'm going show you my DVD collection. The funny thing is a few months ago I would have been proud of it... I used to justify this by saying I would only let my "favorites" into my collection. I told my Uncle Mike this and he laughed and said, "Teresa and her 500 favorites!" I realized that something about the situation just wasn't right!
In the past I have had a much stronger case of affluenza than I do now. I can even remember when it started, I was around 8 years old and began getting an allowance. My cousin Jenny who is around my age had a sticker collection, and I decided I wanted one too. From then on I spent every dollar I got on stickers, trying to build a more beautiful, bigger and better collection. It seems that the urge to compete is strong even at a young age! From then on I considered myself a "collector." I went through all the usual crazes...marbles, beanie babies, CDs, etc. But the addictions that have persisted are my DVDs and books. I'm ashamed but I'm going show you my DVD collection. The funny thing is a few months ago I would have been proud of it... I used to justify this by saying I would only let my "favorites" into my collection. I told my Uncle Mike this and he laughed and said, "Teresa and her 500 favorites!" I realized that something about the situation just wasn't right! I made a New Years Resolution to not buy any more DVDs and have stuck with it so far. I mainly did it for financial reasons. It's a horrible thing to be a poor person with affluenza stuck in North American society. It feels like there is no possible way to be happy. If you think the only way to be fulfilled is through possessions and stuff, which you can never afford because you're in debt and work a minimum wage job, what a miserable life you will lead! My Grandparents and parents really drilled that into me when I was growing up. The absolutely crucial importance of getting a really high earning profession, preferrably a doctor. Then you will be happy with your huge house, 3 door garage, white picket fence and mountains of stuff. The thing is...that's exactly what my Grandparents, parents, and Aunts and Uncles have...but honestly they don't seem very happy with their lives a lot of the time anyways.
I've told some of my family members about voluntary simplicity, and my plans to gather as little material possessions as possible during my lifetime. My Grandma thinks I'm completely crazy. Definitely the "deviant" out of all her grandkids. She is all about the money. It could be because of her background...her family was very rich when she was young, but lost everything during WWII and became extremely poor. She worked very hard and became a doctor and improved her situation. I think many people who settled here in North America had a similar experience. They came from harsh circumstances, often oppressive countries, and worked extremely hard for what they have. If they can earn more it's always better of course....except it's gone way too far, and it's not getting better anymore. But because they have that mentality so ingrained, asking them to give up what they've worked so hard for is complete crazy talk. Of course nobody expects us to completely deprive ourselves...but we do have to realize the very big difference between needs and wants!
I do see affluenza in my friends. They are typical girls with overflowing closets and 50 pairs of heels each! I have some guy friends with overflowing closets too. (haha!) Despite this, I've noticed most of my close friends do not have as bad a case of affluenza as the older generation of people. They do have tons of clothes but don't have plans to amass a huge house with 3 cars, etc etc. I've spoken to my 2 best friends about it and we all agree that living in a smaller home, like an apartment or condo is best, and that we'd prefer not to get a house. We don't want to be tied down with a mortgage, bills, never really being able to leave, and all the other responsibilites. We want to effectively avoid the anxiety and debt, leaving ourselves open to possibilites, to travel, move, and so on. We'd all rather spend our money on travel and adventures than a mortgage. Eventually (when and if) we would start a family it would be small enough to fit into an apartment. One, maximum two, children! I do feel somewhat sad about this because I came from a big family and I love my 3 brothers dearly; when I was younger I always wanted a big family myself...but not having one is the responsible thing to do. And as my friend pointed out, each other's children can be like siblings to one another, which is a lovely thought.
One of my favorite ideas for combating affluenza so far has got to be the "Tiny House!" I am posting the link to the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. They build houses that are, well, tiny! They have everything 2 people NEED, and admittedly not room for much else. But I think it's so much better to be out there in the world living life than trapped inside with your stuff. The tiny houses are very good for the environment, they take very little resources to build, need less natural gas to heat and air conditioning to cool, use less electricity, and are very cheap (costwise, not quality)! These tiny houses embody a radical lifestyle change.
http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/houses/fencl/I wouldn't expect everyone to live in a house this small. But for me it represents the fact that we can live a life that is small, low impact, but still beautiful. Mountains of stuff and huge mansions mean that people (and the environment) out there are being exploited for our sake. Their resources are being depleted, they are sitting in sweatshops making our things, then dealing with our garbage when we throw it away. I don't want to live with that burden. I can't, and I won't. I feel overwhelmed by all the "issues" sometimes. But when I've calmed down I realize that the best way to combat affluenza is to lead by example. I'm going to live my own life in the best way I know how. I'm learning more and more all the time as I become more aware of the issues. I'm talking to everyone I know about what I'm doing and why I'm doing it. Spreading the awareness and hoping that they will take it as personally as I do in time. I can't control what other people do, but I can control myself.
"We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
-C. S. Lewis
I am completely willing to admit that I've made horrible misjudgments and mistakes in the past, but now it's time to move on and embrace a better way of life. Would it be such a horrible thing if we as a society did the same? I like to think of it as true progress.
Works Cited:
Brainy Quote. C.S.Lewis Quotes. 2010. Found at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/c_s_lewis_3.html Retrieved on: March 22, 2010.
Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. 2008. Found at: http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/houses/fencl/ Retrieved on: March 21, 2010.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Restoring Rivers
Summary of Selection 24
Our water systems are being abused. Rivers are becoming increasingly polluted, as well as surface and ground water which are being way overdrawn. River restoration means restoring their ecological and social functions. These include mitigating floods, providing clean drinking water, removing excess nutrients and sediments, and supporting fisheries, wildlife, etc. But the restoration process needs a lot of work. Current projects are not being monitored or implemented properly, and are not being done for the right reasons either. The US needs policy reform on this matter.
Historically rivers became polluted because of increased industry and city growth around them. Currently, poor land stewardship is the main cause. Examples of this are the erosion of farmland, input of toxins from cities and agriculture, increased overland runoff because of paved surfaces causing "flashy" stream flows, floods, and droughts. Some progress has been made, but far from enough. Our goals need to be improved water quality, managing/replanting riparian vegetation, improved habitats, help fish passage and to stabilize river banks. There are many ways to achieve these gials but proven methods should become restoration standards to ensure efficient use of money and resources that goes into these projects.
Federal, state and local agencies must adopt restoration policies. Regulations and laws are required in 4 areas.
1. Federal agencies must be directed to adopt and abide by the standards for successful river restoration. Ecological success must also be defined. The restoration standards are that the design of a project should be based on an image of a healthy river; the river's condition must improve; the river must be self-sustaining and require little maintenance; and assessments must be available to the public.
2. A coordinated tracking system for restoration projects must be implemented. This would help restoration efforts by allowing them to learn from past efforts. It is important to be connected to the other projects going on because many rivers are interconnected. All projects should be monitored and checked for effectiveness.
3. Undertake a national study to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration projects. This is needed to find out which methods are most appropriate and most likely to succeed.
4. Use existing funding for river restoration more efficiently and supplement funding. Preferrably a Water Resources Restoration Act could be developed and this would help authorize and fund river restoration projects. This way money flow can be prioritized and coordinated for maximum efficiency.
Current funding also falls short of what is needed to effectively restore rivers. This is a necessity, not a luxury, and should be thought of in much the same way as highways and buildings need maintenance...an essential responsibility. Changes in agency policies and practices are required and requires congressional oversight and wise spending. With these goals as a priority hopefully our rivers will be clean once again.
Controvery at Love Canal
Summary of Selection 23
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 50,000 hazardous waste sites exist in the US. 90% of these pose potential health threats due to poor location and poor management. 2000 are currently threatening the health of communities. We can learn from past experiences such as the disaster at Love Canal.
Hooker Electrochemical Corporation filled the canal with toxic chemicals and then covered them up. Years later the land was sold to the Board of Education. Schools and homes were built on top of and around the site of the canal. The residents could tell that something was wrong because toxins could be seen seeping through the dirt into their basements, strange puddles and odors, and some people and children were getting very sick and had chemical burns. At first the Niagra Falls Health Division took no action, but the residents pushed for it. Eventually the homes immediately surrounding the canal were evacuated and a fence put up. The families in the other homes were told they were safe by the Health Department; but they didn't believe it, they knew there was evidence that chemicals had moved beyond the fence. Beverly Paigen was a scientific researcher and began to survey the people living nearby for birth defects, illness, miscarriages, and so on. She found that there was a much higher than normal frequency among families who lived in homes that had been along former stream beds (since filled in), "wet homes." She reported her findings, and the Health Department decided to evacuate only families with children under 2 years of age or women who could prove they were pregnant. This was far too little, but the department seems to have been stalling over the "controversies."
The 2 opposing sides in the controversy were the community vs. the health department. This has happened at a number of other hazardous waste sites. Once the antagonism there were several factors causing delay, impeding a resolution:
1. Either side may have something to gain by not resolving the controversy. Money and precedent would have been lost by the state.
2. Opponents don't agree on the question that needs to be answered, or even what an answer might imply.
3. More than one group should be in charge of gathering and interpreting information/data, since the outcome will be greatly reflected by this. Preferrably a neutral third party.
4. People who express dissident and minority opinions must be allowed to do so. They should not be demoted, transferred, or harassed. This does not resolve the problem!
5. Scientists should follow proper protocol such as openness of data, peer review and criticism, publication of data, and experimental replication. This will give accountability and allow errors to be detected.
6. Both sides should agree on what facts need resolving, who should resolve the controversy, the procedures by which those people will do the research, interpret the data, etc. and they must agree to abide by what is implied by the findings. Unethical conduct should be severely penalized. Some examples by the state on the Love Canal controversy are appointment of a secret decision panel, manipulation of health data, huge unexplained delays, harassment of employees with different views, and discouragement of independent, professional health studies.
