Blog Reflection: Is a deeper connection to nature likely to influence our decisions? Management? Resource use? Waste generation? Values?
Let me first say that all humans have a deep, vital connection to nature. The real issue at hand is whether or not this connection is realized. Humans need to be made aware that literally every second they completely rely on the cycles and systems of the environment.
Our decisions will be influenced. Imagine if with every breath of air we took, we understood our personal, one to one relationship with it. Would we continue to betray that relationship every day by, for example, driving our cars in a place where there are greener alternatives, such as taking the bus or carpooling? The fact is, we need the air...and it needs us too. Automobiles, through us...and perhaps through YOU...create 1.5 billion tons of CO2 annually.(Natural Resources Defence Council, 2009.) There is no excuse to take your relationship with the air and the rest of nature very personally.
Imagine if, on a trip to the grocery store, we stopped and considered how and where those apples came from, instead of mindlessly putting them in the cart. How was it grown and how does that affect me? Is it's blemish free skin due to the spraying of pesticides? And how does that connect to me and the rest of the environment? The pesticide may have left residues on the apple that are harmful to me as a human. Thinking beyond ourselves, we can consider the effects on the insects that are killed, impacting the food chain and all the other birds and animals within it. We can consider the soil and water when the pesticide leeches into the ground...and on and on. This could lead to a decision that we insist on knowing more about current farming practices, perhaps encouraging/insisting on a switch to organic farming methods.
Our management of wilderness areas would be undertaken with a new philosophy behind it. People often retreat to their "cabins" for a taste of nature and the "simple life." What they don't realize is that a relationship with nature can be incorporated into their everyday lives in many different ways. Some could be cultivating a garden, spending more time outdoors instead of watching TV, or living outside the city. Once we see that we don't need to "escape" to nature we can manage the wildlife reserves in a different way - keeping them more undisturbed by pollution, noise, etc. that comes along with vacationers.
If we realized how connected we are to nature our resource use would also be quite different. Instead of considering only what is good for us as human beings, we would consider the good of the whole system. It might be difficult at first but we would really have to separate our needs from wants, allowing much of the strain on the environment due to our relentless consumerism to be lifted.
We would be much more mindful of how we do waste management. When I do the waste audit assignment I am sure I will be shocked at how much goes straight to the landfill from my own home. Most people never have the chance to get an eye-opener like this. But if they did, and realized all the negative effects, there would certainly be more recycling and reusing going on.
When we come to understand our connection with nature our values will drastically change. People will value and admire a stand of trees for the oxygen, homes (for people and animals), food, and beauty...each breath of air or drink of water more precious than any ipod or pair of fuzzy boots...every animal, insect, fish (etc) and every human being no matter the race or religion, just another citizen of the world!
*Natural Resources Defense Council. Global Warming Basics. Available from: http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp Retrieved on Jan.30, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Population Explosion
Summary of Selection 36
Our population is rapidly growing. The impact this has on our environment is the most important issue regarding population growth. The environmental impact of a society can be measured by the I = PAT formula, where P = amount of people, A = per capita affluence or consumption, T = an index representing the technologies used to provide the consumption, and I = the environmental impact. Almost all of a societies most environmentally damaging activities involve transport and use of energy at high levels. For example, the manufacture and powering of vehicles. This can be represented by A x T which gives us per capita energy consumption, Epc. As we can see this equation shows overpopulation in a much different way than we are used to thinking about it. Typically we might think poorer nations are overpopulated because of their sheer numbers. But using this equation we can see that the US (and other developed nations) can be called the most populated in terms of energy consumption since each person uses 10-200X more energy than people in developing countries. This is causing depletion and degredation on a planetwide scale.
We must make it our goal to move to optimum population size. We would prefer "quality over quantity;" that is, we would prefer an optimal sustainable population (less people with more resources to share among them bringing a higher quality of life) VS. the largest sustainable population (lots of people with a very poor quality of life.) Some scientists estimate around 2 billion would be the best, and the Holdren scenario illustrates how such a change might occur. Industrialized nations would need to decrease their energy use, and developing nations increase until they are equal at around 3 kW/person. We should try for a slow (humane) population reduction.
