Summary of Selection 15
Using energy more efficiently will reduce costs for everyone. Many businesses have already proven this fact. There does not necessarily have to be a trade off between the environment and the economy. Decarbonization can mean an increase in efficiency.
There is much inefficiency at all levels of energy production, distribution and consumption that can be changed! There are many more energy efficient products that are now inexpensive and commonplace. For example, there are amazing technologies that can allow you to do without a conventional heating system at all (in -40C weather!). Smart construction design can allow for huge energy savings- they can structure a whole building to cool or heat which will only use a fraction of the energy. Energy efficiency does not mean curtailment, discomfort or privation!
Transportation consumes 70% of US oil and makes 1/3 total carbon emissions. They are very inefficient, but lightweight materials, propulsion and aerodynamics can help to make huge improvements. Rocky Mountain Institute's (RMI) analysis shows that full adoption of efficient vehicles, buildings, and industries could cut US oil use to half by 2025! (to pre 1970 levels) That is $70 billion saved every year! There are alternate fuel supplies available/being developed, such as ethanol and carbon natural gas. There are many other benefits too; reduced military conflict, reduced price volatility, reduced fiscal and diplomatic distortions and reduced pollution. We would also need to change our development patterns to reduce urban sprawl. If all ammenities were within a 5 minute walk we would not need our cars much at all.
Global warming is cheaper to fix than ignore. The competitive global economy actually promotes sensible energy investment; the market will naturally favor the right choices!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Reflection on the Artwork of Andy Goldsworthy
(Online Activity)
First I have to say, his art gives me the shivers! I think the child in me finds it very thrilling because I used to play in the forest a lot when I was a kid, and I can just imagine how I would feel to come upon something like that in the woods. I would immediately think, "magic!!!" I want to call him a real, live fairy!
I think he can make such beautiful art is because he truly feels connected to nature, and a part in it. He puts so much time and effort into building each piece, carefully and slowly...and yet he knows full well how fragile it is, and that it might only last a few hours, or even moments, when a gust of wind blows it all away. After this happened to one of his pieces, he said, "I am so amazed at times that I am actually alive." I think what he is really saying is that he recognizes that he is just as fragile as his artwork. All life is just this way, isn't it? Beautiful and fragile and very temporary. Realizing this, I don't feel afraid. I feel more free than ever; free to pursue what I consider the most important things in life, and not get so caught up in the other things.
It seems to me that the way he does art is a good example for how we should treat the land. He only uses supplies that he finds locally. He doesn't do any damage to the environment, and any changes he does make are returned relatively shortly. He treats the land reverently.
Have you heard of post-Avatar depression? Here is a link to an article about it: http://mashable.com/2010/01/12/post-avatar-depression-hits-thousands-of-fans-video/ Basically the depression comes after watching Avatar and comparing our "gray" world to the colorful, vibrant world of Pandorum (the planet Avatar takes place on.) Apparently there are a lot of people feeling this way. "When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed … gray. It was like my whole life, everything I’ve done and worked for, lost its meaning….I live in a dying world." I think that this depression is doubly sad because...newsflash!! We DO live in a vibrantly, beautiful world and it's all there for you to experience if you just reach out for it! And I just think that Andy Goldsworthy's art shows that off perfectly. Everyone here is so lucky to be free to go and live where-ever they choose...So if you are finding the city life too "gray" then move to the country! You wouldn't have to use an outhouse or anything, either! (haha) In any case, there is a lot of beauty to be found in the city if you really take a good look; I've been taking some time out of my day to admire the frost on the trees as I walk to the bus stop, for example. If you aren't looking for it, you might miss some fairy artwork hidden amongst the branches.
References:
Mashable. Post-Avatar Depression Hits Fans. Found at: http://mashable.com/2010/01/12/post-avatar-depression-hits-thousands-of-fans-video/ Retrieved on: Feb.5/10.
