Blog 2000

2010-02-27T11:59:00.001-08:00

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

2010-02-27T11:14:00.001-08:00

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

Blog 6

2009-12-07T17:17:00.000-08:00

At the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima or Why Political Questions Are Not All Economic
Lewiston, New York is the site of radioactive wastes disposed of by the federal government. The radio active wastes were buried underground, but a south wind still blows radon gas through the town. Leukemia has been found in children of the area but officials claim that people who smoke take greater risks than those who live near the waste disposal site. Near Lewiston landfills stretch in all directions, trucks dump sludge and bulldozers push it into the ground.
This issue relates to economic decisions and political decisions that are made in regards to the environment. Ideally these two decisions should be the same. Approaching environmental issues from an economical view relates to consumers. It is the consumer’s values that matter and the measure of these values indicates his or her willingness to pay. There is a severe problem with the distribution of goods and services, meaning that more people get more of what they want to buy, while others get less. There is much difficulty in determining the value of an undisturbed landscape because it is difficult to asses the amount someone would be willing to pay to preserve an area in its ‘natural’ state. The ultimate measure of environmental quality is measured by finding the value that people place on a service, or their willingness to pay. We often think of ourselves as citizens rather than always as consumers. We act as consumers to get what we want for ourselves. We act as citizens in order to achieve what we feel is best for the community. But, is what we want for ourselves individually consistent with the goals we should set for ourselves collectively as citizens? Often we support political causes that defeat our consumer interests. For example, we speed on highways but demand that police enforce laws against speeding. I can relate to this statement as I criticise people who drive short distances unnecessarily, but I myself drive to Superstore for just a few groceries, even though I live only a few blocks away.
The Reagan office required all administrative agencies and departments to support all new major regulations with a cost-benefit analysis. This requires that the monetary benefits of a regulation must outweigh its monetary costs. This means that standards may not reflect the personal choices of individuals, but the collective judgements we make on historical, cultural, aesthetic, moral, and ideological grounds.
The Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed in 1970, this restricts worker exposure to toxic substances. It requires that no employee will suffer from material impairment of health or functional capacity even if the employee has regular exposure to the hazard, and even if they were exposed to the hazard for all of their working life. The allowable exposure level for benzene, a carcinogen with no known safe threshold, was decreased from ten to one part per million. The American Petroleum Institute challenged this standard arguing that the benefits to workers of this reduction did not equal the costs to the industry. This brings the question about courts; should courts uphold only political decisions that can be defended by economical justification? The problem with cost-benefit analysis is that only preferences that individuals reveal or would reveal in markets are considered. This approach treats everyone equally, but some opinions deserve more respect than others. The cost-benefit analysis does not ask how much economists are willing to pay for what they believe, so why should it ask workers, environmentalists, etc. how much they are willing to pay for what they believe is right? Cost-benefit analysis treats all as equals as it treats them as of no worth, just places at which willingness to pay is found.
When efficiency is the determinant of public health and safety, the visions of what society should be like are often ignored. Some feel that worker safety and environmental quality should be protected only if the benefits of protection outweigh the costs. Others argue that the worker’s safety or the environmental quality should be treated as just a commodity to be traded, but each should be respected for its own sake. Regarding protection of the natural environment, the values we wish to protect include cultural, historical, aesthetic, and moral, all of which are public values. They depend mainly on what people think are important for a community not what each person wants individually. Worker health and safety are not regarded as commodities and hazards are regulated as a matter of right. We refuse to treat environmental resources as simply public goods. We prevent deterioration of air quality as collective self-respect. Finding a balance of efficiency between moral, cultural, and aesthetic values in policy for the workplace and the environment has proven to be extremely difficult. Usually the best way to find this balance is by voting after a legislative debate.
The cost-benefit analysis treats values as just statements of preference, attitude, or emotion. Values are only important in cost-benefit analysis if it is measured how much someone is willing to pay to satisfy their wants. Those who are willing to pay the most have the right to view and are seen as having a more informed opinion, better aesthetic judgement, and deeper moral insight than those who are less willing to pay. Economists prefer to make decisions by determining preferences using mathematics. For example, those who oppose abortion could eliminate it if they were willing to pay more to prevent it than the price anyone would pay to have an abortion.
The Kantian approach to ethics regards some values more reasonable than others; therefore these values have a better claim upon the consent of members of the community. Values and beliefs can be neither correct nor mistaken. There are two approaches to public policy; first, normative versions of welfare economics, in which only policy recommendations can or need to be defended on objective grounds, is wealth-maximizing. However, the Kantian approach assumes policy recommendations can be justified or refuted on objective grounds.
The residents of Lewiston demanded the truth about the dangers confronting them and the reasons for those dangers. They wanted to be convinced that the sacrifice asked of them was legitimate, even if it served interests of others. The citizens of Lewiston are powerless and do not know how to criticises, resist or justify power. To have power to act as a nation we must be able to act on a public philosophy. It is important that we do not abandon the moral function of public law.
I agree that from an economical opinion it is important to be aware of the monetary value of laws and regulations, but I do feel that when it comes down to determining the value of peoples lives or well being that no appropriate price tag can be attached to these factors. The safety of those who are exposed to carcinogens must be protected. People who own businesses and are exploiting these workers should not be in the position to determine regulations just so that they can make a bit more money.
At the very least, the people of Lewiston deserved to know the risks associated with the community in which they live. They should have been provided with fair information immediately after a problem had been assessed. A fair opportunity should have been provided for these people to determine if they were willing to accept the risks of the community or if they found it more beneficial to start a new life in a new community. I think that wiliness to pay can be a good indicator of benefits and downfalls of decisions but other factors such as ethics should also play a very key role in decision making.

Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment
In this article Sandra Steingraber discusses the effects that cancer has had on her. She was diagnosed with cancer as a young adult and cancer runs in her family...her adoptive family. In cancer studies of adoptees it has been found that there are correlations with their adoptive families but not with their biological ones. The adoptive families share an environment with their adopted child. What runs in families often does not necessarily run in blood.
In 1974 the words breast cancer entered public conversation because First Lady Betty Ford and Second Lady Happy Rockefeller both underwent mastectomies. Women who may have delayed checkups rushed to doctors offices. Many people were diagnosed with breast cancer within a short period of time, Steingraber’s mother being one of them.
A gene was detected that was responsible for human bladder cancer. It was found that this cancer is caused by a substitution of one unit of genetic material for another single rung of the DNA helix; guanine was switched for thymine. This resulted in the gene instructing the cell to produce valine. This caused alterations in structure of proteins involved in signal transduction. Steingraber questions when this mutation happened to her, if this was the cause of her cancer. Bladder carcinogens are called aromatic amines and occur in cigarette smoke, rubber, clothing dye, leather, photo paper, pharmaceuticals, and pesticides. Aniline, benzidine, naphthylamine, and o-toluidine are all aromatic amines. These aromatic amines are detoxified by the body by acetylation, which is carried out by detoxifying enzymes. Some people detoxify these carcinogens at a slower rate, putting them at higher risk of cancer, especially if they have been exposed to relatively high levels of aromatic amines. Bladder carcinogens were among the earliest human carcinogens to ever be discovered. Bladder cancer rates increased by 10% between 1973 and 1991 and were especially dramatic among African Americans. One third of bladder cancer in women is attributed to cigarette smoking, which is the largest risk factor for the disease. Presence of known and suspected bladder carcinogens in rivers, groundwater, dump sites, and indoor air is extremely concerning. Workers who were exposed to rubber chemicals were found to be six times more likely to have bladder cancer. In a Connecticut pharmaceutical plant workers were found eight times more likely to suffer from bladder cancer. There are many suspected bladder carcinogens including tetrachloroethylene, which is found in dry-cleaning solvents and sometimes as a contaminant of drinking water.
The obsession of scientists with relating cancer to genetics may be a factor that prevents cancer research regarding environmental factors. Hereditary mutations are present at conception and are carried in the DNA of every cell. Acquired mutations accumulate of a person’s lifetime and are passed on only to descendants of the cells from which they arise. Hereditary cancers account for fewer than 10% of all malignancies. Cancer rates are not increasing due to formation of new cancer genes, but because of increasing carcinogens. Perhaps more science should be devoted to environmental causes of cancer as people cannot change their ancestors, but to a greater extent can influence the environment they place them self in. I feel that this is an extremely important issue. Prior to reading this article I assumed that cancer was something that ran ‘in the blood’ more often than it was an environmental factor. It seems that more tests should be done on possible carcinogens before they are released into the market. For example, cell phones were recently proved to be non-carcinogenic, good thing as we have been using them for many years.
Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, addressed the threat to human health created by reckless pollution. An important risk with this pollution was caused by the failure to inform citizens about the dangers of pollution. It is important to look into the past then reassess the present situation; we then must imagine an alternative future.
Many carcinogens are carried within our bodies that are not even produced or used currently but continue to linger in the environment or within human tissue. This causes the interaction of humans with banned chemicals. Exposure of carcinogens to people at even young ages can result in cancer risk. For this reason it is important that we find out what pesticides were used, what household chemicals were used, and research other chemicals which could be affecting people today. Currently, carcinogens are regulated by their use, release and disposal, but perhaps it would be more effective to regulate their production. I agree that production of carcinogenic materials should be limited or not allowed at all. More research should be done before this materials are allowed to be used by the public.
Unfortunately for some, not all people bear equal risks regarding carcinogens in the environment. Workers who manufacture carcinogens and those who live near chemical graveyards are at much higher risks. Also, people are not all affected by carcinogens to the same extent as some people are much more vulnerable to their effects. The article refers to cancer as being similar to a lottery, except not all people have the same odds of “winning.”
A modest estimate of people who suffer from environmental cancer is 2%. Assuming this is correct that equals 10,940 people in the United States who die each year from environmental causes. Note, that this is likely a very modest estimate. This is equivalent to 30 funerals each day. So many causes have much more funding and awareness than environmental cancer, but actually have far fewer people die from them. This includes children and teenagers who die from firearms, non-smokers killed by lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke, and breast cancer. This is fairly surprising as so many issues which kill far less people than environmental cancer get so much more funding to raise awareness. I feel it is important that the public be provided more education regarding which items they use on a daily basis could be potentially lethal.
The principle of the least toxic alternative should be utilized meaning that toxic substance will not be used unless there is no other way. This principle attempts to make safer choices more available and the deliberate and routine release of chemical carcinogens unthinkable. I agree that this principle should be used. Unfortunately I assume that there will be legal issues that make ceasing production of some products much more difficult then I would like to assume.
Until reading this article I was relatively unaware of the risks I place myself in for contracting an environmental form of cancer. I would consider myself to be someone who is relatively careless regarding substances, the handling of pesticides for example. This has been a very informative article.

Impacts on Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services
Marine ecosystems in human populated areas are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species. The consequences of this loss are largely unknown. This article summarizes some tests on the effects of biodiversity loss on marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales. Resource collapse and recovery potential as well as stability and water quality have decreased significantly as diversity declines. Increasing productivity has been seen with the restoration of biodiversity, also decreased variability within the ecosystem. Loss of biodiversity within the oceans inhibits its ability to maintain water quality, provide food, and recover from disturbances. Species richness has been found to significantly aid in productivity and stability.
A large portion of the world’s population lives near the oceans and a loss of services, including flood control and waste detoxification, could be devastating. Changes in the ocean biodiversity are the result of exploitation, pollution, habitat destruction, and climate change. Marine extinctions are occurring especially fast in estuaries, coral reefs (shown at left), coastal and oceanic fish communities.
Thirty-two controlled experiments were done to study the effects of variation in marine diversity on primary and secondary production, resource use, nutrient cycling and ecosystem stability. Increased diversity of producers and consumers was found to enhance production to about 80% for diverse communities, rather than monocultures at about 25% resource use efficiency. Diversity was found to enhance stability, allowing it to recover more easily or to better withstand disturbances.
Since industrialization native species diversity has declined rapidly. Ecosystems with more regional species richness appear more stable and are at less risk to collapse and extinction. Three of the ecosystem services that are impaired by a loss in biodiversity include fisheries, nursery habitats, and water quality. With increasing sea level rise, loss of floodplains and erosion have been major effects. Increasing numbers of species invasions has accompanied the loss of native biodiversity. It has been well discussed that the more species-rich systems have been much more stable in delivering their specified ecosystem services.
In large marine ecosystems the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem services was analysed using data on fish and invertebrate catches from 1950 to 2003 for 64 of the world’s large marine ecosystems. The rate of fisheries collapses has been acceleration over time, as of 2003 29% of currently fished species were considered collapsed. Collapse of these ecosystems has occurred most quickly in the species-poor ecosystems. Increases in species richness greatly help to decrease this collapse. In higher diversity areas fishers may switch their target species as one begins to dwindle, this allows that species to rebuild its population as another is caught. A diverse number of species provides more organisms that can carryout different actions, making performance more efficient.
The article questions whether marine services can be restored after a loss has already occurred. This has been tested through the use of reserves and closures which aimed to reverse the decline of marine biodiversity. These attempts proved an average of a 23% increase in species richness with increased species diversity of target and nontarget species. This allowed for significant increase in fishery productivity. It was determined that it is in fact possibly to recover lost biodiversity, at least on local and regional levels. This recovery is accompanied by increased productivity and decreased variability, resulting in increased revenue.
Worm concludes that the current trend of decreasing biodiversity may result in the collapse of all presently fished taxa by the middle of the 21st century. Decreased biodiversity impairs the ability of marine ecosystems to feed the human population and decreases their ability to maintain stability and recover from the changing marine environment. Some general patterns of this article include the ability of high diversity systems to provide more services with decreased variability. Restoration of marine biodiversity through sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats, and creation of marine reserves allows us to invest in the productivity and reliability of the ocean’s goods and services which are essential to humanity.
Hopefully we as a society will choose to make a change to the way we treat marine ecosystems before it is too late for them to recover. This would cause an extreme loss of food for the entire world. Two ways that I expect could greatly help this issue include decreasing the amount of overfishing that occurs as well as preventing the dumping of raw sewage into surface water.