For this to be feasible we also need a redevelopment of the North American lifestyle and infrastructure. The regulation of birth rates and use of contraception should be promoted. Most industrial countries already have birth rates below replacement, but developing countries need better living conditions, healthcare, education for women, and support from their governments to help make this happen. The key concept is that we must focus on all 3 factors of the I = PAT equation and bring our population down, AND reduce our consumption and dependance on the technology required to provide it.
Our population is rapidly growing. The impact this has on our environment is the most important issue regarding population growth. The environmental impact of a society can be measured by the I = PAT formula, where P = amount of people, A = per capita affluence or consumption, T = an index representing the technologies used to provide the consumption, and I = the environmental impact. Almost all of a societies most environmentally damaging activities involve transport and use of energy at high levels. For example, the manufacture and powering of vehicles. This can be represented by A x T which gives us per capita energy consumption, Epc. As we can see this equation shows overpopulation in a much different way than we are used to thinking about it. Typically we might think poorer nations are overpopulated because of their sheer numbers. But using this equation we can see that the US (and other developed nations) can be called the most populated in terms of energy consumption since each person uses 10-200X more energy than people in developing countries. This is causing depletion and degredation on a planetwide scale.
We must make it our goal to move to optimum population size. We would prefer "quality over quantity;" that is, we would prefer an optimal sustainable population (less people with more resources to share among them bringing a higher quality of life) VS. the largest sustainable population (lots of people with a very poor quality of life.) Some scientists estimate around 2 billion would be the best, and the Holdren scenario illustrates how such a change might occur. Industrialized nations would need to decrease their energy use, and developing nations increase until they are equal at around 3 kW/person. We should try for a slow (humane) population reduction.
For this to be feasible we also need a redevelopment of the North American lifestyle and infrastructure. The regulation of birth rates and use of contraception should be promoted. Most industrial countries already have birth rates below replacement, but developing countries need better living conditions, healthcare, education for women, and support from their governments to help make this happen. The key concept is that we must focus on all 3 factors of the I = PAT equation and bring our population down, AND reduce our consumption and dependance on the technology required to provide it.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Sacred Balance
Activities Resource List:
David Suzuki’s The Sacred Balance (excerpts on YouTube)
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/at_Work/sacredbalance.asp
I grew up on a farm near Roblin, MB. My family farms wheat, canola, oats and other grains. We also currently have cows and buffalo, and have raised chickens, geese, and pigs in the past. We put in a large garden every year. My Dad, brothers and I all know how to hunt and fish responsibly as well. When you grow up in this way it is impossible to forget exactly how much we depend on the environment for survival. I think that David Suzuki was trying to show how city life can isolate people from the environment. It's hard to understand how everything connects when all your food comes from the grocery store. As city-dwellers we must find ways to reconnect to nature. An idea for my Environmental Action assignment has emerged from reflecting on this movie. I would like to promote community gardening, backyard nut and fruit orchards, and try to get a bill passed that allows people in apartments to have a plot of land for their own small garden. This will help people to remember that we are not just members of a human community, but also the entire diverse community of organisms from the bugs to the trees. I think that this will help people recognize and develop their "biophilia." For this to be fully realized I think you must go deeper than just visiting the Zoo or a park.
One theme in the movie that really struck me was the idea of basically equating nature and God/gods. On the island of Bali and the high Andes where David Suzuki visited they believe that God actually IS the mountain and the rivers his veins, etc. The teachings of this religion gives the people an inherent respect and gratitude for all aspects of nature. When they thank God for a good harvest or a needed rainfall they are essentially thanking the earth itself. I again must contrast this with my own upbringing in the Catholic religion. Unfortunately the way the stories from the Bible are presented seems to give man the attitude that we are dominant and superior to all other living creatures, and that the primary reason for their existance is for OUR existance and use. Even if many young people are not very religious these days, this idea has persisted in our attitudes towards the environment. The main point may have been missed...that is, "God" may have intended us to have more of a stewardship over nature (someone who oversees and manages another's property) but somehow that message got lost. Nevertheless, when my Dad has a good harvest he definitely say thank you to God, not to the earth itself. He believes what he has been taught to believe, and nothing more. My parents in general find what I have have grown to believe startling and foreign and definitely breaking tradition...but I take it as a good sign. I don't want to sound vain but I wish everyone was a little more like me....fully willing to admit when I've made a mistake (and/or that my society is making mistakes) and wanting to do whatever it takes to change that.