An official process should be developed to ensure that the next time this happens (as it inevitably will), it can be dealt with in the most effective way possible. These issues are not just scientific, but also ethical...people's lives are at stake and that needs to be recognized. Dealing with these issues in a methodical way will ensure fewer people are harmed and that the state's money is used in an effective way.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 50,000 hazardous waste sites exist in the US. 90% of these pose potential health threats due to poor location and poor management. 2000 are currently threatening the health of communities. We can learn from past experiences such as the disaster at Love Canal.
Hooker Electrochemical Corporation filled the canal with toxic chemicals and then covered them up. Years later the land was sold to the Board of Education. Schools and homes were built on top of and around the site of the canal. The residents could tell that something was wrong because toxins could be seen seeping through the dirt into their basements, strange puddles and odors, and some people and children were getting very sick and had chemical burns. At first the Niagra Falls Health Division took no action, but the residents pushed for it. Eventually the homes immediately surrounding the canal were evacuated and a fence put up. The families in the other homes were told they were safe by the Health Department; but they didn't believe it, they knew there was evidence that chemicals had moved beyond the fence. Beverly Paigen was a scientific researcher and began to survey the people living nearby for birth defects, illness, miscarriages, and so on. She found that there was a much higher than normal frequency among families who lived in homes that had been along former stream beds (since filled in), "wet homes." She reported her findings, and the Health Department decided to evacuate only families with children under 2 years of age or women who could prove they were pregnant. This was far too little, but the department seems to have been stalling over the "controversies."
The 2 opposing sides in the controversy were the community vs. the health department. This has happened at a number of other hazardous waste sites. Once the antagonism there were several factors causing delay, impeding a resolution:
1. Either side may have something to gain by not resolving the controversy. Money and precedent would have been lost by the state.
2. Opponents don't agree on the question that needs to be answered, or even what an answer might imply.
3. More than one group should be in charge of gathering and interpreting information/data, since the outcome will be greatly reflected by this. Preferrably a neutral third party.
4. People who express dissident and minority opinions must be allowed to do so. They should not be demoted, transferred, or harassed. This does not resolve the problem!
5. Scientists should follow proper protocol such as openness of data, peer review and criticism, publication of data, and experimental replication. This will give accountability and allow errors to be detected.
6. Both sides should agree on what facts need resolving, who should resolve the controversy, the procedures by which those people will do the research, interpret the data, etc. and they must agree to abide by what is implied by the findings. Unethical conduct should be severely penalized. Some examples by the state on the Love Canal controversy are appointment of a secret decision panel, manipulation of health data, huge unexplained delays, harassment of employees with different views, and discouragement of independent, professional health studies.
An official process should be developed to ensure that the next time this happens (as it inevitably will), it can be dealt with in the most effective way possible. These issues are not just scientific, but also ethical...people's lives are at stake and that needs to be recognized. Dealing with these issues in a methodical way will ensure fewer people are harmed and that the state's money is used in an effective way.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Understanding the Concept of "Voting with your Wallet"
Analysis of My Purchases for One Week (Activity from the Resource List
I kept track of all my purchases for one week between Friday, March 12th and Thursday, March 18th. Below I have listed what the item purchased is, where it was purchased, and the cost of the item/service. I am also supposed to classify each item with a screening criteria, "good, bad or ugly." This should force me to weigh all the factors involved such as: environmental impact, social impact, local or foreign, corporate or small business and so on.
- groceries from Superstore: $33.12 -UGLY-
- documentary film "No Impact Man" at the MB Eco-network film festival: $10 -good-
- raffle "donation" at film festival: $20: $20 -good-
- organic apple cider at film festival: $2 -good-
- donation to the homeless through UMSU: $2 -good-
- groceries from Organza: $44.31 -good-
- cell phone bill from Rogers: $52.11 -bad-
- stamps from Canada Post: $7.03 -good-
- coffee from Tim Hortons: $1.57 -UGLY
Good: $85.34 (49.6%)
Most of the items in the good category seem fairly intuitive. I went to the MB Eco-network's first environmental film festival last Friday night and it was great. I feel that my money was well spent because I met and talked with other environmentally-minded people and got to know them, so it was a very social event; also the money raised goes to the Eco-network (a smaller, local organization) and so helps support environmental issues. I was actually considering putting the raffle ticket that I bought in the bad category though, because although I wasn't really expecting to win anything (and thought of it more as a donation)...but in my heart I think I actually did want to win something, which is somewhat selfish. I think my own personal motivations should also count to some extent in the classification! I also donated some change to the "5 Days for the Homeless" campaign that UMSU had put on this week, which has positive social impacts. And I bought some stamps so I can pay my rent. I classified this under good because there really is no other way to pay my rent except by cheque. I pay my other bills by direct deposit to mimimize paper waste.
Last in the good category...Organza. I blogged about my struggles of shopping there last time. The cost and the distance to get there were my main issues. But I did it! It did hurt a little, but I did it. It mostly hurt because it was very very expensive. The broccoli cost ~$6.50 and somehow I accidentally picked up a cucumber that was $5.49! One cucumber! $5.49! As I exited the store, crossed the parking lot, waited at the bus stop, and rode the bus home I was chanting to myself..."You're doing a good thing. This is just how much food should cost. You're doing a good thing." Over and over. So yes, I had some anxiety, but I am proud of myself, and do plan to go back. I am going to shop for what I can from this grocery store from now on. But they definitely don't have everything so I will still need to shop at places like Safeway and Superstore. I also made a customer service call to Safeway requesting more variety in their organic produce section. In any case, I had never realized before that where and what I spend my money on really matters. And now I want to vote with my dollar. Every time I spend my money on something I want to be able to say, "I am proud to be supporting they way this product was produced, the people who made it, and the business that's selling it." I feel like I am making a small but significant mark on the economy. And more importantly, when I talk to others about my decisions, I will legitimately be able to say, "This is important..." and be able to back up my statement since my actions reflect my values. This is important enough that I will spend the little money I have on what I believe in. I hope it will help the other people in my life to think about the power they have in their spending habits as well.
Bad: $52.11 (30.3%)
The lone item in my bad category is my phone bill. My provider is Rogers and I truly detest them. In the past it has just been for their money-grabbing ways and horrid customer service. But now I realize there are many more reasons to detest them. We learned about "planned obsolescence" in class and I realize that this is exactly what Rogers and other cell phone providers do. They deliberately plan to have their cell phones go out of style and be outdated to prod the consumer/user to abandon it far before the end of its useful life. Or they are just poorly made! I'm SURE there is a way to make phones that aren't so easily damaged by water/condensation/temperature fluctuations.... Lately I've been noticing the Blackberry craze spreading like wildfire. I feel like screaming sometimes! "Don't you people realize it will never end!?" The next time I need a new cellphone (hopefully not for a long long time) I am getting one of those big, old clunky ones in protest!
However, I put this in the bad category because I really have no choice but to have a phone....and from what I hear, one provider is just as bad as the next. I am giving myself a break since there isn't really a better option.
Ugly: $34.69 (20.2%)
I put my Tim Hortons coffee in the ugly category. First of all, the cups that Tims gives out are not recyclable anywhere that I know of in Winnipeg. If you check out the Tim Hortons FAQ it says that their cup can be recycled but is not accepted for recycling everywhere at this time. My thought is that that could be said of pretty much anything. As far as I'm concerned, if it is not "practically" possible to be recycled it is bad, and they should redesign it so it can be. Also, Tim Hortons does not technically have fair trade coffee. It does support growers through "sustainability programs" though. The difference is that Fair Trade means that the growers are certified and are paid a certain amount for their beans, while the sustainability program means they are "building relationships" with farmers and providing them with financial assistance. Personally I would be happier knowing that the coffee producers were being paid a decent wage. Tims is a Canadian business, but not a small business by any means. And lastly I consider this an ugly purchase because I feel it's a nutritional waste.
My last ugly purchase was groceries from Superstore. I tried to minimize the ugliness by getting as much organic produce as I could, but some of the things I needed were not available organic. Superstore is another big business, generating tons of waste. I've seen first hand the plastic waste that is used for delivering shipments of goods, etc. and it is not pretty. Their cardboard is likely recycled because they would get money back for that. But the majority is ugly and I can't deny it. Since my dollar vote revelation my shopping here will be at the barest minimum.
Grand Total: $172.14
The largest percentage of my purchases were from the good category (49.6%). I think that if I did this over a month this percentage would be much higher because my rent (and tuition) is where the majority of my money goes. So this is a good thing...although I know I can do better! I want to do better!
I've always tried to keep a budget but I've never quite looked at it this way before. This Environmental Science class has me looking at everything in a new way. I was aware of many of the issues before but now I feel much more involved, and like I actually have an impact... I am wondering if what I do will make little ripples in the pond or add up to a big splash! I'm not going to hide it...I'm hoping to save the world. Hopefully this Supergirl's attempts to fly don't end with me falling on my face!
Works Cited:
Business Dictionary. Planned Obsolescence, 2010. Found at: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/planned-obsolescence.html Retrieved on: March 19, 2010.
Tim Hortons. FAQ, 2009. Found at: http://www.timhortons.com/ca/en/about/faq.html Retrieved on: March 19, 2010.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Towards Sustainable Development
Summary of Selection 39
The main idea behind sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. With this idea in mind we can see that the needs of the present poor people of the world must have priority; their essential, most basic needs are not being met. This development requires a transformation of our economy and society. All people can have living standards above the basic minimum IF developed countries reduce our consumption. We must better distinguish needs and wants, and have a change in our values. Then the economy in these countries should grow. Their population should also remain stable or ideally decrease to reduce the strain on resources.