Life and Death of the Salt Marsh
Along the eastern coast of North America lies a green strip of soft, salty, wet, low-lying land that we refer to as the salt marshes. This land is partly solid and partly mobile water. The marsh reaches as far inland as the tides can go. The marsh plants move outward as far as they can survive in the saline ocean water. The marsh is home to many wildlife species including vast amounts of birds. Crabs move through the marsh vegetation in search of food. The wetlands have a distinctive sea and salt water scent. In the past marshes have been disturbed as they are dug up, have trashed dumped into them, and are destroyed by city waste. This causes a distinct hydrogen sulphide odour. Spartinia patens is a marsh grass that has been cut for use as salt hay, adding to marsh disturbance. In the southern marshes, just one species, Spartinia alterniflora, covers the entire marsh. The ground of a marsh consists of a mat of plant roots and mud layered on top of a liquid underlayer.
Human activities have been threatening salt marshes (shown below) for many years. Marshes and shallow water bodies have been destroyed by dredging, filling, building and pollution. This destruction is often foolish as frequently the area is much more valuable when maintained as a marsh than it is in its altered form. Maintenance of marshes will benefit everyone from the fisherman to the consumer of the fishery product. It is understood that some marshland destruction is inevitable. If we cannot avoid destroying some marshes, how do we choose which ones to protect and which can be destroyed? How should we go about protecting them? National level planning is essential as the whole marsh system needs protection, not just individual marshes. Protection must include safeguards against pressure to develop these areas to be used for alternate purposes. For a marsh to be replaced a developer must only ‘win’ once, for a marsh to maintain in its original state conservation must ‘win’ many more battles. In the past hundred years the United States has accomplished the protection of many natural resources including the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone hot springs, and the Everglades. Now they country must step up and protect these marshes in their entirety.
To my knowledge, one very important role of marshes is their ability to filter toxins out of water that enters the groundwater system. By filling in marshes or building over top of them this function is lost. I agree with the authors, who state that often marshes are much more valuable than the buildings that replace them. The pressure placed on a landowner must be extreme as the marsh isn’t worth a of money as a marsh, but it is worth a lot to the environment as a marsh. When a developer offers someone a large sum of money to build over the marsh it must be pretty tempting to sell. Something needs to be done to help dissipate this temptation. Perhaps the government could purchase these areas and refuse to sell them to developers.

Blood Diamond
Blood diamond is an eye opening movie which displays the daily battles that take place in Sierra Leone for the control of the diamond industry. The movie focuses on the impact that the diamond industry has had on Solomon Vandy’s family. During a raid of their community Solomon was captured by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) and forced to work searching for diamonds, Solomon’s son, Dia, was captured and forced to be a child soldier. Solomon’s wife and other children were sent to a refugee camp. Danny Archer, played by Leonardo Dicaprio, smuggles ‘dirty diamonds’ for a military colonel.
Solomon found a diamond, approximately 100 carats, and hid it for himself. When one of the RUF saw him hide it they were about to kill him when the government raided the area. The movie continues with a struggle to find the stone and for Solomon to get his family back safely. Danny helps Solomon to get his family back and find the diamond. It seems that Danny is just helping Solomon because he wants to steal the diamond, but in the end Danny dies, leaving Solomon and Dia with the diamond. Now that Solomon has the diamond he can demand the safety of his family as well as money.
The film discusses how when anything of value is found in Africa corruption occurs as many people strive to control the particular industry. In the case of diamonds, these ‘dirty’ diamonds constantly make it into the ‘clean’ supply of diamonds. Van de Kaap Diamonds, a well respected diamond company that claims they do not purchase blood diamonds, tries to purchase the diamond from Vandy. This is documented by Maddy Bowen, a journalist who exposes the issue of blood diamonds. This means that people in even Canada who purchase diamonds are supporting the mistreatment of so many people who suffer during diamond mining in Africa. This story displays the ability of humans to become so corrupt when dealing with such a valuable good.
I enjoyed this film very much as it was a very controversial issue being discussed. The treatment of the people, especially the children, was nearly unbelievable. I fail to see how this is an important environmental issue, aside from the fact that much of the countryside has been dug up as the search for diamonds goes on, but this is not an impacted displayed greatly in the film. This was a very powerful movie and I would recommend it to anyone interested in this type of issue.

Discussion
Diamonds: Are They Worth It?
This is a very controversial topic. I would like to believe that if I were engaged I wouldn’t care about the size of my diamond, or the fact that it is a diamond, but truthfully I think I would. I think it is a very large step in the right direction that diamond companies are trying to avoid ‘dirty diamonds’, but from the movie “Blood Diamond” it seems this may be a difficult task. The Canadian polar bear diamonds are a great option as they ensure that they have been acquired in a much more humane way, although they seem to be significantly more expensive. I feel that it is unfortunate how much of a symbol that the diamond ring has become. If people could get past that opinion and be able to look at other gems, or even other items as representing the same ‘love’ perhaps many lives could be saved.
Environmental Science 2000
I have enjoyed the class as it has provided me with the opportunity to learn many new things and to look at many of my previous opinions from a different point of view. As a student in the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences I feel that it is very important to have the chance to look at issues related to agriculture from a different perspective; although I will admit that I often don’t completely agree with either the agricultural or the environmental side. I would enjoy a course that fairly displayed opinions from both perspectives. I enjoyed the blog readings, for the most part, some were much more interesting than others. The videos in class were similar, as some were interesting and some were rather ‘dry’. Overall, I feel this has been a very beneficial class in my degree at U of M.