First I have to say, his art gives me the shivers! I think the child in me finds it very thrilling because I used to play in the forest a lot when I was a kid, and I can just imagine how I would feel to come upon something like that in the woods. I would immediately think, "magic!!!" I want to call him a real, live fairy!
I think he can make such beautiful art is because he truly feels connected to nature, and a part in it. He puts so much time and effort into building each piece, carefully and slowly...and yet he knows full well how fragile it is, and that it might only last a few hours, or even moments, when a gust of wind blows it all away. After this happened to one of his pieces, he said, "I am so amazed at times that I am actually alive." I think what he is really saying is that he recognizes that he is just as fragile as his artwork. All life is just this way, isn't it? Beautiful and fragile and very temporary. Realizing this, I don't feel afraid. I feel more free than ever; free to pursue what I consider the most important things in life, and not get so caught up in the other things.
It seems to me that the way he does art is a good example for how we should treat the land. He only uses supplies that he finds locally. He doesn't do any damage to the environment, and any changes he does make are returned relatively shortly. He treats the land reverently.
Have you heard of post-Avatar depression? Here is a link to an article about it: http://mashable.com/2010/01/12/post-avatar-depression-hits-thousands-of-fans-video/ Basically the depression comes after watching Avatar and comparing our "gray" world to the colorful, vibrant world of Pandorum (the planet Avatar takes place on.) Apparently there are a lot of people feeling this way. "When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed … gray. It was like my whole life, everything I’ve done and worked for, lost its meaning….I live in a dying world." I think that this depression is doubly sad because...newsflash!! We DO live in a vibrantly, beautiful world and it's all there for you to experience if you just reach out for it! And I just think that Andy Goldsworthy's art shows that off perfectly. Everyone here is so lucky to be free to go and live where-ever they choose...So if you are finding the city life too "gray" then move to the country! You wouldn't have to use an outhouse or anything, either! (haha) In any case, there is a lot of beauty to be found in the city if you really take a good look; I've been taking some time out of my day to admire the frost on the trees as I walk to the bus stop, for example. If you aren't looking for it, you might miss some fairy artwork hidden amongst the branches.
References:
Mashable. Post-Avatar Depression Hits Fans. Found at: http://mashable.com/2010/01/12/post-avatar-depression-hits-thousands-of-fans-video/ Retrieved on: Feb.5/10.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Ecosystems and Human Well-being
Summary of Selection 12
Ecosystems provide everything for us; food, water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual and aesthetic fulfillment. 60 % of ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainably. There is established evidence that the changes we have made to the ecosystem are accelerating, abrupt, and/or irreversible. The harmful effects of this degredation are borne disproportionately by the poor of the world. The problem is growing worse and worse in every area. HUGE changes are required but are not currently underway. There is a long list of responses needed to manage and save ecosystems. For example, substantial changes in institutions and governance, economic policies and so on.
The structure and functioning of the world's ecosystems is changing more rapidly than any time in human history. The loss of biodiversity (irreversible changes), genetic diversity lost, number of species lost- has all been to meet the demands of the human race (for food, water, timber, fiber, fuel, ect.) Scenarios of "plausible futures" have been developed. They are Global Orchestration, Order from Strength, Adapting Mosaic and Techno Garden. Although it is very hard to accurately predict the future. (And there is no scenario for "doing practically nothing" which is what we are currently doing...) The United Nations has Millenium Development Goals to improve human well-being (such as reducing poverty). But this can't be done without improved management of ecosystems. For example, to solve world hunger issues of climate, soil degredation and water availability must be addressed.
Our past actions to help ecosystems have been effective but have not kept pace with the speed of degredation/demand. The degredation cannot be lowered unless these "drivers of change" change:
-population growth
-economic activity
-sociopolitical factors
-cultural factors
-technological change
There are many barriers to this problem...the outcome looks bleak...