Sustainable development must not endanger our natural systems, as we have up until this point. Unlimited population growth combined with resource use can only lead us to an ecological disaster (even worse than the one we are experiencing now). Physical ecosystems can be used, but responsibly! All the factors and relationships must be considered first. The regeneration and natural growth of environmental resources should be greater than the depletion we cause. Non-renewable resources should be used to a minimum...however, we can use them up as long as there are new technologies/resources available for future generations. We must prevent extinction of species on Earth...once they are gone, they're gone. Common resources such as air and water must be preserved.
We need to find ways to get people and businesses to not exploit "the commons" (our common resources), and also to not exploit other people (especially the poor). Ecological interactions don't have property boundaries, making the commons far too easy to take advantage of. We should have some kind of enforcement for the "common interest." This could be through education, laws, taxes, subsidies, etc. This needs to be global and regional, not just local; although it could be difficult since there is no superauthority to resolve issues and conflicts that will arise. Unfortunately, most "solutions" inevitably leave some better off than others...making it hard to promote the "common interest." We should try to avoid this social injustice. Technological development should be concentrated on helping developing countries first (ex. arid land agriculture). All new technologies/upgrades should be checked for environmental impact first; public policy should encourage this through incentives and disincentives (for commercial organizations as well).
Sustainable development requires economic and environmental considerations both in decision making. A healthy environment actually improves the long term economic prospects. We need to avoid short sightedness and isolated thinking. The intersectoral connections/interdependance must be reflected in our policies. Community support and participation are needed to make this model work. It would help if our environmental objectives were built into taxation of private and public enterprises- which should be on an international as well as local level. If carried through, the sustainable development goals/requirements are an effective strategy for bringing balance between all human and natural systems.
The main idea behind sustainable development is meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. With this idea in mind we can see that the needs of the present poor people of the world must have priority; their essential, most basic needs are not being met. This development requires a transformation of our economy and society. All people can have living standards above the basic minimum IF developed countries reduce our consumption. We must better distinguish needs and wants, and have a change in our values. Then the economy in these countries should grow. Their population should also remain stable or ideally decrease to reduce the strain on resources.
Sustainable development must not endanger our natural systems, as we have up until this point. Unlimited population growth combined with resource use can only lead us to an ecological disaster (even worse than the one we are experiencing now). Physical ecosystems can be used, but responsibly! All the factors and relationships must be considered first. The regeneration and natural growth of environmental resources should be greater than the depletion we cause. Non-renewable resources should be used to a minimum...however, we can use them up as long as there are new technologies/resources available for future generations. We must prevent extinction of species on Earth...once they are gone, they're gone. Common resources such as air and water must be preserved.
We need to find ways to get people and businesses to not exploit "the commons" (our common resources), and also to not exploit other people (especially the poor). Ecological interactions don't have property boundaries, making the commons far too easy to take advantage of. We should have some kind of enforcement for the "common interest." This could be through education, laws, taxes, subsidies, etc. This needs to be global and regional, not just local; although it could be difficult since there is no superauthority to resolve issues and conflicts that will arise. Unfortunately, most "solutions" inevitably leave some better off than others...making it hard to promote the "common interest." We should try to avoid this social injustice. Technological development should be concentrated on helping developing countries first (ex. arid land agriculture). All new technologies/upgrades should be checked for environmental impact first; public policy should encourage this through incentives and disincentives (for commercial organizations as well).
Sustainable development requires economic and environmental considerations both in decision making. A healthy environment actually improves the long term economic prospects. We need to avoid short sightedness and isolated thinking. The intersectoral connections/interdependance must be reflected in our policies. Community support and participation are needed to make this model work. It would help if our environmental objectives were built into taxation of private and public enterprises- which should be on an international as well as local level. If carried through, the sustainable development goals/requirements are an effective strategy for bringing balance between all human and natural systems.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Faster, Fatter, Bigger, Cheaper
Reflection on "Food Inc."
This movie makes me sick to my stomach because the food industry is something of which my family is a part of. The opening of the film explains how the general public is being decieved; that they are led to believe that their food is being produced on a lovely country farm, with a red barn and green pastures, while in reality, this is a complete fantasy. The ironic thing is that this is exactly how my family farm is! We have a red barn, lovely green fields, and some of the happiest cattle you ever did see. At least until we sell them at the auction mart. I asked my Dad and he said they are sold to a feedlot after that. He has personally never seen a feedlot though. I wonder if he would still want to sell them if he knew. I wonder if most farmers around my hometown would. Although my Dad believes that humans are "above" the animals (in his traditional Catholic way), he has always treated the animals on our farm very well. Any time us kids wanted to shirk our chores he would yell out, "Do YOU like to eat and drink?! Well, the cows like to eat too!" Clearly the people running these industries don't have a fraction of the concern for the animals my Dad does. And if they aren't caring for the animals WE eat, then they aren't caring for us either. The sad thing is that as much as my Dad might care, he is not the end of the line. I need to believe there is some way he could be, and want to find out how to make that possible.
The overweight family of 4 also made me sad. I agree that generally speaking "bad food" at the grocery store is cheaper than fruits and vegetables. But then again, they spent $12 at a fast food restaurant when they could gotten much better value for their money at the grocery store. For example, 1 loaf of bread for $3, 1 jar of peanut butter $3-5 (depending on the jar), 1 bag of apples $5, and 1 bag of carrots $2. This is a quick, easy and cheap lunch. Maddening to see them going for the soft drinks and denying their little girl some pears. If I was offered 20 bottles of pop or just ONE pear I would choose the pear hands down. Why? Because the pop has NO NUTRITIONAL VALUE! It is completely worthless. It's several moments of pleasure that equal a lifetime of pain. It's really the biggest scam that ever existed. These companies are making people PAY to get themselves sick. And they do it so so well! I have read many articles on the combination of sugar, salt, and fat that food companies layer into food so that we crave it again and again. Basically these combinations stimulate the brain to release dopamine which is an instant pleasure rush. Food addiction is very real. And the public needs to be better educated about it, otherwise they have no way to escape. Breaking the cycle IS possible and absolutely wonderful. But that choice can't be made until they know there is another option! I also want to note that it's not just the "lower-class" that needs to be educated. There is so much tricky labelling, decieving advertising, misunderstandings/debate about what is healthy or not that absolutely everyone needs to learn. My Mom is a doctor and tried to teach me everything she knew but I still ended up this way...until I continued my food education. It's fundamentally a food problem, not a weight problem.
Inspiring evidence?
Me at ~242 lbs! =(
Currently me!
~160 lbs! (in 10 months and still going!) =)
The patenting of genes by Monsanto is also very disturbing. It seems that they have an even firmer grip in America than in Canada, because they are suing farmers and actually getting away with it. We learned about the case of Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto in a lawsuit over some Round-up ready canola getting into Percy's seed (by unknown/accidental causes), and Monsanto thereby suing him for patent violations. Thankfully Percy won his battle in Canada; his case can now be applied to other farmers in similar situations. From what I've heard Monsanto sounds like a complete monster. I went to their website and found out that their headquarters is in Winnipeg! Monsanto monsters among us!? Personally my family hasn't had any issues with Monsanto. My Dad has been using "Round-up Ready" canola for quite a few years now. (And he is getting aggravated by all my questions!) But it seems to me Monsanto only really has a problem with you if you are one of those few farmers who isn't using their product. Those farmers are getting fewer and fewer...90% of soybean crops are round-up ready in the US (Source: Food Inc.), and 50% of canola crops in Saskatchewan are round-up ready (Source: Schmeiser vs. Monsanto website). This is a trend we definitely want to reverse since pesticide use period is very bad for the environment; just one of the plethora of negative methods used on our land by conventional farming.
The patenting of genes by Monsanto is also very disturbing. It seems that they have an even firmer grip in America than in Canada, because they are suing farmers and actually getting away with it. We learned about the case of Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto in a lawsuit over some Round-up ready canola getting into Percy's seed (by unknown/accidental causes), and Monsanto thereby suing him for patent violations. Thankfully Percy won his battle in Canada; his case can now be applied to other farmers in similar situations. From what I've heard Monsanto sounds like a complete monster. I went to their website and found out that their headquarters is in Winnipeg! Monsanto monsters among us!? Personally my family hasn't had any issues with Monsanto. My Dad has been using "Round-up Ready" canola for quite a few years now. (And he is getting aggravated by all my questions!) But it seems to me Monsanto only really has a problem with you if you are one of those few farmers who isn't using their product. Those farmers are getting fewer and fewer...90% of soybean crops are round-up ready in the US (Source: Food Inc.), and 50% of canola crops in Saskatchewan are round-up ready (Source: Schmeiser vs. Monsanto website). This is a trend we definitely want to reverse since pesticide use period is very bad for the environment; just one of the plethora of negative methods used on our land by conventional farming.
And the last part of this film that made me feel even worse was the honest plea to "use your money to vote" for healthy (for the people, planet, and animals), sustainable ways of growing food. Especially since in my last blog reflection I wrote about how I couldn't always shop organic because of x, y, and z reasons. Well this movie just put one more weight on my shoulders that I feel strong enough to bear! I'm going to suck it up and take a very long bus ride to the Organza Market on Osbourne once a week. "If the people demand good, wholesome food the farmers will provide it." (Food Inc.) Here I am, demanding!