Blog 5

2009-11-19T20:14:00.000-08:00

Towards Sustainable Development
The article begins by defining sustainable development; ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’ A diagram of the factors that influence sustainability is shown below. Need specifically refers to the requirements of the world’s poor, who should be given priority to resources. The main objective of development is to satisfy human needs and aspirations. This objective is not being met properly because the needs of many people in developing countries are not being fulfilled. Sustainable development values consumption standards that are within ecological bounds and requires economic growth in areas in which it currently is not being met. Sustainable development requires non-exploitation of others and productive activity. Productive activity and poverty can coexist but will endanger the environment. Societies must meet human needs by increasing productivity and ensuring opportunity for all. The issue is caused by the distribution of resources. By exploiting resources a society may be compromising the ability to provide essential needs into the future. With technological development sometimes even larger issues can be created in the future. It is important to not endanger the natural system: the atmosphere, the waters, the soils and living beings. Knowledge and technology will help to increase the carrying capacity of our resource base. Renewable resources should not be depleted; this requires their use within limits of natural growth and regeneration. Non-renewable resources must be preserved so their stock is available for future generations. People must be critical of this resource use and aware of the technologies to minimize depletion and of likely substitutes. Species are non-renewable and their loss would greatly affect future generations. Free goods, such as air and water, are also resources which are converted into useful products. Sustainable development strives to change exploitation of resources, direction of investments, orientation of technological development and institutional change.
Education, institutional development, and law enforcement are used to persuade people to act in the common interest. There are many problems with economic and political power and sustainability. Ecological interactions are not contained within boundaries of individual ownership of politics. For example, water bodies are affected by large water sheds, irrigation practices may affect a farmer downstream, and industrial practices have many effects of people through the environment. All people would be much better if people took into account the effects of their acts on others. Often areas of political jurisdiction and areas of impact are not the same, this causes difficulty in enforcing common interest goods. These issues must be resolved through international cooperation. Achieving common interest would be much easier if situations left everyone better off but unfortunately there are both winners and losers. The losers are those who suffer more than their share of health, property and ecosystem damage. Also a hindrance to developing nations is the fact that wealthier nations are more prepared to cope with effects of climate change. The capacity for technological innovation of developing countries must be greatly increased and the development of technology must be more concerned with the environment. Generally, environmental risks are most notable in areas in which the inhabitants have little or no influence over the decisions that cause the risk.
Economic and environmental considerations must both be considered for sustainable development, requiring governmental changes. Environmental damage is often worst from groups who aim for individual gain and do not consider the impacts on others. Society’s belief that technology will continue to solve any issues we create is unrealistic. Industries and sectors must be looked at together for environmental concerns due to their interconnected links, agriculture and energy for example. Often, no sector is willing to take the responsibility for negative impacts but claims that the other sector is the one that causes the problem. Sustainable development requires this fragmentation must be overcome and that we must think of the damages being caused and who can reduce them. Sustainability requires increased responsibility for the impacts of decisions and must be changed at the institutional level. The environment must be allowed to provide adequately for health and well being of all human beings, including future generations. Communities must be given some input on the use of their resources. Public inquiries would aid in increasing the importance of public opinion. Free access to relevant information and information regarding alternative sources should be provided publicly. If risk of a project is high the decisions should be subject to public approval. Attitudes of the public and private sectors must adjust. Sustainable development must combine aspects of economics and ecology to be successfully achieved.
I agree very much with this article. I feel especially strongly about allowing communities to have more input on what happens nearby their community or with resources that are near them. This is especially important in developing countries as they currently are given very little power to make such decisions. I also feel that it is important that many industries unite to decide how to fix environmental problems that they collectively cause, rather than continue to blame each other and allow environmental damage to continue. I think that generally society does not pay enough attention to the importance of sustainable development. Everyone wants to ‘save the world’ but few are willing to give up their standard of living regarding the amount of energy they use on a daily basis.

Controversy at Love Canal
This article is about Love Canal, illustrated map of area shown below, which was a canal in Niagara Falls that was filled with toxic chemicals by Hooker Chemical Corporation. The canal was filled and sold to the Niagara Falls Board of Education in 1953. Hooker claims there was a cause in deed transferring the property to the Board of Education that releases the company form any future liabilities. An elementary school and a community were built over and surrounding the canal. About 25 years later a thick black oily mixture began to seep through the topsoil. Three children suffered from chemical burn from wastes on the surface of the canal and the Niagara Falls Heath Department took no action. Chemicals were found in the homes of residents and a high rate of miscarriages was recorded. In August of 1978 the area was declared a health emergency. In the fall of the same year the residents were assured it was safe beyond what had already been evacuated and that there were no increased health risks but the community remained sceptical.
Paigen chose to do more research on the area and found a geographical clustering of health issues. She divided the community into wet homes, which bordered streams, swales and swamps, and dry homes. In wet homes the number of miscarriages was three times higher than in the dry homes. Eight percent of the women who became pregnant had over three miscarriages; the probability of this happening in ‘normal’ areas is less than 0.1%. Birth defects were increased in wet homes, some minor and some very serious. Data indicated that chemicals likely had migrated beyond the previous fence indicating a high health risk in the Love Canal neighbourhood. But, the health commissioner had publicly stated that the chemicals had not migrated beyond the fence. In November of 1978, Paigen suggested to the Department of Health that adverse pregnancy outcomes were more frequent in wet homes than in dry homes and that there were other adverse effects. The Health Department then evacuated all families with pregnant women or children under two years old.
Regarding the Love Canal controversy there were two opposing sides: the community and the New York State Department of Health. The goal of the Health Department is to protect the health of communities and the community felt that the department was not acting in a manner consistent with these goals and responsibilities. During the controversy there were many factors that impeded resolution of the issue. They include:
1. The failure to resolve any controversy may be advantageous to one side
2. Opponents may not agree on the question that needs to be answered
3. In any controversy, since the type and quality of information gathered will influence the outcome, no one group should be in complete control of the information gathering process.
4. Beyond questions of money and expertise is the issue of full expression for dissident and minority opinions.
5. Scientists, who are no strangers to controversy, should follow the social controls on behaviour that they have developed for the advancement of knowledge and the detection of error.
6. In any attempt at controversy resolution, all parties to the conflict should agree on precisely what facts need resolving; all parties should agree on the composition of the body chosen to resolve the controversy; all parties should agree on the procedures by which that body will operate; and all parties must agree to abide by the decisions.

Scientists should adhere to the standards of their profession, including the openness of data, peer review, peer criticism, and publication of evidence. Community involvement should be widely encouraged. The community should be provided with money to hire its own experts. The main problem behind Love Canal was that it was mainly a political issue. Standards should be created to aid in conflict resolution, including guidelines for selecting an independent group of fact-finders, rules for procedure for the group, agreement of both parities to adhere to the agreement, and protection for whistleblowers.
Regarding this article I am extremely disappointed with the Health Department who should be looking out for the well being of the residents of the community but was actually found to be subjecting them to further harm. It is very upsetting that the lives of so many people were negatively affected due to the lack of cooperation from the Health Department to actually find out if there was a problem and how to solve it. It is very unfortunate that the residents of this area were not properly educated about the concerns regarding area in which they lived. I cannot help but hope that current Canadian standards far exceed the standards as well as the treatment of the issue in Love Canal.