Ecosystems provide everything for us; food, water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual and aesthetic fulfillment. 60 % of ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainably. There is established evidence that the changes we have made to the ecosystem are accelerating, abrupt, and/or irreversible. The harmful effects of this degredation are borne disproportionately by the poor of the world. The problem is growing worse and worse in every area. HUGE changes are required but are not currently underway. There is a long list of responses needed to manage and save ecosystems. For example, substantial changes in institutions and governance, economic policies and so on.
The structure and functioning of the world's ecosystems is changing more rapidly than any time in human history. The loss of biodiversity (irreversible changes), genetic diversity lost, number of species lost- has all been to meet the demands of the human race (for food, water, timber, fiber, fuel, ect.) Scenarios of "plausible futures" have been developed. They are Global Orchestration, Order from Strength, Adapting Mosaic and Techno Garden. Although it is very hard to accurately predict the future. (And there is no scenario for "doing practically nothing" which is what we are currently doing...) The United Nations has Millenium Development Goals to improve human well-being (such as reducing poverty). But this can't be done without improved management of ecosystems. For example, to solve world hunger issues of climate, soil degredation and water availability must be addressed.
Our past actions to help ecosystems have been effective but have not kept pace with the speed of degredation/demand. The degredation cannot be lowered unless these "drivers of change" change:
-population growth
-economic activity
-sociopolitical factors
-cultural factors
-technological change
There are many barriers to this problem...the outcome looks bleak...
Will Hurricane Katrina Impact Shoreline Management?
Summary of Selection 11
Hurricane Camille in 1969 was very similar to recent Hurricane Katrina. The coastal science community recognizes that hurricanes like this have happened before and will happen again. Dauphin Island, which is devastated by every hurricane that comes through is continually rebuilt. This seems very irrational- a waste of money and resources. Yet development of beachfront property is actually increasing despite the devastation. There are 2 views about this issue:
1) The US should systematically retreat from the oceanfront.
2) Government spending should be increased for beach nourishment/replenishment.
There are several problems with the 2nd view. The reconstructed beach decieves people into thinking it is safe. Beach replenishment is NOT property damage control (it will not protect against 10m storm surges.) Environmentally, pumping sand onto the beach destroys all the native organisms. And lastly, the cost for this is paid by taxpayers who do not benefit from it at all - the people who benefit are the "destroyers" of the beach (oceanfront developers and property owners) who make it more vulnerable to natural disasters.
The situation is and will be getting worse with increased amounts and intensity of storms due to global warming. Therefore it's time to cut our losses and run from the especially vulnerable areas at least.
There are several obstacles preventing this:
1) Suggesting that some people not be allowed to rebuild seems callous or uncompassionate. (Although it is not suggested that all aid be removed!)
2) Abandoning a community is viewed as defeatist/anti-development/unAmerican. (Or is this just proud insanity?)
3) Coastal development is good for the economy. (If it's so profitable then they shouldn't need federal funding!)
4) Property rights have been used as leverage. (In this case, they should take personal responsibility for their decision to live in an area that is known to have natural disasters on a regular basis!!)
We need a commission to objectively determine which coasts to retreat from (pull federal support), possibly called the Shoreline Retreat Advisory Commission. We also need to address what to do about the Louisiana wetlands and Barrier Island coastal degredation that is largely human induced. It should be clear that restoration would not help reduce the impact of hurricanes. Also the root cause of wetland loss must be addressed to truly help the wetlands. Scientific knowledge brings societal responsibility! Scientists with the knowledge need to make the facts known and speak out and participate in the debate to help rethink our national coastal policy.
This article made me think about our own flooding situation here in Winnipeg. Every year there is some minor flooding and we know that there will be major floods coming again as they have many times in the past. A lot of money, time, and resources are spent by the city every time this happens to protect those homes. Should we try to implement something similar and retreat a bit from the rivers? I think it actually makes a lot of sense!!
Hurricane Camille in 1969 was very similar to recent Hurricane Katrina. The coastal science community recognizes that hurricanes like this have happened before and will happen again. Dauphin Island, which is devastated by every hurricane that comes through is continually rebuilt. This seems very irrational- a waste of money and resources. Yet development of beachfront property is actually increasing despite the devastation. There are 2 views about this issue:
1) The US should systematically retreat from the oceanfront.