David Suzuki mentions future generations as he takes a walk with his son (I'm guessing). In my experience my current generation is definitely becoming more environmentally aware. Last year some of my "younger" co-workers and I pressured the owner into starting a recycling program at the store we work at (Shoppers Drug Mart). I felt very proud of that at the time. But currently I'm starting to feel like we should be doing a lot more. I would gladly make more sacrifices for my environment, and I think a lot of people would too if they knew where to start, or had someone encourage them to do so. Probably 95% of my other co-workers never even thought of recycling until we actually put a blue bin next to the garbage can...and now I would estimate at least 50% of them do now that they're aware of it and it's convenient.
I think that David Suzuki's movie clearly shows that we as a society need a major shift- not just in our actions, but also in our beliefs, values, and priorites. We need to start reconnecting with nature, becoming more aware, and personally taking responsibility for our environmental state.
David Suzuki’s The Sacred Balance (excerpts on YouTube)
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/NatureChallenge/at_Work/sacredbalance.asp
I grew up on a farm near Roblin, MB. My family farms wheat, canola, oats and other grains. We also currently have cows and buffalo, and have raised chickens, geese, and pigs in the past. We put in a large garden every year. My Dad, brothers and I all know how to hunt and fish responsibly as well. When you grow up in this way it is impossible to forget exactly how much we depend on the environment for survival. I think that David Suzuki was trying to show how city life can isolate people from the environment. It's hard to understand how everything connects when all your food comes from the grocery store. As city-dwellers we must find ways to reconnect to nature. An idea for my Environmental Action assignment has emerged from reflecting on this movie. I would like to promote community gardening, backyard nut and fruit orchards, and try to get a bill passed that allows people in apartments to have a plot of land for their own small garden. This will help people to remember that we are not just members of a human community, but also the entire diverse community of organisms from the bugs to the trees. I think that this will help people recognize and develop their "biophilia." For this to be fully realized I think you must go deeper than just visiting the Zoo or a park.
One theme in the movie that really struck me was the idea of basically equating nature and God/gods. On the island of Bali and the high Andes where David Suzuki visited they believe that God actually IS the mountain and the rivers his veins, etc. The teachings of this religion gives the people an inherent respect and gratitude for all aspects of nature. When they thank God for a good harvest or a needed rainfall they are essentially thanking the earth itself. I again must contrast this with my own upbringing in the Catholic religion. Unfortunately the way the stories from the Bible are presented seems to give man the attitude that we are dominant and superior to all other living creatures, and that the primary reason for their existance is for OUR existance and use. Even if many young people are not very religious these days, this idea has persisted in our attitudes towards the environment. The main point may have been missed...that is, "God" may have intended us to have more of a stewardship over nature (someone who oversees and manages another's property) but somehow that message got lost. Nevertheless, when my Dad has a good harvest he definitely say thank you to God, not to the earth itself. He believes what he has been taught to believe, and nothing more. My parents in general find what I have have grown to believe startling and foreign and definitely breaking tradition...but I take it as a good sign. I don't want to sound vain but I wish everyone was a little more like me....fully willing to admit when I've made a mistake (and/or that my society is making mistakes) and wanting to do whatever it takes to change that.
David Suzuki mentions future generations as he takes a walk with his son (I'm guessing). In my experience my current generation is definitely becoming more environmentally aware. Last year some of my "younger" co-workers and I pressured the owner into starting a recycling program at the store we work at (Shoppers Drug Mart). I felt very proud of that at the time. But currently I'm starting to feel like we should be doing a lot more. I would gladly make more sacrifices for my environment, and I think a lot of people would too if they knew where to start, or had someone encourage them to do so. Probably 95% of my other co-workers never even thought of recycling until we actually put a blue bin next to the garbage can...and now I would estimate at least 50% of them do now that they're aware of it and it's convenient.
I think that David Suzuki's movie clearly shows that we as a society need a major shift- not just in our actions, but also in our beliefs, values, and priorites. We need to start reconnecting with nature, becoming more aware, and personally taking responsibility for our environmental state.
Our Stolen Future
Summary of Selection 32
Biochemically, humans are very similar to animals even if our appearance is very different. We have a common evoluationary legacy that closely links us. We also share a common environment whose natural systems provide us with life-support services. We have been polluting our environment with synthetic chemicals that have been stored up in our bodies over time, as well as many other animals because of our similar biology. Scientists have a good understanding of hormone-disrupting chemicals, and can forcast a threat to humans.