Restoring Rivers
Rivers were getting cleaner between the years of 1973 and 1998, but ever since then they have actually been getting increasingly polluted. A polluted river in China is shown below. In some areas of the United States, surface and ground water is being depleted so much that some rivers do not even run to the ocean year round. Water shortages for many communities are becoming an increasing reality. Over one third of the rivers in the U.S. are either impaired or polluted. The ability of rivers to store flood water is lower than it has ever been, meaning that events such as hurricanes and flash floods are increasingly devastating. Aquatic wildlife is going extinct at a rate much higher than the rate of organisms of terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Water related issues include; high nitrates in drinking water, increasing sediments in tributaries, dead zones, and floods. These issues can be related to the degradation of rivers and streams, which could have been prevented by ecological restoration.
River restoration refers to repairing waterways that cannot perform essential ecological and social functions. These functions include mitigating floods, providing safe drinking water, filtering nutrients and sediments before they effect coastal zones, and supporting fisheries and wildlife populations. Rivers are also widely used for recreational purposes. Some restoration projects include land acquisition, bank or channel reshaping, and keeping livestock out of rivers and streams.
People tend to live and work near water bodies and historically wastes were disposed of by dumping them into rivers to carry away these wastes. In the past forests were cut down and wetlands were tilled in to facilitate transportation and building, with little understanding that these resources played ecologically. Dams were built to supply power and prevent floods but negative effects were seen in other areas. Cities and industries have continued to dump wastes into rivers and have also lined these rivers with concrete so they can convey water more rapidly. This is an issue because rivers are not allowed to filter out contaminants. In the 1960’s two thirds of U.S. water ways were polluted, in 1972 the Clean Water Act was passed which helped to decrease pollution until recently. The main reason for degradation of rivers and streams is poor land stewardship. Urbanization and farming cause the addition of sediments into waterways, suffocating aquatic life and harming drinking water. The CWA has begun minimizing point source inputs of pollutants into rivers but the non-point source inputs are also important. Ways that farmers are able to reduce their impact include planting riparian buffer zones near rivers and avoiding production near rivers.
Controls have not been able to keep up to development and the increasing watershed damage. The main goals of river restoration are to improve water quality, manage riparian vegetation, and stabilize aquatic habitats. The U.S. has been spending over one billion dollars each year on river restoration but is not getting its money’s worth. Restoration projects must include an assessment of ecological effectiveness to increase the efficiency of the money spent on restoration. There is currently no system to evaluate the effectiveness of a project. There is also no tracking system regarding what is done and where. Policies must be adjusted to find a solution to pollution. Federal agencies must adopt and abide by standards for successful river and stream restoration. Five standards are recommended by scientists and engineers:
1. Design of a river restoration project should be based on a specific guiding image of a more dynamic, healthy river
2. The river’s ecological condition must show measureable improvement
3. The river system must be more self-sustaining and resilient to external perturbations, so that only minimal follow up maintenance is needed
4. During the construction, no lasting harm should be inflicted on the ecosystem
5. Both pre- and post-assessments must be completed and data made publicly available

A tracking system for restoration projects must be implements so that restorers can learn from past efforts. Implementation monitoring is not used routinely, this includes; determining whether a project was built as designed, and in compliance with regulations. There should be a way to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration projects so that the most appropriate methods of improvement can be found for specific types of sites. Few projects are actually monitored and the level of success of projects is usually unknown. Existing restoration funding should be used more efficiently so that it is wisely allocated to successful projects.
A potential organization, such as a Water Resources Restoration Act, could authorize and fund river restoration projects. This organization would ensure funds are spent efficiently to provide benefits such as flood control, infrastructure protection, and maintenance of water quality. This would also create jobs and save taxpayers money in the end. Additional funding would allow tracking projects and more monitoring of projects. There is also a need for upgrades to stormwater and sewer infrastructure. The services of healthy rivers and streams are essential to the well being of people who demand cleaner, restored waterways. The expense of replacing services that a healthy river can provide is very expensive.

David Suzuki - Sustainability within a Generation: A New Vision for Canada

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/podcasts/DSF_podcast_04.mp3

A podcast by David Suzuki, shown at left, mentions issues regarding the costs of protecting the environment and costs of not protecting the environment. Suzuki mentions that the cost to fix the environment will cost Canada 1% of its GDP. The cost of not decreasing Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions will cost more than the costs of World War I and World War II combined. Suzuki states that he feels we cannot afford to not fix the problem. Lorne Taylor, the Minister of the Environment for Alberta, has stated that he feels it will be too expensive to repair the environment. Taylor states that without a thriving economy we cannot afford to protect the environment. Oppositely, Suzuki states that we cannot have a thriving economy without protecting our environment. If the environment is not protected we will lose approximately 20% of the GDP.

Nicholas Stern, Head of the Government Economic Service in the United Kingdom, speaks about the potential devastating effects of climate change. He concludes that the costs of inaction far exceeds the costs of action, approximately 1% of Canada's GDP. This is millions of dollars so politicians immediately claim the country cannot afford this. If the world moves over 800ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere the climate could be increased by about 5 degrees Celsius compared pre-industrial climates. To reduce climate change the world must move to a low carbon economy. Worldwide changed must be made to adapt to the expected climate change. Agriculture will be made very difficult with changing environmental conditions. A reduction in CO2 emissions of at least 30% is recommend by Stern. If this is not done the atmosphere will continue to build up CO2. Much of the world would become inhabitable, causing the movement of people form many areas of the world. Canada is seen as a influential country and if we were to take action to decrease CO2 emissions it is expected that many countries will follow suit.

An environmental student from University of Toronto was interviewed. She stated that she enjoyed the presentation by Suzuki as he combined environmental effects and the economy. I think this podcast states a lot of very important facts and is very educational. Someone with as much respect as Suzuki is very benefical to be speaking about this issue and to be incouraging Canada to make a change in its energy use patterns. I think that decreasing carbon emissions by 30% is a very attainable goal. Locally, one way that could significantly decrease carbon emissions would be to provide more affordable public transport. If half of the students who drive to University each day took the bus instead they would have a significant decrease in their personal emissions. The buses run regardless of how many people there are so taking the bus would not increase emissions, fewer people driving would decrease emissions significantly.

Reflections

There were no assigned reflections for this week but I would like to take the chance to reflect on my opionion of the Waste Audit Assignment. I feel this assignment was extremely informative for me. It showed me that such a large amount of household waste can be recycled or composted, and that doing so will significantly reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills. My household does not currently compost but we do recyle. For my environmental action plan I am working with my household to implement a composting system, as this will significantly reduce the amount of waste that left at our curb weekly. This should be an interesting project for myself and my five other roomates.