2) Government spending should be increased for beach nourishment/replenishment.
There are several problems with the 2nd view. The reconstructed beach decieves people into thinking it is safe. Beach replenishment is NOT property damage control (it will not protect against 10m storm surges.) Environmentally, pumping sand onto the beach destroys all the native organisms. And lastly, the cost for this is paid by taxpayers who do not benefit from it at all - the people who benefit are the "destroyers" of the beach (oceanfront developers and property owners) who make it more vulnerable to natural disasters.
The situation is and will be getting worse with increased amounts and intensity of storms due to global warming. Therefore it's time to cut our losses and run from the especially vulnerable areas at least.
There are several obstacles preventing this:
1) Suggesting that some people not be allowed to rebuild seems callous or uncompassionate. (Although it is not suggested that all aid be removed!)
2) Abandoning a community is viewed as defeatist/anti-development/unAmerican. (Or is this just proud insanity?)
3) Coastal development is good for the economy. (If it's so profitable then they shouldn't need federal funding!)
4) Property rights have been used as leverage. (In this case, they should take personal responsibility for their decision to live in an area that is known to have natural disasters on a regular basis!!)
We need a commission to objectively determine which coasts to retreat from (pull federal support), possibly called the Shoreline Retreat Advisory Commission. We also need to address what to do about the Louisiana wetlands and Barrier Island coastal degredation that is largely human induced. It should be clear that restoration would not help reduce the impact of hurricanes. Also the root cause of wetland loss must be addressed to truly help the wetlands. Scientific knowledge brings societal responsibility! Scientists with the knowledge need to make the facts known and speak out and participate in the debate to help rethink our national coastal policy.
This article made me think about our own flooding situation here in Winnipeg. Every year there is some minor flooding and we know that there will be major floods coming again as they have many times in the past. A lot of money, time, and resources are spent by the city every time this happens to protect those homes. Should we try to implement something similar and retreat a bit from the rivers? I think it actually makes a lot of sense!!
Environmental Ethics
Blog Reflection:
Where do your environmental ethics lie? Anthropocentric? Biocentric? Ecocentric?
I have taken many philosophy classes and one that I enjoyed a lot was the Ethics of the Environment. That class was a huge mental journey for me and my initial feelings (which were anthropocentric) are now quite different...and I'd like to share a bit of that journey with you.
Anthropocentrism as defined in class was "seeing human beings as central (essential and most significant) on Earth." In my ethics class this was taken even further, meaning only humans have moral standing. When something has moral status it means they deserve the protection of "moral norms," has rights, can be morally wronged, and has intrinsic value (has value in and of itself, and it not to be valued simply for its uses). It was hard for me to break this belief within myself because, as I have mentioned in previous blogs, I was raised a Catholic...and one of the key teachings if that humans are above all the other animals because they alone have a soul, which grants only humans moral status and intrinsic value. But when I really started to think about it...I really and truly believe that animals and plants have intrinsic value too, not just instrumental value (the value of an object lies not in the object itself, but in the uses to which that object can be put). Right now I am not so sure about the "soul" part. But I am definitely not anthropocentric.
Biocentrism ascribes all life with ethical standing. I feel that there is a problem with it. This theory seems to give each individual life form moral status. But how could we survive if we were to give every tree and animal the same moral status as us? Are we not allowed to chop down a tree to build a house, or eat a cow or plant because it would be considered murder? This doesn't seem practical at all, or even similar to how nature works. In nature every organism within it takes and gives, in a balanced way.
Ecocentrism gives moral standing to the whole ecological system. Basically this means that individual members can be treated as resources as long as the community itself is respected. This holistic viewpoint makes much more sense to me. With ecocentrism I view humans as just another animal in the food web. We can take what we need, just as all the other animals and plants and organisms do. But the well-being of the entire system must be respected and taken care of.