Hormone distrupting chemicals are more complicated than classic toxicology because sometimes very small doses produce the worst effects, while higher doses have no effect at all. This is worrisome because the risks may be severely underestimated if traditional testing methods are used. Scientists have noticed these hormone disruptors threatening the survival of the animal populations, and since we have a similiar biology we will have a similar fate. Our future is also jeapordized. We are likely already affected but the effects are hard to document and may take time to fully emerge (transgenerational effects).
We must heed the warnings that the animals are providing to us at devastating cost to themselves. I believe that action should be taken immediately to reduce the release of chemicals into the environment. This is much more easily said than done however. I grew up on a farm and witnessed firsthand how dependant on herbicides and pesticides the agricultural operation of North America is. Practical alternatives must be found. Farmers must be given a viable way to switch over to organic farming (their profit margin is already small enough!) and the issue of net production must be addressed. Since organic farming will inevitably yeild less, fewer people can be fed per acre. With people already starving worldwide a decrease in population would greatly help the strain put on agricultural operations.
Biochemically, humans are very similar to animals even if our appearance is very different. We have a common evoluationary legacy that closely links us. We also share a common environment whose natural systems provide us with life-support services. We have been polluting our environment with synthetic chemicals that have been stored up in our bodies over time, as well as many other animals because of our similar biology. Scientists have a good understanding of hormone-disrupting chemicals, and can forcast a threat to humans.
Hormone distrupting chemicals are more complicated than classic toxicology because sometimes very small doses produce the worst effects, while higher doses have no effect at all. This is worrisome because the risks may be severely underestimated if traditional testing methods are used. Scientists have noticed these hormone disruptors threatening the survival of the animal populations, and since we have a similiar biology we will have a similar fate. Our future is also jeapordized. We are likely already affected but the effects are hard to document and may take time to fully emerge (transgenerational effects).
We must heed the warnings that the animals are providing to us at devastating cost to themselves. I believe that action should be taken immediately to reduce the release of chemicals into the environment. This is much more easily said than done however. I grew up on a farm and witnessed firsthand how dependant on herbicides and pesticides the agricultural operation of North America is. Practical alternatives must be found. Farmers must be given a viable way to switch over to organic farming (their profit margin is already small enough!) and the issue of net production must be addressed. Since organic farming will inevitably yeild less, fewer people can be fed per acre. With people already starving worldwide a decrease in population would greatly help the strain put on agricultural operations.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
Summary of Selection 42
Many past societal collapses were at least partially triggered by ecological problems. This has been confirmed by scientists in many disciplines. The term ecocide means unintentional ecological collapse, and in the past has been caused by any/all of these environmental actions:
-deforestation and habitat destruction
-soil problems (erosion, salinization, loss of soil fertility)
-water management problems
-overhunting/overfishing
-effects of introduced species on other species
-human population growth
-increased per capita impact of people
The environmental problems facing us today include all the problems that contributed to the collapse of ancient civilizations, plus more, including:
-human caused climate change
-buildup of toxic chemicals in the environment
-energy shortages
-full human utilization of the earth's photosynthetic capabilities
Environmental risk is greatly debated. Are the dangers exaggerated or underestimated? In any case, we should learn from past civilizations and take practical lessons from them. We would like to know what made them vulnerable, the process of the ecocide, did they not recognize the problems, did some societies find solutions? This is a complicated matter because there are many differences and similarities between ancient societies and ours.
However, a societies collapse cannot be solely attributed to environmental factors. Some things that may contribute are the inherent fragility or resilience of the ecosystem combined with the imprudence of the people living there. Unforseen climate change can put a society that already has some depleted resources over the edge. Hostile neighbors may take an opportunity to overrun a society when they notice that they're weakened due to environmental factors. A society that is dependant on a trade partner for essential items may fail when the trade partner is no longer able to provide them. Finally, the societies response to environmental problems is a factor in every case. Whether a problem is recognized and dealt with or ignored until full scale disaster strikes is key!
All people, whether they be "environmentalists" or "big business people" must recognize that a common solution must be found...and since we all live in this world together we must find a solution together. That means working together and trying to understand one another!
