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.

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.

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.

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.

Wapusk is quite far north, and it is just would not be practical for a lot of people to be visiting. It would also have negative impacts on the environment from car/plane pollution. But there are other ways for us to enjoy the beauty of Wapusk. As I mentioned earlier, we could have more educational videos/documentaries available to us put together by scientists or other people who have been there. It definitely wouldn't be as amazing as visiting the area personally, but it's definitely better than nothing at all. I am just happy knowing that a place exists where the polar bears can have their cubs peacefully and undisturbed. I think many people would be content knowing that. We have many parks close by to enjoy, so I don't think any drastic measures need to be taken right now. In the future perhaps some tours could be arranged, so that everyone visiting travels together to minimize pollution, stay safe, and see all there is to see with a professional guide.


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)

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.

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.

Reinventing the Energy System

Summary of Selection 16

In the 19th century it was impossible for the people to imagine how fossil fuels and other advances might change their futures and the environment. Now, our futurists have a hard time seeing a more convenient, reliable, and affordable source of energy than fossil fuels. Since they provide 90% of the energy in industrialized countries and 75% worldwide, they seem irreplaceable. But we are in an energy transition period, and our future will be much different. It will be high efficient, and decentralized, using renewable resources such as the sun and wind, with hydrogen as a possible fuel source.

We have built our economy on trends that cannot possibly be sustained for another century. Oil reserves will not last to the end of the 21st century. The extraction of non-renewable resources such as oil follow a bell curve and we are reaching the peak (now to 10 years from now). China and India need more oil for their developments - except it won't be available.

Environmental (air, water, and land degredation) and health burdens of using fossil fuels may force us to develop a cleaner energy system. They also cause CO2 levels to rise leading to global warming/climate change. We need to cut emissions by 60-80%. Our growing economy's demands may not be met by the energy system that helped launch it! This also happened in the 18th century in Great Britian. We need systemic change in many areas. Some areas of development are silicon semi-conductor chips, sturdy light weight materials through chemical and materials science, lighting (LED lights) and many more. Advanced wind power systems are being designed by Dutch engineers which are very economically competative. Other developing technologies are the solar-photovoltaic cell, which converts the sunds radiation into an electric current; and the thermophotovoltaic cell, which makes electricity from industrial waste heat. The Fuel Cell is also very promising. It uses an electrochemical process that combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce water and electricity. It is twice as efficient as conventional engines, has no moving parts, requires little maintenance, is silent, and emits only water vapour! It needs work though, currently it uses natural gas...but eventually hopefully it will run on pure hydrogen through electrolysis.

Solar-hydrogen-wind resources are more abundant and evenly distributed among countries throughout the world. Nations do not need to be large and powerful to find a strategic niche in the system. (ex. the Dutch and their wind power) Developing nations may just "leapfrog" over the 20th century systems and start using the new renewable technologies. Our previous system has lead to a great imbalance in social well-being. A new system that is a decentralized, renewable-resource based energy system has a better chance of being fair.

Our "high-energy" society is not sustainable. We need to reduce our energy consumption and change our lifestyles. We need to exercise our democratic rights and demand change! The sooner the hydrocarbon era ends the better...for people (here and in developing countries), the environment, and future generations!