I really feel that ecocentrism/deep ecology is becoming my new religion! I love philosophy because you get to take a critical look at why you believe what you believe...and often times there isn't a good basis for it, or that there is a better thing to believe in that you didn't know about, or you find out that what you believed in was having negative impacts you didn't realize. The hardest and bravest thing to do when you discover what you thought you knew was "wrong" is to embrace change; embrace a better way even if some people think you are crazy and your parents think you're going to Hell. The more people start to think the way you do, the less crazy you will be...and I'm proud to be some of the first.
Reference:
Desjardins, Joseph. Environmental Ethics (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning,
2006)
Where do your environmental ethics lie? Anthropocentric? Biocentric? Ecocentric?
I have taken many philosophy classes and one that I enjoyed a lot was the Ethics of the Environment. That class was a huge mental journey for me and my initial feelings (which were anthropocentric) are now quite different...and I'd like to share a bit of that journey with you.
Anthropocentrism as defined in class was "seeing human beings as central (essential and most significant) on Earth." In my ethics class this was taken even further, meaning only humans have moral standing. When something has moral status it means they deserve the protection of "moral norms," has rights, can be morally wronged, and has intrinsic value (has value in and of itself, and it not to be valued simply for its uses). It was hard for me to break this belief within myself because, as I have mentioned in previous blogs, I was raised a Catholic...and one of the key teachings if that humans are above all the other animals because they alone have a soul, which grants only humans moral status and intrinsic value. But when I really started to think about it...I really and truly believe that animals and plants have intrinsic value too, not just instrumental value (the value of an object lies not in the object itself, but in the uses to which that object can be put). Right now I am not so sure about the "soul" part. But I am definitely not anthropocentric.
Biocentrism ascribes all life with ethical standing. I feel that there is a problem with it. This theory seems to give each individual life form moral status. But how could we survive if we were to give every tree and animal the same moral status as us? Are we not allowed to chop down a tree to build a house, or eat a cow or plant because it would be considered murder? This doesn't seem practical at all, or even similar to how nature works. In nature every organism within it takes and gives, in a balanced way.
Ecocentrism gives moral standing to the whole ecological system. Basically this means that individual members can be treated as resources as long as the community itself is respected. This holistic viewpoint makes much more sense to me. With ecocentrism I view humans as just another animal in the food web. We can take what we need, just as all the other animals and plants and organisms do. But the well-being of the entire system must be respected and taken care of.
I really feel that ecocentrism/deep ecology is becoming my new religion! I love philosophy because you get to take a critical look at why you believe what you believe...and often times there isn't a good basis for it, or that there is a better thing to believe in that you didn't know about, or you find out that what you believed in was having negative impacts you didn't realize. The hardest and bravest thing to do when you discover what you thought you knew was "wrong" is to embrace change; embrace a better way even if some people think you are crazy and your parents think you're going to Hell. The more people start to think the way you do, the less crazy you will be...and I'm proud to be some of the first.
Reference:
Desjardins, Joseph. Environmental Ethics (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning,
2006)
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Tragedy of the Commons
Summary of Selection 7
There is no technical solution to our environmental and population problems. Adam Smith's belief, "...the individual who intends only his own gain is led by an invisible hand to promote...the public interest" is very very wrong! The thought experiment of "the tragedy of the commons" shows that man is trapped in a system that compels us to increase our possessions, money, resources, etc. without limit - in a world that is limited. Our commonly owned resources are thereby doomed to destruction. Grasslands (overgrazed), oceans, lakes (overfished), and our National Parks (which are being degraded by constand visitors) are the "Commons." Pollution of the air, water, and land is like a reverse tragedy- instead of overusing something, we put pollution into the commonly shared areas.
These issues are linked in a major way to overpopulation. We should not allow unlimited breeding because this puts a strain on the commons and thee is no "natural" process to curb human population growth. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights has declared "...any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself..." but this is only harmful to the human race. It should be rethought. We can't depend on people's conscience's to do the right thing, because people vary greatly- some inevitably will do it, but a lot won't.