Many past societal collapses were at least partially triggered by ecological problems. This has been confirmed by scientists in many disciplines. The term ecocide means unintentional ecological collapse, and in the past has been caused by any/all of these environmental actions:
-deforestation and habitat destruction
-soil problems (erosion, salinization, loss of soil fertility)
-water management problems
-overhunting/overfishing
-effects of introduced species on other species
-human population growth
-increased per capita impact of people
The environmental problems facing us today include all the problems that contributed to the collapse of ancient civilizations, plus more, including:
-human caused climate change
-buildup of toxic chemicals in the environment
-energy shortages
-full human utilization of the earth's photosynthetic capabilities
Environmental risk is greatly debated. Are the dangers exaggerated or underestimated? In any case, we should learn from past civilizations and take practical lessons from them. We would like to know what made them vulnerable, the process of the ecocide, did they not recognize the problems, did some societies find solutions? This is a complicated matter because there are many differences and similarities between ancient societies and ours.
However, a societies collapse cannot be solely attributed to environmental factors. Some things that may contribute are the inherent fragility or resilience of the ecosystem combined with the imprudence of the people living there. Unforseen climate change can put a society that already has some depleted resources over the edge. Hostile neighbors may take an opportunity to overrun a society when they notice that they're weakened due to environmental factors. A society that is dependant on a trade partner for essential items may fail when the trade partner is no longer able to provide them. Finally, the societies response to environmental problems is a factor in every case. Whether a problem is recognized and dealt with or ignored until full scale disaster strikes is key!
All people, whether they be "environmentalists" or "big business people" must recognize that a common solution must be found...and since we all live in this world together we must find a solution together. That means working together and trying to understand one another!
The Precautionary Principle
"Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degredation."
At first glance, using this principle as the basis for our environmental policy seems to make great sense. Scientific research takes a very long time. Proof of cause-and-effect is rarely found quickly and in the meantime much damage is done to the environment and people's health.
Precautionary thinking is something that people use in their everyday lives. Basically when the probability of harm is high enough people tend not to do it. But a lot of the time people seem to ignore the facts even when the probability of risk is very high. An example of this is people who smoke knowing full well about all the health risks. Conversely, sometimes people over-react when the risk is actually quite small; for example, plane rides (with an average accident rate of practically zero) vs. automobile rides (with an enormous accident rate in comparison, hundreds of people dying every single day). These examples illustrate that "threats of serious or irreversible damage" may not always be fully recognized in the way the people who wrote it hoped it would be. This could be due to misunderstanding or just being uninformed about how probabilities really work, being uninformed in general, just not caring about the situation or not being willing to do anything about it, or wanting to do something about it but not knowing what.
I think another problem is that the whole statement is really quite vague. "Threat of serious damage," "cost-effective measures," and "environmental degredation," are all very unspecific and seem open to interpretation. One person or company's idea of a threat could be very different from another as I've illustrated previously. The phrase "cost-effective measure" definitely sounds like something a business that focuses on profits (as most do) would exploit. Consequently I think that this statement might have negative consequences if widely applied in environmental regulation. I feel that it is a good starting point but needs some more specifics, because without them it is open to interpretation, ultimately leading to exploitation.
At first glance, using this principle as the basis for our environmental policy seems to make great sense. Scientific research takes a very long time. Proof of cause-and-effect is rarely found quickly and in the meantime much damage is done to the environment and people's health.
Precautionary thinking is something that people use in their everyday lives. Basically when the probability of harm is high enough people tend not to do it. But a lot of the time people seem to ignore the facts even when the probability of risk is very high. An example of this is people who smoke knowing full well about all the health risks. Conversely, sometimes people over-react when the risk is actually quite small; for example, plane rides (with an average accident rate of practically zero) vs. automobile rides (with an enormous accident rate in comparison, hundreds of people dying every single day). These examples illustrate that "threats of serious or irreversible damage" may not always be fully recognized in the way the people who wrote it hoped it would be. This could be due to misunderstanding or just being uninformed about how probabilities really work, being uninformed in general, just not caring about the situation or not being willing to do anything about it, or wanting to do something about it but not knowing what.