Works Cited:
Livewell 360. Sugar, Salt, and Fat: An Additive Combination? Nov.29/09 Found at: http://livewell360.com/2009/11/sugar-fat-salt-an-addictive-combination/ Retrieved on:
Mar.11/10
Monsanto Canada. Our Pledge. 2006-10. Found at: http://www.monsanto.ca/about/pledge/default.asp Retrieved on: Mar. 11/10
Schmeiser, Percy. Monsanto vs. Schmeiser. 2009. Found at: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ Retrieved on: Mar.11/10
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Women's Indiginous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation
Summary of Selection 41
Gender and diversity are linked. Traditionally in society there is a hierarchy system with men on top. Women and the environment are lower/inferior, without intrinsic value. Diversity is lost due to this hierarchy system, leading to the formation of monocultures, uniformity, and homogeneity. Diversity is the basis of women's politics, and the politics of ecology. This is part of the reason why women are so important in environmental issues.
Economies of 3rd world countries traditionally have sustainable lifestyles which maintain biodiversity while meeting their own needs. But there is a general misconception that diversity based production systems have low productivity. This may be true only in a linear, one- dimensional, short term sense, and only for those who have the economic, commercial interests as their priority. Crop uniformity reduces diversity and reduces the labour required to grow food. Labour displacement is actually unproductive because it leads to poverty.
Women's work and knowledge is central to societal systems and agriculture. They have multiple tasks of great volume (usually not paid) which include farming, housework, raising children, cooking, outside work such as gathering and hunting and much much more. Their work is usually discounted by economists and statisticians. Gender bias has also allowed women's work to become invisible. Time allocation studies are more accurate and give them proper credit. Women have complex knowledge and physical strength and skills. They are used in many different areas related to the environment, including the production and preparation of plant foods, in the dairy industry, and even forestry (use of biomass for food/fertilizer). It can be said that women's work links the 'sectors' of agriculture.
Diversity is produced and conserved through the reproduction and conservation of culture. Village women are integral in the festivals and rituals during which tests for seed selection and propagation are performed. 3rd world women produce through biodiversity. Corporate scientists produce through uniformity. They breed seeds that cannot reproduce so farmers cannot save their seed to plant the next year. They also patent their hybrid and/or GMO seeds, which puts further restrictions on seed-saving, since the companies claim intellectual property rights. But their claim that they 'create' life is unjustified. This is also because nature and 3rd world countries 'made' the seed first!
Genetically engineered food is advertised as safe in North America. But there are risks whether or not people are aware of them. They include:
-toxicants added
-decreased nutritional quality
-organisms composition is altered
-proteins are added which could cause allergic reactions
-decreased effectiveness of antibiotics for humans because of antibiotic genes added to food
-deletion of genes may cause side effects we can't anticipate or even dream of
We shouldn't trust pesticide producing companies either (such as Monsanto). Remember, wolves can't turn into green sheep!
Gender and diversity are linked. Traditionally in society there is a hierarchy system with men on top. Women and the environment are lower/inferior, without intrinsic value. Diversity is lost due to this hierarchy system, leading to the formation of monocultures, uniformity, and homogeneity. Diversity is the basis of women's politics, and the politics of ecology. This is part of the reason why women are so important in environmental issues.
Economies of 3rd world countries traditionally have sustainable lifestyles which maintain biodiversity while meeting their own needs. But there is a general misconception that diversity based production systems have low productivity. This may be true only in a linear, one- dimensional, short term sense, and only for those who have the economic, commercial interests as their priority. Crop uniformity reduces diversity and reduces the labour required to grow food. Labour displacement is actually unproductive because it leads to poverty.
Women's work and knowledge is central to societal systems and agriculture. They have multiple tasks of great volume (usually not paid) which include farming, housework, raising children, cooking, outside work such as gathering and hunting and much much more. Their work is usually discounted by economists and statisticians. Gender bias has also allowed women's work to become invisible. Time allocation studies are more accurate and give them proper credit. Women have complex knowledge and physical strength and skills. They are used in many different areas related to the environment, including the production and preparation of plant foods, in the dairy industry, and even forestry (use of biomass for food/fertilizer). It can be said that women's work links the 'sectors' of agriculture.
Diversity is produced and conserved through the reproduction and conservation of culture. Village women are integral in the festivals and rituals during which tests for seed selection and propagation are performed. 3rd world women produce through biodiversity. Corporate scientists produce through uniformity. They breed seeds that cannot reproduce so farmers cannot save their seed to plant the next year. They also patent their hybrid and/or GMO seeds, which puts further restrictions on seed-saving, since the companies claim intellectual property rights. But their claim that they 'create' life is unjustified. This is also because nature and 3rd world countries 'made' the seed first!
Genetically engineered food is advertised as safe in North America. But there are risks whether or not people are aware of them. They include:
-toxicants added
-decreased nutritional quality
-organisms composition is altered
-proteins are added which could cause allergic reactions
-decreased effectiveness of antibiotics for humans because of antibiotic genes added to food
-deletion of genes may cause side effects we can't anticipate or even dream of
We shouldn't trust pesticide producing companies either (such as Monsanto). Remember, wolves can't turn into green sheep!
Monday, March 8, 2010
My Marvelous Meals
Blog Reflection: Food and You
Write down your food intake for the next 48 hours. What foods do you eat regularly? What environmental concerns relate to your diet?
Here is what I've been eating...I took a few pictures too.
Sunday, March 7th
Breakfast:
shredded wheat
2 T. walnuts
1 T. raisins
1 c. skim milk
1 grapefruit
It is very frustrating to be in this position. All people should have better access to organic food, and at better prices. If more farmers decided to grow and sell their produce organically and locally, it would be much better for the people and the environment which we are a part of. I don't want to support the tons of pesticides and herbicides that are sprayed onto the land every year. Having those good fresh foods available would also benefit people's health. It seems to me that the rising obesity levels and disease caused/related to obesity (such as diabetes, heart attacks, stroke, etc.) are clear warning sign that humans are not in harmony with our environment. Clearly the processed foods packed with salt, sugar, and fat are not good for anyone. But it seems that not everyone is as keen on having the idea of having a farmer's market nearby as me. I asked my roommate if she would go a few times per week to get fresh produce if there was one nearby. She said no, and that she didn't have enough time to get to Safeway once a week as it is. She has an office job and works a lot of overtime. More evidence for unhealthy lifestyles that lead to unhealthy eating and an unhealthy environment....so that made me quite sad to hear. My boyfriend has been trying to follow my eating habits whenever possible. He makes a lot of faces, but really has been very good about trying new things. Shopping from a Farmer's Market for healthy food just might be something that people would have to learn to include in their daily routine. Just like regular exercise or taking the time to cook healthily at home, it's a matter of priorities. Personally, I've learned to put my health first, understanding that before I can take care of anyone else, I have to take care of myself. And ultimately taking care of myself equates to taking care of everyone...if it means I push for organic food to be more available, more community gardening space, more Farmer's Markets, etc.
Something I am seriously discussing with my Dad and brothers right now is switching over our farm from conventional to organic. And by discussing I mean it's basically me trying to convince them that this would be a good thing! I am very excited to go to the Environmental Career Fair on Wednesday to see if there is anything I can learn that might help my argument. I believe the Organic Food Council of Manitoba is going to be there so I hope to get some information from them. It seems that this idea is especially hard for my Dad to grasp. Suggesting that he reduce the amount of land he has, sell most of his machinery, and drastically change the way he has been farming for years feels like a step backwards to him. Especially since he has worked so so hard his whole life to get where he is right now...learning that it hasn't been the best path is very difficult to hear. I think many farmers in the area where I grew up would feel quite similarly. What I think is needed is a consultant/educator to come and pitch the idea in a realistic way; one that includes exactly how switching over from conventional to organic farming would work. It's becoming my dream more and more that my family farm becomes organic, and hopefully someday my brothers and I might be selling local, organic produce at a Farmer's Market near you!
Works Cited:
Eat It, Canada's Online Organic Store. http://www.eatit.ca/default.asp Retrieved on: Mar. 10/10
Health Canada. Obesity. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/obes-eng.php Oct 2006. Retrieved on: Mar. 10/10
Write down your food intake for the next 48 hours. What foods do you eat regularly? What environmental concerns relate to your diet?
Here is what I've been eating...I took a few pictures too.
Sunday, March 7th
Breakfast:
shredded wheat
2 T. walnuts
1 T. raisins
1 c. skim milk
1 grapefruit
Lunch:
2 slices whole grain bread
1 T. peanut butter
1 T. jam (no sugar added)
1 c. snap peas
55 g. carrot sticks
celery sticks
2 T. hummus
Activia yogurt
1/4 c. granola
apple
Supper:
2/3 c. brown rice
3 oz. chicken (breast meat and wing)
1 1/2 c. broccoli
1 tomato
mushrooms
1 c. skim milk
1/2 c. grapes
Monday, March 8th
Breakfast:
1 c. Kashi Go Lean cereal
1 c. skim milk
1 hard boiled egg
1/2 grapefruit
Lunch:
1 c. rice
3 oz. chicken
1 c. green beans
1 c. broccoli
Activia yogurt
1/4 c. granola
apple
Supper:
2 slices whole grain bread
1 T. peanut butter
1 T. jam
55 g. carrots
cucumber slices
mushrooms
1 c. snap peas
celery
2 pc. light Laughing Cow Cheese
1 c. skim milk
banana 
So as you can see, I have extremely healthy eating habits. I have 3 meals a day, no snacks. Every meal I have whole grains, tons of vegetables, a fruit, and a serving of low fat dairy. I have 6 oz. or less of meat, fish, poultry, and meat substitutes (such as cheese, cottage cheese, tofu etc.) per day. I eat very little red meat, usually I have chicken or turkey breast or salmon. I also eat 2-3 servings of healthy fats per day (such as nuts, peanut butter, olive oil, margarine etc.) I drink a LOT of water. I try to stay away from processed foods as much as possible; and I rarely eat out anymore. I plan my meals in advance, write everything down and stay within a calorie limit for the day (1500-1700 calories). I've been eating this way since May 2009, and combined with a regular exercise routine, change of lifestyle habits and mentality have lost 80 lbs!