It is necessary to set up a form of "mutual coersion" to control use of the commons. This could be a system similar to our tax system...which none of us love, but accept as necessary for the benefit of everyone. It doesn't need to be a perfect system, just better than the one we have right now! We have improved our situation slightly by limiting the commons in some areas (private property, restricting hunting and fishing etc.) but we must take this further. We must also deal with overpopulation immediately by recognizing the necessity of the restriction and enjoy the freedom of a healthy planet, rather than freedom to breed.
There is no technical solution to our environmental and population problems. Adam Smith's belief, "...the individual who intends only his own gain is led by an invisible hand to promote...the public interest" is very very wrong! The thought experiment of "the tragedy of the commons" shows that man is trapped in a system that compels us to increase our possessions, money, resources, etc. without limit - in a world that is limited. Our commonly owned resources are thereby doomed to destruction. Grasslands (overgrazed), oceans, lakes (overfished), and our National Parks (which are being degraded by constand visitors) are the "Commons." Pollution of the air, water, and land is like a reverse tragedy- instead of overusing something, we put pollution into the commonly shared areas.
These issues are linked in a major way to overpopulation. We should not allow unlimited breeding because this puts a strain on the commons and thee is no "natural" process to curb human population growth. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights has declared "...any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself..." but this is only harmful to the human race. It should be rethought. We can't depend on people's conscience's to do the right thing, because people vary greatly- some inevitably will do it, but a lot won't.
It is necessary to set up a form of "mutual coersion" to control use of the commons. This could be a system similar to our tax system...which none of us love, but accept as necessary for the benefit of everyone. It doesn't need to be a perfect system, just better than the one we have right now! We have improved our situation slightly by limiting the commons in some areas (private property, restricting hunting and fishing etc.) but we must take this further. We must also deal with overpopulation immediately by recognizing the necessity of the restriction and enjoy the freedom of a healthy planet, rather than freedom to breed.
The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis
Summary of Selection 6
All forms of life change and affect their environment. Humans have been affecting it very far back into history; but ever since the 1800s when the Industrial Revolution happened, we have been affecting it in an exponentially drastic way. We would like to examine society's way of thinking by looking historically at the presuppositions that underlie modern technology and science.
Most technology currently used across the globe is Western. These technological and scientific movements got their "start, character, and foothold" in the Middle Ages. At that time new "plow technology" allowed the peasants to till much more soil than the previous scratch plows. The teachings of Christianity influenced man to believe that man rightfully dominates nature- a very anthropocentric view. Early scientists explained their motivations to be theological-showing our science and technology stems from Christianity as well. Based on this we can see our ecological problems won't be solved by science and technology since it's basis is largely anthropocentric.
St. Fransis of Assisi was a spiritual revolutionary in the Christian faith. He attempted to change the idea of man being superior- to all creatures being equal. Sadly, he failed. But we should carry on his work and spirit as ecologists.
All forms of life change and affect their environment. Humans have been affecting it very far back into history; but ever since the 1800s when the Industrial Revolution happened, we have been affecting it in an exponentially drastic way. We would like to examine society's way of thinking by looking historically at the presuppositions that underlie modern technology and science.
Most technology currently used across the globe is Western. These technological and scientific movements got their "start, character, and foothold" in the Middle Ages. At that time new "plow technology" allowed the peasants to till much more soil than the previous scratch plows. The teachings of Christianity influenced man to believe that man rightfully dominates nature- a very anthropocentric view. Early scientists explained their motivations to be theological-showing our science and technology stems from Christianity as well. Based on this we can see our ecological problems won't be solved by science and technology since it's basis is largely anthropocentric.
St. Fransis of Assisi was a spiritual revolutionary in the Christian faith. He attempted to change the idea of man being superior- to all creatures being equal. Sadly, he failed. But we should carry on his work and spirit as ecologists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)