I think another problem is that the whole statement is really quite vague. "Threat of serious damage," "cost-effective measures," and "environmental degredation," are all very unspecific and seem open to interpretation. One person or company's idea of a threat could be very different from another as I've illustrated previously. The phrase "cost-effective measure" definitely sounds like something a business that focuses on profits (as most do) would exploit. Consequently I think that this statement might have negative consequences if widely applied in environmental regulation. I feel that it is a good starting point but needs some more specifics, because without them it is open to interpretation, ultimately leading to exploitation.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Critical Thinking and the Media
How well does the media do in reporting environmental issues in terms of the 7 criteria for critical thinking? (clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, breadth, depth, and logic)
The media fuels much of the public perception of environmental issues. It is the only source of information most people rely on. Since our democratic government should reflect the will of the people, it is crucial that the population is well enough informed to prioritize their thoughts, values, and beliefs on environmental issues...which must eventually be reflected in governmental policy- locally and globally.
I have found the clarity of most forms of media to be quite good. There is usually no ambiguity about what the issue is. The sentance/paragraph structure is well put together, as something that has been edited should. The accuracy, precision and relevance of media reporting sometimes seems quite doubtful. I've noticed that often when statistics are used they do not report the non-response rate, sample size, or method of sampling used. These values are crucial when assessing how relevant a statistic is to the issue. Without them we cannot be at all certain whether we are being led to believe the whole truth, whether more details are needed, or whether the statistic is relevant at all (it could be due to other lurking variables). Also we are rarely given the source materials that are used or consulted in the preparation of the report. How can the accuracy of a report be assessed if we have no idea where the information came from? The breadth of environmental issues reported is often too broad. For instance, two scientific experts on an issue (such as global climate change) are equally represented during a news report. This may seem good, but in reality it may give the public the false impression that the scientific community is equally divided on the issue, when in reality the majority of scientists agree that global climate change is indeed happening. It seems virtually impossible for the depth of a news report to show the true complexities of environmental issues. For example, I recently read a news report stating that the orca population is on the rise this year because of a decrease in salmon fishing. In reality, this could be due to a myriad of other factors, or even be a statistical fluke! All in all, I doubt the overall logic of media reports. The facts from individual "experts" may very well be accurate, but the way the "story" is put together seems suspect. The position or side of the story put forth is usually of the most interest/debate which equals profit.
As responsible citizens we must demand more from our media sources. We require more detailed information...about statistics, where the source material came from, whether the "experts" cited are actual relevant authorites on the matter at hand- to name a few! A better educated public will lead to more informed decisions and conscientiousness about the environment. Our world truly needs it.
The media fuels much of the public perception of environmental issues. It is the only source of information most people rely on. Since our democratic government should reflect the will of the people, it is crucial that the population is well enough informed to prioritize their thoughts, values, and beliefs on environmental issues...which must eventually be reflected in governmental policy- locally and globally.
I have found the clarity of most forms of media to be quite good. There is usually no ambiguity about what the issue is. The sentance/paragraph structure is well put together, as something that has been edited should. The accuracy, precision and relevance of media reporting sometimes seems quite doubtful. I've noticed that often when statistics are used they do not report the non-response rate, sample size, or method of sampling used. These values are crucial when assessing how relevant a statistic is to the issue. Without them we cannot be at all certain whether we are being led to believe the whole truth, whether more details are needed, or whether the statistic is relevant at all (it could be due to other lurking variables). Also we are rarely given the source materials that are used or consulted in the preparation of the report. How can the accuracy of a report be assessed if we have no idea where the information came from? The breadth of environmental issues reported is often too broad. For instance, two scientific experts on an issue (such as global climate change) are equally represented during a news report. This may seem good, but in reality it may give the public the false impression that the scientific community is equally divided on the issue, when in reality the majority of scientists agree that global climate change is indeed happening. It seems virtually impossible for the depth of a news report to show the true complexities of environmental issues. For example, I recently read a news report stating that the orca population is on the rise this year because of a decrease in salmon fishing. In reality, this could be due to a myriad of other factors, or even be a statistical fluke! All in all, I doubt the overall logic of media reports. The facts from individual "experts" may very well be accurate, but the way the "story" is put together seems suspect. The position or side of the story put forth is usually of the most interest/debate which equals profit.
As responsible citizens we must demand more from our media sources. We require more detailed information...about statistics, where the source material came from, whether the "experts" cited are actual relevant authorites on the matter at hand- to name a few! A better educated public will lead to more informed decisions and conscientiousness about the environment. Our world truly needs it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)