It is very frustrating to be in this position. All people should have better access to organic food, and at better prices. If more farmers decided to grow and sell their produce organically and locally, it would be much better for the people and the environment which we are a part of. I don't want to support the tons of pesticides and herbicides that are sprayed onto the land every year. Having those good fresh foods available would also benefit people's health. It seems to me that the rising obesity levels and disease caused/related to obesity (such as diabetes, heart attacks, stroke, etc.) are clear warning sign that humans are not in harmony with our environment. Clearly the processed foods packed with salt, sugar, and fat are not good for anyone. But it seems that not everyone is as keen on having the idea of having a farmer's market nearby as me. I asked my roommate if she would go a few times per week to get fresh produce if there was one nearby. She said no, and that she didn't have enough time to get to Safeway once a week as it is. She has an office job and works a lot of overtime. More evidence for unhealthy lifestyles that lead to unhealthy eating and an unhealthy environment....so that made me quite sad to hear. My boyfriend has been trying to follow my eating habits whenever possible. He makes a lot of faces, but really has been very good about trying new things. Shopping from a Farmer's Market for healthy food just might be something that people would have to learn to include in their daily routine. Just like regular exercise or taking the time to cook healthily at home, it's a matter of priorities. Personally, I've learned to put my health first, understanding that before I can take care of anyone else, I have to take care of myself. And ultimately taking care of myself equates to taking care of everyone...if it means I push for organic food to be more available, more community gardening space, more Farmer's Markets, etc.
Something I am seriously discussing with my Dad and brothers right now is switching over our farm from conventional to organic. And by discussing I mean it's basically me trying to convince them that this would be a good thing! I am very excited to go to the Environmental Career Fair on Wednesday to see if there is anything I can learn that might help my argument. I believe the Organic Food Council of Manitoba is going to be there so I hope to get some information from them. It seems that this idea is especially hard for my Dad to grasp. Suggesting that he reduce the amount of land he has, sell most of his machinery, and drastically change the way he has been farming for years feels like a step backwards to him. Especially since he has worked so so hard his whole life to get where he is right now...learning that it hasn't been the best path is very difficult to hear. I think many farmers in the area where I grew up would feel quite similarly. What I think is needed is a consultant/educator to come and pitch the idea in a realistic way; one that includes exactly how switching over from conventional to organic farming would work. It's becoming my dream more and more that my family farm becomes organic, and hopefully someday my brothers and I might be selling local, organic produce at a Farmer's Market near you!
Works Cited:
Eat It, Canada's Online Organic Store. http://www.eatit.ca/default.asp Retrieved on: Mar. 10/10
Health Canada. Obesity. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/obes-eng.php Oct 2006. Retrieved on: Mar. 10/10
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Agricultural Crisis as a Crisis of Culture
Summary of Selection 27
The old way of life has all but disappeared. There once was many small family farms throughout the countryside. They grew their own gardens, produced meat, milk and eggs, and grew a variety of grain crops. "Minor surpluses" were sold locally to neighbors, such as extra eggs or cream. Workmanship and thrift were ideals to be proud of. This was not a perfect society, but had many good qualities and values. Sadly, this way of life has been scorned and abandoned by "modern" society and its people. It has been labelled as an outdated, outmoded, and unscientific way of life.
There have been many changes in the farm system. They are much larger and more mechanized, with fewer owners total. More land is owned by city-dwellers. Many of the better farms are deteriorating for lack of manpower, time, and money. Mainly the elderly are left farming, and their children will typically not want to stay on the farm. Who can blame them? The lifestyle is too costly, too much work, stressful and perhaps "unfashionable." Most people's goals in life are now leisure/comfort and entertainment. There is no market for minor produce anymore , all in the name of "sanitation." There is a connection between the "modernization" of agricultural techniques and the disintegration of the culture/communities of farming. Millions of people who used to live in the country were/are displaced to cities. The saying "get big or get out" has been forced onto them, and many have indeed gotten out. Even those who "got big" are driven out by those who got bigger. These ideas did not come from farmers, they came from institutions, university experts, bureaucrats, and "agribusinessmen." Ultimately this has led to the state we are now in, where we have "efficiency" at the expense of community, and quantity at the expense of quality.
Food is a cultural product. It cannot be produced by technology alone. To believe this greatly oversimplifies the nature of agriculture. A healthy farm culture has many aspects of knowledge. It must grow among people established on the land. The movement from farm to city has caused a simplification of the human mind and character. A competant farmer is his own boss. He has personal discipline, experiences, judgement and a vast knowledge base. He works according to necessity, interest and obligation. For a man to move from this lifestyle to a "simple" job in an industry in a city is very easy, but he will lose his knowledge and values. Going back from a "city/simplified" lifestyle to a "farm" lifestyle is very difficult. If we are to transition back to a farm based society it could take generations because of this. Farmers have extremely complex knowledge and it would take a long time to build up that knowledge base again.
In a natural system, whatever affects one thing ultimately affects everything. In a good agricultural system, this should be recognized. This should also be recognized in our cultural system. Our concerns and enterprises must not be fragmented or exploitive. We need cooperation in our relationships, with competition reduced. We need to recognize that there is no such thing as an entirely limitable or controllable effect. Recognition of this makes us responsible for our judgements as well as facts. The fragmentary culture/mindset is destructive because the true/total effects of an action are not considered. We cannot continue to have this "moral ignorance" driving our agricultural progress.
The old way of life has all but disappeared. There once was many small family farms throughout the countryside. They grew their own gardens, produced meat, milk and eggs, and grew a variety of grain crops. "Minor surpluses" were sold locally to neighbors, such as extra eggs or cream. Workmanship and thrift were ideals to be proud of. This was not a perfect society, but had many good qualities and values. Sadly, this way of life has been scorned and abandoned by "modern" society and its people. It has been labelled as an outdated, outmoded, and unscientific way of life.
There have been many changes in the farm system. They are much larger and more mechanized, with fewer owners total. More land is owned by city-dwellers. Many of the better farms are deteriorating for lack of manpower, time, and money. Mainly the elderly are left farming, and their children will typically not want to stay on the farm. Who can blame them? The lifestyle is too costly, too much work, stressful and perhaps "unfashionable." Most people's goals in life are now leisure/comfort and entertainment. There is no market for minor produce anymore , all in the name of "sanitation." There is a connection between the "modernization" of agricultural techniques and the disintegration of the culture/communities of farming. Millions of people who used to live in the country were/are displaced to cities. The saying "get big or get out" has been forced onto them, and many have indeed gotten out. Even those who "got big" are driven out by those who got bigger. These ideas did not come from farmers, they came from institutions, university experts, bureaucrats, and "agribusinessmen." Ultimately this has led to the state we are now in, where we have "efficiency" at the expense of community, and quantity at the expense of quality.
Food is a cultural product. It cannot be produced by technology alone. To believe this greatly oversimplifies the nature of agriculture. A healthy farm culture has many aspects of knowledge. It must grow among people established on the land. The movement from farm to city has caused a simplification of the human mind and character. A competant farmer is his own boss. He has personal discipline, experiences, judgement and a vast knowledge base. He works according to necessity, interest and obligation. For a man to move from this lifestyle to a "simple" job in an industry in a city is very easy, but he will lose his knowledge and values. Going back from a "city/simplified" lifestyle to a "farm" lifestyle is very difficult. If we are to transition back to a farm based society it could take generations because of this. Farmers have extremely complex knowledge and it would take a long time to build up that knowledge base again.
In a natural system, whatever affects one thing ultimately affects everything. In a good agricultural system, this should be recognized. This should also be recognized in our cultural system. Our concerns and enterprises must not be fragmented or exploitive. We need cooperation in our relationships, with competition reduced. We need to recognize that there is no such thing as an entirely limitable or controllable effect. Recognition of this makes us responsible for our judgements as well as facts. The fragmentary culture/mindset is destructive because the true/total effects of an action are not considered. We cannot continue to have this "moral ignorance" driving our agricultural progress.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Environmental, Energetic and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems
Summary of Selection 29
Our agricultural system depends heavily on synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, which have negative public health, environmental, and economic effects. Some of these are contaminated streams and groundwater, huge health care costs ($12 billion/year in the US), nutrients from the fertilizer and manure destroy water ecosystems, soil erosion and more. Certified organic agriculture with integrated pest and nutrient management will reduce reliance on chemicals while helping the environment and remaining economically sound. Organic agriculture uses ecological processes to help plants grow while conserving soil and water.
An experiment was done to compare organic and conventional farming. 3 cropping systems were used:
1) Conventional cropping- synthetic fertilizer and herbicide use
2) Organic "animal-based" cropping- used animal manure as nitrogen source (fertilizer), no herbicides
3) Organic Legume based- used a nitrogen fixing legume crop for fertilizer, no herbicides
Crop biomass, weed biomass, grain yield, nitrate leaching, herbicide leaching, percolated water volumes, soil carbon, soil nitrogen, and soil water content were measured and compared. Generally, results were very positive for the organic methods. Yields under a normal rainfall were close to the same for all methods (after a 5 year transition period), and under drought conditions the organic methods produced higher yields (due to increased groundwater recharge, decreased runoff and increased soil water content.) Some field tests from Europe and New Zealand indicate a 30-50% decreased yield using organic farming. This could be due to low nitrogen-nutrient levels; although during the first few years of the Rodale study the yields were lower too (transition period). In the long term there should be no difference- providing crop legume rotation and manure fertilization is done properly.