Orignially for my Environmental Action Assignment I wanted to volunteer with the Prairie Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre, which a non-profit organization that treats injured and orphaned animals and releases them back into the wild. Unfortunately, when I contacted them they told me that this time of the year they do not do much work with animals, and they are not doing in-school presentations until the new year. I would like to volunteer with them this coming summer. There website is: http://www.pwildlife.ca/

Blog 4

2009-11-05T21:59:00.000-08:00

Food Scarcity: An Environmental Wakeup Call
This article begins by discussing the many negative impacts humans have caused to the earth; overfishing, deforestation, climate change, soil erosion, and the list goes on. It is agreed that something must be done to prevent these activities before our earth can no longer support us. It is mentioned that agriculture is the link between environmental deterioration and economic decline and has been for many years.
Rising grain prices are expected to be the first sign of the world’s unsustainable environment. It is expected that grain prices will rise, due to increased demand, caused by an increasing population. This will cause grain and related products, including bread, meat, milk, etc., to be more expensive. This is troublesome as many people around the world already cannot afford to pay for their food needs. Such an increase of food prices would cause riots world wide and undoubtedly impact the world economy. As food demand increases food supply follows behind it, this means that producers must find ways to either farm more land or to produce higher yields from the land they currently farm.
Many current practices must be adjusted to decrease environmental damage, these include; decreased fishing, avoiding aquifer depletion, and land abandonment. This is difficult to decrease damages when the population continues to grow and food requirements follow this growth trend. It is estimated that 800 million people are hungry because they cannot afford food.
Population is growing but there is relatively little more land that can be converted into farm land as well as a decreasing supply of irrigation water causing food security to be threatened. Over the years farmers have used technology to increase food production including; terracing, irrigation, land reclamation, and many more methods. Grain production grew slower than population growth causing the amount of farmland area per person to shrink, this trend is expected to continue as population growth is rapid and the growth of grain production is slowing. Another main impediment for producers is the decreasing amount of freshwater available for irrigating crops. This has also caused drainage of aquifers and rivers. Demand is increasing by sectors including industrial, residential and agricultural, causing increased competition between these sectors. The article claims that most of the world’s rice and much of it’s wheat is grown on irrigated land, I disagree with this as I have learned in another class that 20% of world agricultural land is irrigated, which is a significant amount, but certainly not ‘most’. Perhaps most of the world’s rice is irrigated, but to say the ‘much’ of the world’s grain is irrigated I feel is an exaggeration. For example, Manitoba produces a significant amount of grain and only 2% of Manitoba agricultural acres are irrigated, much of those being in the Carman and Carberry areas in which potatoes, which are not considered a grain crop, are grown. I do agree that much of the land that is irrigated would likely not be productive without irrigation. Decreasing irrigation in these areas would cause them to be forced out of agricultural production, therefore decreasing total agricultural land. The article also states that a large amount of water is contained in food, so by importing grain, a country is also importing water.
An important issue faced by the world is the fact that food production rose constantly by about 2% each year until 1990 when it began to increase by only 2% each year. This is detrimental as the world’s population keeps growing at a relatively steady rate. This caused an increase in the crop land as in the United States where farmers were subsidised for land that they didn’t seed because there was previously a food surplus. The carryover grain stocks were decreased to just 52 days of consumption in 1996, this short supply unable feed very many people in the case of a single year’s poor crop yield. Food scarcity and food prices should be an indicator of a need for environmental change.
I was relieved to see that the article mentioned the importance of family planning for maintaining satisfactory food supply. The current generations must be able to adjust their reproductive behaviour as well as energy consumption to make a positive environmental change. Some governments should consider limiting the number of children a couple can have. Also, there must be large change to the type of energy the world uses, for example changing to a hydrogen or solar energy dominated economy has many potential benefits. The importance of sustainable farming is also noted, mentioning the importance of topsoil conservation by converting cultivated land to pasture land. This I disagree with as yield from pasture is insignificant compared to the yield that can be produced on cultivated land, but it must be managed properly for the given location.
Previously, the ‘back-up’ plan for food shortages relied on three things; idle cropland, surplus stored grain, and feed for livestock. The first two of these options have already decreased so significantly we can hardly rely on them in a time of disaster. The third would be very difficult to implement, mentioned methods include taxing livestock products. The food security depends on environmentally sustainable agriculture as well as the rest of the economy.
I was extremely disappointed that this article didn’t mention genetically modified foods as an important source of increasing food production. In the past this has been one of the main methods of increasing food supply and I believe that more research must be done to modify crops so that they can yield higher, be grown on varied soil types and in various climates. I believe that continued research and development of crops will play a very important role in keeping up to growing food demand.
I also feel that expecting farmers to change the world’s sustainability is an unreasonable and unattainable expectation. The reason I feel this way is because there are so many factors in farming that cause increased input costs, this means they must produce more and sell for higher prices, they cannot afford to cut yields and prices if they expect their farm to be economically sustainable. For example, to look at the price of land; as food demand increases so do land or rent costs. As rent prices increase a farmer must produce more to pay for this expense. As fuel prices rise a farmer must again produce more yield per acre. As scrap metal prices increase implement manufactures must pay more to produce machinery, this cost is passed on to the producer, who unsurprisingly can only combat this cost by increasing yield. As demand for yield increasing technology increases, companies charge more for their inputs; seed, pesticides, fertilizer, etc. So as a farmer pays more for his inputs he must charge more for his produce. My personal opinion is that farmers cannot be expected to lose money by producing food to feed the world. Someone can claim that environmental damage has increased as farming practices have intensified, but a person must think of the cause of intensified agriculture; population increase. I feel that this is where preventative action needs to begin.

Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems
Increased pesticide and synthetic fertilizer use is stated to negatively impact human health and the environment. Environmental and health care costs of pesticide use are estimated at $12 billion each year in the United States. Nutrient leaching causes dead zones and deterioration of fisheries. Over use of fertilizer (application beyond the amount a crop can take up) causes $2.5 billion dollars of damage per year. Soil erosion damage is estimated at over $45 billion each year. Better pest and nutrient management can reduce the reliance of agricultural chemical inputs as well as decrease impacts on the environment and the economy. Organic systems eliminate pesticide and other external input use. Organic cropping is growing in popularity significantly.
An experiment in Pennsylvania comparing the environmental impacts, economic feasibility, energetic efficiency, and soil quality is described. The treatments include conventional, manure and legume, and legume only cropping systems. The conventional system relies highly on external, synthetic inputs. The manure/legume system relies on manure and legumes as a nitrogen source. The legume system used green manure crops to provide soil nitrogen. For the first five years of the experiment corn yields were significantly higher for the conventional system. After this transitional period conventional corn yields were still higher, but not as significantly. During drought animal manure/legumes produced highest yield, then conventional, then legume only with the lowest yield for corn.
Soil organic matter is higher in the manure/legume and legume systems, this is because organic matter is added to the system yearly in the form or manure waste or green manure crops. Increased organic matter is expected to cause an increase in soil biodiversity. The organic systems were also found to consume less fossil fuel energy. Overall, throughout the study, it was found that generally yields were similar throughout the sites.
Organic good prices range from 20-140% higher than conventionally produced goods. Two problems mentioned in organic food production are nitrogen supply and pest management. Many organic practices could be beneficially adopted into conventional farming; use of cover crops, extensive rotations, increasing soil organic matter, use of natural biodiversity as a form of integrated pest management. Organic cropping systems have been beneficial in increasing soil organic matter and nitrogen, decreasing fossil fuel energy, yields can be equally high as long as environmental conditions are appropriate, labour costs are high but are evenly distributed, higher market prices, decreased soil erosion, pests, and pesticide use, increased biodiversity and increased sustainability.
I strongly disagree with many of the points made in this article. First of all, yes, we can put a price on the damages that pesticides cause yearly, but can we realistically put a price on the number of lives that would be lost yearly due to increased food shortages caused by decreased yields due to not using these inputs? Next, the article states that contamination of ground and surface water is amplified because more fertilizer is used than what a plant can actually take up. This is true, but nutrients are applied at a rate that is needed for plant growth, which is more than plant growth due to factors that make nutrients unavailable, such as leaching, immobilization and binding to soil particles. This means that due to inefficiency of fertilizers over application is required for plant growth. Next, soil erosion is actually more prevalent on organic cropping systems due to the fact that tillage is one of the main means of weed control in these systems. Reduced tillage systems are usually complemented by pesticide use, this means that actually organic cropping systems cause equivalent or more damage do to soil erosion.
It is true that integrated pest management does control pests; weeds, insects, and diseases, better. This method is highly utilized in conventional farming and pesticides are included in integrated pest management. It is coincidental that the site of the study, Rodale Institute, is mentioned. Today during a soil fertility class my professor mentioned that organic farming actually removes nutrients from soil that are not allowed to be returned organically in sustainable amounts. He very coincidentally mentioned the Rodale Institute, saying that studies done there are actually biased as the higher soil pH actually facilitates the breakdown of the only organically allowable phosphorous source. Here in Manitoba, where we have low pH, acidic soils, this rock form of phosphorous will almost never be broken down. Phosphorous is a very essential nutrient, also one plants have extreme difficulty in absorbing; to deplete it would have extremely negative, irreversible effects.
The next paragraph states that prices of organic goods have large premiums. After reading the last article which discusses the importance of affordable food I can’t help but question this contradiction. I feel that affordable food is very important but also important is an economically sustainable living for producers. This premium is great for producers who currently have a large market to sell products in, but if people are already having difficulty paying for conventional food is organic cropping really a good idea? My own personal assumption is that organic demand will continue to grow but in the next ten years will drop off as the ‘organic fad’ ends. Most importantly I feel it is an inefficient way to feed the people. I do agree that many methods; cover crops, decreased pesticide use, green manure, and others, are good ideas that could be and have been implemented in conventional agriculture.
I have a very strong belief in producing the most yield from the land if it can be done in a sustainable way. Like stated previously I do agree there are benefits to organic agriculture, including a niche market, but I feel overall that conventional farming is more efficient.

The Agricultural Crisis as a Crisis of Culture
This article begins by discussing the differences in agriculture today versus when the author, Wendell Berry, grew up. Many years ago farms would produce their so called ‘major’ farm products as well as minor products including surplus cream, eggs, old hens, etc. There were many good and bad qualities about farm practices many years ago.
Currently farmland is being abandoned and the farms that do exist are deteriorating. Current farms are at risk due to lack of interest in farming from the younger generations. Minor products, milk for example, have been reduced due to regulations and increasing costs to follow those regulations. Farming remains to be ruled by the theory “get big or get out”; causing farm sizes to either enlarge and specialize or sell their farms to someone who will do just that. The article claims that this leads to the destruction of communities and is caused by universities, bureaucrats and agribusinessmen who have promoted efficiency as well as quantity at the expense of quality. Bigger farms have caused ‘inefficient farms’ to go out of business, and also have caused people to lose their jobs. It is claimed that a producer cannot succeed in producing both a large quantity of a product and a high quality product.
This issue of compartmentalization is discussed regarding both agriculture and the rest of society; lawyers, philosophers, etc. It claims that universities as well as government cause this separation of societies. Society should aim to produce more well rounded people who understand a little bit of everything, rather than such specialized individuals.
Another issue regarding rural communities is the movement of people from rural communities to cities, leaving farmland in control of only 5% of the population. When farmers leave the farm and move to cities to take jobs they often lose the ability to be their own manager. They become dependent upon a boss and become specialized. Acquired agricultural experience is given up to learn a task that can be taught in just a short matter of time. Proper farming requires complexity in the producer’s character as well as the culture of the farm. Good farmers are made by generations of experience which must be continually passed along. Unfortunately if farm investments become too large a producer must compromise values to the use of finance and technology. His thoughts begin to rely on where his money will come from, not so much where it will go.
The importance of maintaining agricultural sustainability is mentioned. This means for example that a farmer must maintain his soil quality if he expects the soil to provide him with a crop. Agriculture cannot exist if the natural systems that it requires have been compromised. It is important to be careful what we consider as agricultural progress and be sure that we are not actually regressing.
It is true that there is no longer a market for minor products in agriculture, this is because things are now produced in large quantities as it is more efficient as well as more safe. Producing products in larger quantities is a way of specialization which is the current trend in agriculture. An example mentioned is the fact that milk production regulations have increased and have become too expensive to comply to if only producing milk as a minor good. This actually concerns me that people feel the regulations are too strong when I think that food safety is a huge concern presently. I feel that this allows producers to provide the lowest price to consumers.
A loss of agricultural population is seen as a very important issue. Currently, the number of children who plan to take over their parents’ farm is diminishing. Often it is even suggested by the parents that the child look for another living due to the instability and risks of farming. The ‘get big or get out’ philosophy has also forced a large amount of people off of their farms but I agree this is likely due to inefficiency and that they left out of their own free will. It is extremely upsetting that so many farmers with incredible skill are lost yearly as they give up their farms to take other jobs. This movement likely occurs due to the low profitability and high risks of agriculture. Also important with the decrease of rural population is the government support; fewer people leads to less representation which can be detrimental for farmers and rural communities.
Many changes have occurred to agriculture over the years but most, in my opinion, have been very beneficial in increasing food supply. With the increasing technology farmers are able to farm more land, this means that there are there is a higher labour force for other jobs. A hundred years ago the farming population was much larger, but there were fewer specialists of any kind; hair dressers, accountants, lawyers, etc. The increase in these skilled labourers has been beneficial to society. Imagine if people were forced to live on farms simply because there had to be as many farmers as were needed in the past, wouldn’t it be nice to have the option of doing something else.