Crop yields and economics of organic systems do vary based on crops, regions and technologies used. However, the environmental benefits are much greater in organic systems. Reduced chemical inputs, decreased soil erosion, water conservation, increased soil organic matter and biodiversity, reduced crop diseases, increased microbes within the soil, decreased oil and natural gas inputs (helping to prevent climate change) are some of the many environmental benefits. There are also economic benefits. Organic produce can sell for 20-140% higher in many countries across the world. Labour inputs are higher than conventional farming, but are more evenly distributed throughout the year allowing for more regular/dependable income for workers.
Some challenges are the it can be difficult to maintain soil fertility (nitrogen levels). The results of the Rodale study may not be universally applicable. Pest and weed control can also be difficult. These difficulties inevitable affect yields negatively. To make adoption of organic farming easier we would require increased knowledge/technology to help. Off season cover crops and extended crop rotation would be needed. We can use natural biodiversity to reduce the use of chemicals (even if it is just slight decreases at first). There are many benefits to organic farming that seem to outweigh the difficulties that may be troublesome at first as we work out the kinks of the method...organic farming is more sustainable and ecologically sound!
Our agricultural system depends heavily on synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, which have negative public health, environmental, and economic effects. Some of these are contaminated streams and groundwater, huge health care costs ($12 billion/year in the US), nutrients from the fertilizer and manure destroy water ecosystems, soil erosion and more. Certified organic agriculture with integrated pest and nutrient management will reduce reliance on chemicals while helping the environment and remaining economically sound. Organic agriculture uses ecological processes to help plants grow while conserving soil and water.
An experiment was done to compare organic and conventional farming. 3 cropping systems were used:
1) Conventional cropping- synthetic fertilizer and herbicide use
2) Organic "animal-based" cropping- used animal manure as nitrogen source (fertilizer), no herbicides
3) Organic Legume based- used a nitrogen fixing legume crop for fertilizer, no herbicides
Crop biomass, weed biomass, grain yield, nitrate leaching, herbicide leaching, percolated water volumes, soil carbon, soil nitrogen, and soil water content were measured and compared. Generally, results were very positive for the organic methods. Yields under a normal rainfall were close to the same for all methods (after a 5 year transition period), and under drought conditions the organic methods produced higher yields (due to increased groundwater recharge, decreased runoff and increased soil water content.) Some field tests from Europe and New Zealand indicate a 30-50% decreased yield using organic farming. This could be due to low nitrogen-nutrient levels; although during the first few years of the Rodale study the yields were lower too (transition period). In the long term there should be no difference- providing crop legume rotation and manure fertilization is done properly.
Crop yields and economics of organic systems do vary based on crops, regions and technologies used. However, the environmental benefits are much greater in organic systems. Reduced chemical inputs, decreased soil erosion, water conservation, increased soil organic matter and biodiversity, reduced crop diseases, increased microbes within the soil, decreased oil and natural gas inputs (helping to prevent climate change) are some of the many environmental benefits. There are also economic benefits. Organic produce can sell for 20-140% higher in many countries across the world. Labour inputs are higher than conventional farming, but are more evenly distributed throughout the year allowing for more regular/dependable income for workers.
Some challenges are the it can be difficult to maintain soil fertility (nitrogen levels). The results of the Rodale study may not be universally applicable. Pest and weed control can also be difficult. These difficulties inevitable affect yields negatively. To make adoption of organic farming easier we would require increased knowledge/technology to help. Off season cover crops and extended crop rotation would be needed. We can use natural biodiversity to reduce the use of chemicals (even if it is just slight decreases at first). There are many benefits to organic farming that seem to outweigh the difficulties that may be troublesome at first as we work out the kinks of the method...organic farming is more sustainable and ecologically sound!
Food Scarcity: An Environmental Wake-up Call
Summary of Selection 28
As environmental damage increases it will inevitably affect the global economy. Every kind of environmental degredation has consequences. Deforestation leads to soil erosion and flooding; carbon released leads to climate change; overusing our aquifers lead to water shortages; overfishing to fisheries collapsing; overgrazing to deforestation; plant and animal decline to ecosystem collapse. Agriculture is the link between environmental deterioration and economic decline. Rising prices of food will be an indicator that economic decline has begun, which will lead to social and political instability. The high prices will have an especially bad effect on the poor of the world; riots would probably ensue, affecting corporations, stock markets and stability. These effects would ultimately affect affluent countries as well. It is becoming more and more difficult to feed the world population (which is growing at 800 million/year), and there are already over 800 million people malnourished in our world. If food prices rose, this number would certainly increase.
Farmers across the world have used methods to increase the land base for farming. Some examples are irrigation, terracing, drainage, fallowing and more. Through these ingenious methods, grain production has increased over time. However, it hasn't kept up with population growth. The grain-land area/person has been shrinking since mid-century. In 1996 there were 0.2 hectares/person. If our grain-land area remains stable and population continues to climb, it is projected that by 2030 there will only be 0.08 hectares/person.
Farmers face the threat of water scarcity. There is a battle between the demand for water for irrigation vs. residential demand. Irrigation is crucial in grain production; grain production was increased by 3X from 1950-90 due to irrigation. Most wheat and rice is grown on irrigated land, although the growth of irrigation has fallen behind population growth. This trend will continue due to the extensive aquifer depletion in the China, India, and the USA (which produce 1/2 the world's grain harvest) and also due to the competition between the cities and countryside for water. Typically the cities win, decreasing production, causing the country/city to import grain.
We can already see the evidence of food scarcity all around us...in the decreased production of oceans (fisheries) and grainland, in the fact that world carryover stocks of grain cannot be replenished, and increasing food prices. Should we take food scarcity as an environmental wake-up call? We must find a balance between food and people. This means finding a balance regarding population control and stabilization, finding environmental solutions, developing technology to help with climate change, and increasing our efficiency in all areas. We need to make better choices and improve our land use policy. For example, there is currently a debate going on in China over auto transport vs. bicycle/rail- there isn't enough land to both feed people and build huge roads and parking lots, so activisits are campaigning for a bicycle and rail system instead.
Food security may mean that the "American Dream" isn't at all realistic. Until recently we have had 3 world food reserves to draw on in case of scarcity.
1) cropland idled under farm programs
2) surplus stocks of grain in storage
3) 1/3 of total world grain harvest that is fed to livestock, poultry, and fish
The first 2 have have been depleted. Drawing on #3 is the "unpopular choice" because people do not want to give up meat...but realistically if the grain was used to directly feed people instead of to feed livestock (which are then fed to people), many many more would be fed. Perhaps there should be a tax on the consumption of livestock products. Our food security depends on creating an environmentally sustainable economy.
As environmental damage increases it will inevitably affect the global economy. Every kind of environmental degredation has consequences. Deforestation leads to soil erosion and flooding; carbon released leads to climate change; overusing our aquifers lead to water shortages; overfishing to fisheries collapsing; overgrazing to deforestation; plant and animal decline to ecosystem collapse. Agriculture is the link between environmental deterioration and economic decline. Rising prices of food will be an indicator that economic decline has begun, which will lead to social and political instability. The high prices will have an especially bad effect on the poor of the world; riots would probably ensue, affecting corporations, stock markets and stability. These effects would ultimately affect affluent countries as well. It is becoming more and more difficult to feed the world population (which is growing at 800 million/year), and there are already over 800 million people malnourished in our world. If food prices rose, this number would certainly increase.
Farmers across the world have used methods to increase the land base for farming. Some examples are irrigation, terracing, drainage, fallowing and more. Through these ingenious methods, grain production has increased over time. However, it hasn't kept up with population growth. The grain-land area/person has been shrinking since mid-century. In 1996 there were 0.2 hectares/person. If our grain-land area remains stable and population continues to climb, it is projected that by 2030 there will only be 0.08 hectares/person.
Farmers face the threat of water scarcity. There is a battle between the demand for water for irrigation vs. residential demand. Irrigation is crucial in grain production; grain production was increased by 3X from 1950-90 due to irrigation. Most wheat and rice is grown on irrigated land, although the growth of irrigation has fallen behind population growth. This trend will continue due to the extensive aquifer depletion in the China, India, and the USA (which produce 1/2 the world's grain harvest) and also due to the competition between the cities and countryside for water. Typically the cities win, decreasing production, causing the country/city to import grain.
We can already see the evidence of food scarcity all around us...in the decreased production of oceans (fisheries) and grainland, in the fact that world carryover stocks of grain cannot be replenished, and increasing food prices. Should we take food scarcity as an environmental wake-up call? We must find a balance between food and people. This means finding a balance regarding population control and stabilization, finding environmental solutions, developing technology to help with climate change, and increasing our efficiency in all areas. We need to make better choices and improve our land use policy. For example, there is currently a debate going on in China over auto transport vs. bicycle/rail- there isn't enough land to both feed people and build huge roads and parking lots, so activisits are campaigning for a bicycle and rail system instead.
Food security may mean that the "American Dream" isn't at all realistic. Until recently we have had 3 world food reserves to draw on in case of scarcity.
1) cropland idled under farm programs
2) surplus stocks of grain in storage
3) 1/3 of total world grain harvest that is fed to livestock, poultry, and fish
The first 2 have have been depleted. Drawing on #3 is the "unpopular choice" because people do not want to give up meat...but realistically if the grain was used to directly feed people instead of to feed livestock (which are then fed to people), many many more would be fed. Perhaps there should be a tax on the consumption of livestock products. Our food security depends on creating an environmentally sustainable economy.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
In My World...
Online Activity: Edward Burtynsky on manufactured landscapes
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/edward_burtynsky_on_manufactured_landscapes.html
Many things about this online video by "Ted"resonated with me. First I'd like to comment on the first few pictures of the open pit mines and other excavation areas. I have to agree with his comment that they are both horrifying yet eerily beautiful at the same time. This picture in particular reminds me of the artwork of Andy Goldsworthy which I blogged about last time. It's so symmetrical with a little splash of color in the bottom...But I feel sad for the real piece of natural art that had to die to make this mine possible. It's hard to believe there once was a mountain here. I was so appalled to see the California oil fields too. Rows and rows of oil wells on empty yellow dirt. I wonder what used to grow there and wish it grew there still.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/edward_burtynsky_on_manufactured_landscapes.html
Many things about this online video by "Ted"resonated with me. First I'd like to comment on the first few pictures of the open pit mines and other excavation areas. I have to agree with his comment that they are both horrifying yet eerily beautiful at the same time. This picture in particular reminds me of the artwork of Andy Goldsworthy which I blogged about last time. It's so symmetrical with a little splash of color in the bottom...But I feel sad for the real piece of natural art that had to die to make this mine possible. It's hard to believe there once was a mountain here. I was so appalled to see the California oil fields too. Rows and rows of oil wells on empty yellow dirt. I wonder what used to grow there and wish it grew there still.
Next he showed some pictures of materials being recycled. Scrap metal pressed into cubes stacked one on top of the other till it builds a huge wall. This reminded me of the movie Wall-e which is a great futuristic movie about what could happen to our planet if we don't take care of it. Wall-e the robot's job is to stack billions of metal cubes into huge pyramids, while the humans are in a spaceship because Earth is no longer fit to live on. I am honestly praying every day that that doesn't happen to our ancestors someday...but I'm not just praying. I feel happy to be taking personal responsibility and action as well.
I was very interested to hear about China's environmental struggles and living conditions because I am going there in May this year! I am going to be living with my cousin who is teaching English there, and not doing very many "touristy" things. I want to get a sense of what daily life is like in China. Judging from the movie, it doesn't seem very pleasant. However, my cousin loves it there, and tells me that there will be lots of opportunities to see where environmental action can be taken, which I'm very excited about. In any case, I was actually glad to see skyscrapers going up in China, instead of houses spreading out all over prime farmland as we do in Manitoba! What I found disturbing was the huge factories with the workers making widgets all day long, the "e-waste" and scrap metal being dumped there, and the Three Gorges Dam. It makes me unspeakably sad to see these people living this life...I am wondering, do they feel like their lives are meaningless? I think they probably don't, they probably feel that they are making a necessary sacrifice for their families; they are providing for them and are proud of that. I feel sad because there is no way those people are reaching their full creative potential, or were given an opportunity to ever do so.
I think that Ted is definitely full-filling his dream of reaching people through his photographs. I think he needs to continue his work, and hope that his wish comes true of making an IMAX movie. I also think that Andy Goldsworthy should make an IMAX movie! Wouldn't it be great to see a combined movie by them. Two very different viewpoints of our world, but perhaps ultimately trying to achieve the same goal...awareness of the world around us.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Managing Wapusk National Park
Blog Reflection:
1. Can parks meet their dual mandate of access for the public and protection?
2. How can this be achieved in Wapusk?
"Parks Canada is responsible for both protecting the ecosystems of these magnificent natural areas and managing them for visitors to understand, appreciate, and enjoy in a way that doesn't compromise their integrity." (Parks Canada website)
The dual mandate of Parks Canada seems to conflict fundamentally. Protecting and preserving an ecosystem seems best done when humans have as little impact as possible. When humans come to an area they bring cars that pollute, maim and kill animals, throw garbage, light fires, and cause noise disturbances and more. At the same time, we want to encourage people to reconnect with nature, to come to appreciate and love the beauty of nature, and National Parks are a convenient place to do this, as wild spaces are getting fewer and fewer. We need to think of ways to balance the needs of wildlife and humans. The environment shouldn't be exploited solely for human enjoyment, but we should still get to participate, view, and enjoy it.
A great way bring more understanding to our generation is to start with the youngsters. I remember way back in Grade 6 my class did a whole unit on Riding Mountain National Park, learning about the animals and plants. We then took a field trip later in the year and got to see it for ourselves. More emphasis should be put on National Parks in the later years of education however. We didn't learn any more about our parks in the rest of my middle or high school education. Some schools are making this a priority though. I found a poster of Wapusk National Park created by a Grade 9 student from Ontario. I would like to see more education on National Parks put into the curriculum. I feel quite ashamed to say I had never heard of Wapusk until Prof. Hunter spoke about it in class.
Works Cited:
Merchant, Nurin. Wapusk National Park. Available from: http://ismailimail.wordpress.com/2007/06/page/4/ Jun.13/07. Retrieved on: Feb.25/10.
Parks Canada. National Parks of Canada- Introduction. Available from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/intro_e.asp Nov.10/08. Retrieved on: Feb.25/10.
1. Can parks meet their dual mandate of access for the public and protection?
2. How can this be achieved in Wapusk?
"Parks Canada is responsible for both protecting the ecosystems of these magnificent natural areas and managing them for visitors to understand, appreciate, and enjoy in a way that doesn't compromise their integrity." (Parks Canada website)
The dual mandate of Parks Canada seems to conflict fundamentally. Protecting and preserving an ecosystem seems best done when humans have as little impact as possible. When humans come to an area they bring cars that pollute, maim and kill animals, throw garbage, light fires, and cause noise disturbances and more. At the same time, we want to encourage people to reconnect with nature, to come to appreciate and love the beauty of nature, and National Parks are a convenient place to do this, as wild spaces are getting fewer and fewer. We need to think of ways to balance the needs of wildlife and humans. The environment shouldn't be exploited solely for human enjoyment, but we should still get to participate, view, and enjoy it.
A great way bring more understanding to our generation is to start with the youngsters. I remember way back in Grade 6 my class did a whole unit on Riding Mountain National Park, learning about the animals and plants. We then took a field trip later in the year and got to see it for ourselves. More emphasis should be put on National Parks in the later years of education however. We didn't learn any more about our parks in the rest of my middle or high school education. Some schools are making this a priority though. I found a poster of Wapusk National Park created by a Grade 9 student from Ontario. I would like to see more education on National Parks put into the curriculum. I feel quite ashamed to say I had never heard of Wapusk until Prof. Hunter spoke about it in class.
Wapusk National Park by Nurin Merchant© Parks Canada
I have some ideas about how to minimize harm to our parks while still allowing people to enjoy them. One is to limit the amount of visitors/year that can come into the park. This would greatly reduce the amount of human disturbance. Similarly, the amount of power boats allowed onto a lake could also be limited to allow a balance between human enjoyment and disruption of the ecosystem. Of course the fines for littering, leaving unattended fires, feeding the animals etc. can always be increased to discourage this type of behaviour. Also we might consider completely isolating large areas of the park solely for wildlife, while leaving smaller areas on the fringes for humans.
As for Wapusk...it definitely needs more public awareness! I asked 5 of my friends if they had ever heard of it, and all said "no." They are all active citizens with university degrees too (a point just to show they aren't hermits who don't interact with the world!). I did see a commercial on TV recently that showed short clips from some National Parks, and Wapusk had a picture of a mama polar bear and her cubs. Although the name "Wapusk National Park" was in tiny font in the corner of the screen, so I don't think it did a very good job. I also searched Wapusk on youtube. I found a very cute video of polar bears again...but it only had 4,157 views! (See it here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZKoTx5-bQ) This park is a hidden treasure and more people need to know about it! Not only will people want to visit, but they may also donate money to the Park for preservation etc. which I'm sure is always appreciated.
Works Cited:
Merchant, Nurin. Wapusk National Park. Available from: http://ismailimail.wordpress.com/2007/06/page/4/ Jun.13/07. Retrieved on: Feb.25/10.
Parks Canada. National Parks of Canada- Introduction. Available from: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/intro_e.asp Nov.10/08. Retrieved on: Feb.25/10.
A Sand Country Almanac
Summary of Selection 4
Aldo Leopold first began to "think like a mountain" when he shot a wolf and watched it die. He began to understand the balance between wolf, deer, mountainside vegetation, and everything else in nature- a very holistic view. He realized that when all the wolves are gone the deer overgraze everything and ravage the mountain. This can also be applied to ranchers/farmers who allow their cows etc. to overgraze. We are all (animals, people, nature) striving for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and "dullness." But too much safety may lead to danger in the long run...
Our ethical criteria should be extended to the wilderness, including soils, waters, plants, and animals. As slaves were once considered only the property of humans, to be used or disposed of at will, the wilderness is now in a similar position. We need to correct this and give it ethical standing too. The Land Ethic is an extension of ethics to the land. It is an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity. When there is a community mindset, our instincts lead us to competition, but our ethics prompt co-operation. Our community "boundry" needs to be enlarged to include the land!
Some obstaces to change are that our educational/economic system does not promote conciousness/connectedness to the land, we have no ecological training, and that our environmental issues are constantly being reduced to economics. Economics should not determine what all land is used for. What should determine it is our priorities, values, forethought, skills and time. The evolution of the land ethic is an intellectual and emotional process that must develop in our community. And like murder, abuse, theft, (etc.), poor treatment of the environment will recieve social disapproval, and good treatment social approval!
Aldo Leopold's classic Land Ethic quote:
"A thing is right when it tends to promote the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." (pg.12)
Aldo Leopold first began to "think like a mountain" when he shot a wolf and watched it die. He began to understand the balance between wolf, deer, mountainside vegetation, and everything else in nature- a very holistic view. He realized that when all the wolves are gone the deer overgraze everything and ravage the mountain. This can also be applied to ranchers/farmers who allow their cows etc. to overgraze. We are all (animals, people, nature) striving for safety, prosperity, comfort, long life, and "dullness." But too much safety may lead to danger in the long run...
Our ethical criteria should be extended to the wilderness, including soils, waters, plants, and animals. As slaves were once considered only the property of humans, to be used or disposed of at will, the wilderness is now in a similar position. We need to correct this and give it ethical standing too. The Land Ethic is an extension of ethics to the land. It is an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity. When there is a community mindset, our instincts lead us to competition, but our ethics prompt co-operation. Our community "boundry" needs to be enlarged to include the land!
Some obstaces to change are that our educational/economic system does not promote conciousness/connectedness to the land, we have no ecological training, and that our environmental issues are constantly being reduced to economics. Economics should not determine what all land is used for. What should determine it is our priorities, values, forethought, skills and time. The evolution of the land ethic is an intellectual and emotional process that must develop in our community. And like murder, abuse, theft, (etc.), poor treatment of the environment will recieve social disapproval, and good treatment social approval!
Aldo Leopold's classic Land Ethic quote:
"A thing is right when it tends to promote the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." (pg.12)
Principles of Conservation
Summary of Selection 3
Conservation principles first began with forestry practices. The conservation movement began in 1908 and still has it's roots in forestry. The first principle of conservation is development. Resources we have should be used for current generations. But we should use what we have in the least wasteful way. For example, we only have a limited supply of coal, which we should use (even use up if we have to) but we should do it in the least wasteful way; so we should perhaps use water travel instead of rail because it uses less coal. The second principle of conservation is prevention of waste. This involves realizing "what is in the control of men." For example, controlling forest fires which destroy "resources" (trees in this case). The third principle is that natural resources must be developed and preserved for the benefit of many (for the longest time), not for the profit of a few.
Conservation advocates the use of foresight, prudence, thrift and intelligence. The 3 principles- development, preservation, and the common good are applicable to many things such as mineral use, water, roads, and good citizenship. This is a common sense approach, when applied, will lead to national efficiency.
Conservation principles first began with forestry practices. The conservation movement began in 1908 and still has it's roots in forestry. The first principle of conservation is development. Resources we have should be used for current generations. But we should use what we have in the least wasteful way. For example, we only have a limited supply of coal, which we should use (even use up if we have to) but we should do it in the least wasteful way; so we should perhaps use water travel instead of rail because it uses less coal. The second principle of conservation is prevention of waste. This involves realizing "what is in the control of men." For example, controlling forest fires which destroy "resources" (trees in this case). The third principle is that natural resources must be developed and preserved for the benefit of many (for the longest time), not for the profit of a few.
Conservation advocates the use of foresight, prudence, thrift and intelligence. The 3 principles- development, preservation, and the common good are applicable to many things such as mineral use, water, roads, and good citizenship. This is a common sense approach, when applied, will lead to national efficiency.
The Alberta Tar Sands
Blog Reflection: What future would you like to see for the Alberta Tar Sands project? Continue current path? Stop development entirely? Some modified continuation?
Land degredation at the Alberta Tar Sands.
The Alberta Tar Sands, and oil drilling in any form in general, can not be the way of the future. The negative effects on the environment are huge. They impact air quality, strip and destroy the land, pollute the water systems, destroy wildlife habitat, disrupt and threaten the animals, and the input of energy (natural gas) to keep the refineries running is huge. There are also many social issues concerning humans- the lifestyle is far from ideal with the constant moving, drugs and alcohol abuse, high cost of living, poor housing, and isolation from friends and families. But regardless of all these horrible consequences that come from drilling/refining oil, there is one that should be convincing for everyone... whether they care about the environment or not. The reason we need to stop development is that the oil simply will not last. It is just not sustainable; it WILL eventually run out. To me it makes absolutely no sense to continue to put money, time, and resources into something you know will not last. All those resources should be put into developing sustainable forms of energy, changing our development style (for cities etc.), and our lifestyles.I discussed this issue with a few of my cousins and Aunts and Uncles at our family supper we have every Sunday. Everyone seems to agree that the environmental and social issues are serious. They also all agreed that developing new kinds of renewable energy sources is a good idea. But my Uncle John and Uncle Mike mentioned that shutting down the tar sands would be bad economically and many jobs would be lost, so it really wouldn't be an easy thing to do. These seem like some major reasons why people would object to stopping development of the tar sands. But again, I think we have to get our heads around the fact that it really doesn't matter...those jobs WILL be lost someday whether we like it or not...either we close it voluntarily, or are forced to close because we've run out of oil. Shouldn't we do the smart thing and start our transition right now? There will be more jobs and money generated by the development and research!
Our world without oil (or at least greatly reduced consumption of it) means a lifestyle that is not dependant on cars. I now have experience with this as I gave up my car in October 2009 for 3 reasons: to save money, to stay healthy and get more exercise, and to help the environment. It has definitely been a success, and I see no reason why close to 100% of people living in the city couldn't adapt to this kind of lifestyle change given the proper development of the city and attitude! The goal should be to have all necessities within walking or short busing distance: grocery store, drug store, some restaurants, entertainment, gym, workplace, etc. But our cities have not been set up this way. Linden Woods and other developments like it have horrible bus systems and no ammenities around for long distances. Changing and redesigning this kind of neighborhood should be a priority for all cities. Our attitudes need to change as well. It feels so good now that I remember what my legs are really for. Nope, they're not for pressing down on the gas pedal...they're for running, walking, jumping, skating, dancing, swimming, cartwheeling, and everything in between! A life without dependance on oil (and cars) feels free and wonderful and healthy, and I'm optimistic that once people give it a chance and get used to it, they will love it!
The future of the Tar Sands is non-existant if you look far enough. Our future won't end with it, so we need to start preparing for that now! The transition doesn't have to be painful if we embrace a new "normal" and start to enjoy all the benefits it brings.
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Summary of Selection 26
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide gases have increased in our atmosphere as a result of human activities. CO2 is the most significant anthropocentric source, and has increased greatly since pre-industrial times; from 280ppm to 379ppm (2005). This is primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, but also from land use change. Methane has increased from 715ppb (pre-indust.) to 1774ppb (2005), due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. Nitrous oxide is also way up from 270ppb to 319ppb, also mostly due to agriculture. All the pre-industrial levels were found using ice cores. The net effect of anthropogenic cooling and warming influences on the climate have a net warming effect. The warming influences include: radiative forcing due to CO2, CH4, NO2, tropospheric ozone, halocarbons, surface albedo and solar irradiance. Some cooling influences are aerosols and cloud albedo forcing.
There are many direct observations scientists have made about climate change. Some more significant ones are:
-a linear warming trend
-increased water vapour in air
-increased average ocean temperature
-decreased glaciers and snow cover
-decrease in the ice sheets of the Antarctic and Greenland
-increased global sea level
There have also been many changes observed in the Arctic. These include changes in temperature and ice levels, permafrost, precipitation, ocean salinity, wind patterns, extreme weather, heat waves and cyclones. These global and Arctic trends will all increase as global warming increases. The Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation (MOC) will slow and temperature will increase in this area. It is very likely that all these are due to human activity and would not have happened on its own.
A 0.2C increase in temperature/decade is estimated from models, depending on whether current levels are kept constant, increase, or decerase (best-worst scenario estimate). All the effects (in above paragraph) will continue for centuries because of the long timescales of chemical climate processes/feedbacks, even if we stabilized greenhouse gas concentrations now. Removal of CO2 etc. from the atmosphere takes a long time so we will continue to have negative effects. There are some limitations on models due to lack of information and due to the nature of climate change, it is very unpredictable, but this is the best understanding we have currently.
Carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide gases have increased in our atmosphere as a result of human activities. CO2 is the most significant anthropocentric source, and has increased greatly since pre-industrial times; from 280ppm to 379ppm (2005). This is primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, but also from land use change. Methane has increased from 715ppb (pre-indust.) to 1774ppb (2005), due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. Nitrous oxide is also way up from 270ppb to 319ppb, also mostly due to agriculture. All the pre-industrial levels were found using ice cores. The net effect of anthropogenic cooling and warming influences on the climate have a net warming effect. The warming influences include: radiative forcing due to CO2, CH4, NO2, tropospheric ozone, halocarbons, surface albedo and solar irradiance. Some cooling influences are aerosols and cloud albedo forcing.
There are many direct observations scientists have made about climate change. Some more significant ones are:
-a linear warming trend
-increased water vapour in air
-increased average ocean temperature
-decreased glaciers and snow cover
-decrease in the ice sheets of the Antarctic and Greenland
-increased global sea level
There have also been many changes observed in the Arctic. These include changes in temperature and ice levels, permafrost, precipitation, ocean salinity, wind patterns, extreme weather, heat waves and cyclones. These global and Arctic trends will all increase as global warming increases. The Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation (MOC) will slow and temperature will increase in this area. It is very likely that all these are due to human activity and would not have happened on its own.
A 0.2C increase in temperature/decade is estimated from models, depending on whether current levels are kept constant, increase, or decerase (best-worst scenario estimate). All the effects (in above paragraph) will continue for centuries because of the long timescales of chemical climate processes/feedbacks, even if we stabilized greenhouse gas concentrations now. Removal of CO2 etc. from the atmosphere takes a long time so we will continue to have negative effects. There are some limitations on models due to lack of information and due to the nature of climate change, it is very unpredictable, but this is the best understanding we have currently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)