Women’s Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation
This article relates that way that women are treated in society to the way that biodiversity is treated in society. Similarly, both women and diversity are disrespected due to their difference from the perceived ‘norm’ of society. In our current society there seems to be no allowance for diversity as hierarchy is the main concern. Capitalism is the cause of the destruction of diversity and the creation of monocultures. Progress is seen as the movement towards monoculture, uniformity and homogeneity. Agriculture ‘development’ is a movement towards erasing diversity and uniform production.
Monocultures have been proven to be unproductive compared to polycultures. The knowledge that encourages monocultures is seen as primitive and not sophisticated. Gender politics as well as eco-politics are both seen as a politics of difference.
Third world countries rely on biodiversity for production as well as consumption. The livelihood of people in these areas is extremely dependent upon the conservation and sustainable use of these biological resources. It is incorrectly assumed that diversity-based systems are low in productivity. Current crop uniformity dominated systems actually decrease the diversity of biological systems. Scarcity of labour is combated by increasing technology that is more productive and efficient. In areas where labour is not scarce this causes extreme negative effects as it leads to poverty and loss of jobs.
As farmers, women have had a great contribution but are not given enough respect for their work. The work of women is difficult to measure as they contribute largely both inside and outside of the house. Farm labour of women requires extreme skill and knowledge. For example, dairy production in India is much more logic the practices that are taught in dairy science institutions. In Europe and North America women in dairy still play an important, but different, role as they have important expertise in breeding and feeding of the farm animals. Forestry is also another aspect in which women play an important role.
There is currently a sectored, fragmented and reductionist approach to agriculture in which forests, livestock and crops are treated as independent from one another. The ‘green revolution’ is believed to increase grain yields using techniques such as dwarfing, monocultures, and multi-cropping.
Women have been seen as custodians of biodiversity as they produce, reproduce, consume and conserve the biodiversity of agriculture. Diversity is reproduced and conserved through reproduction and conservation of culture. The article states that “world women’s relationship to biodiversity differs from corporate men’s relationship to biodiversity. Women produce through biodiversity, whereas corporate scientists produce through uniformity.” I find this to be a sexist comment as men are assumed to be ‘scientists’. I have worked for a seed sales company so I am more on the ‘scientist’ side of the industry than the women who are stated to be seed custodians. This just reaffirms the misconception that women don’t have an important role in agriculture as they are not included as scientists.
The article goes on to discuss how large seed developing companies are harming the farmers by placing genes in plants then claiming them. I disagree. Farmers can grow seeds that are open-pollinated varieites not hybrids. This would allow them to use ‘bin-run’ seed that they have harvested for another years production. Farmer’s generally grow hybrid varieties because they are more profitable due to higher yields form the genes the company has researched, patented, and inserted. Companies invest billions of dollars each year in seed improvement. If farmers would allowed to only purchase these superior varieties once seed companies would not be able to afford to pay for the research and development and there would be no high yielding varieties. Also, nine of nine of the risks associated with genetically engineered foods have the word “may” in them, this is hardly secure evidence of significant risk. The photo at left displays a more positive view of genetically modified seeds.
I found this article negatively portrays both agriculture and women’s rights in a strange way. Even after re-reading the article I’m still not sure that I really understand the correlation between these two subjects. Also, I feel the article seems outdated as women’s role and respect in agriculture has grown significantly in the past ten years or so. As a female agriculture student I find it to be somewhat upsetting that they say women are not respected for their role in the industry. Over the past few years I have witnessed that it is hard work and knowledge that leads agriculture students and employees to success, not their gender.
I also found the end of the article strange when the green revolution is focuses on. I thought this didn’t really relate to the theme in the rest of the article.

Peaceable Kingdom

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4DACA_enCA311CA311&q=peaceable%20kingdom%20documentary&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv# video shown in small box in upper left.

This is a documentary film based on a farm that strives to ensure the rights of animals on the farm. Discussed are the many mistreatments that animals receive from humans due to large scale production. Included in this is rough handling, long distance transportation, and culling of animals due to sex or age. This documentary focuses on a group of people that save animals that have been harmed or culled. The animals live on a farm in which interaction with the public is allowed and education is provided to the public.
This video shows many horrifying images of the mistreatment animals go through on farm, and at slaughterhouses. This footage is very horrifying but I believe that it is not a normal thing to see this type of mistreatment. I grew up on a cattle farm and still currently take trips with my dad to market and I have never once seen anything so cruel as in this video. I agree that it is terrible that this has happened to any animals. I don’t think it is fair to portray these images to the uneducated public, leading them to believe that all farms and slaughter houses operate in this manner. Producers cannot afford to treat their animals in such a manner because there is no way they could possibly profit from animals that are under so much stress. This stress would cause death and would not allow them to develop into any economical produce.
Videos like this upset me because I grew up on a farm that raised commercial cattle and hogs. The photo to the left shows a cow and calf, as well as some other cattle at my families pasture. My dad, my siblings, any other farm labourers, and I had upmost respect for our livestock. It is very upsetting to see a video like this that displays all commercial farms as inhumane.
I do respect the people in the video for attempting to help these abandoned, sick animals. I think it is important that the public understand that this is a very exaggerated video in regards to the mistreatment of livestock. Overall, I found this video very upsetting for two reasons. Firstly, no animal should ever be treated in ways that the animals of the video were. Secondly, I’m upset because I know that this is a very gross exaggeration of how animals are actually treated. Just because animals are raised with the end goal of human consumption doesn’t mean that they were raised in an inhumane way.

Food Blog
Over the past 48 hours I ate bagels for breakfast each morning, stir fry for lunch once, lettuce wraps for lunch once, lettuce wraps for supper, stir fry for supper, chicken wings, cheesecake, a Tim Horton’s Danish, and drank Tim Horton’s coffee on multiple occasions. This was not a very typical 48 hours for my meals as I ate leftovers multiple times and went out for meals more often than usual.
The bagels require wheat and other grain crops to be grown and processed. This requires nutrient inputs, possibly irrigation water, machinery, and labour. The stir fry contained either chicken or beef, noodles, and frozen vegetables. Most notable is the meat content of this meal, which requires grain as feed, labour, and transportation. Meat is a very important component in my diet but I do understand the value of meat and the possibility that the meat supply will decrease substantially in the future. Lettuce wraps are similar in ingredients to the stir fry, also functioned into this is the cost of preparation and mark up as they were prepared at a restaurant. Cheesecake was homemade and required ingredients such as eggs and cream cheese which are animal products, requiring large amounts of feed. The Tim’s Danish was produced from grain and processed fruit, this requires mainly energy usage during the plant’s production and the processing into ingredients. The Tim’s coffee I assume is not a fair trade coffee and requires intense farming practices, likely overseas, by people who are most likely underpaid.
I’m aware that my eating habits are not the most sustainable, mainly because I eat a fairly large amount of meat. The production of meat requires significantly more energy than the production of the same weight of plant products but this is a privilege that I have been lucky to be able to have, mainly due to where I was raised. Growing up on a beef farm I am sceptical of the idea of increasing the amount of grass fed beef to decrease energy expenses or grain being ‘wasted’. This would take significantly more time to raise these cattle to an acceptable slaughter weight. This is time that farmers simply cannot afford, if not because of cost than for sure because of time and space constraints.

Classroom Reflections
In class there was a discussion on the current hog barn moratorium in several municipalities of Manitoba. The main reason for this moratorium is to decrease the amount of phosphorous waste produced that will possibly leach into Lake Winnipeg. Phosphorous in Lake Winnipeg causes increasing algae, shown in wave photo below, and eutrophication of the lake. From my personal perspective, the most negative effect this will have on the hog industry is the fact that fewer and fewer young farmers will continue to stay in the industry. Without the ability to build new barns and grow hog farms the hog producing population will continue to get older and older, without younger farmers entering.
I agree that phosphorous concentration in the lake must be reduced but due to the fact that only 1.5% of the phosphorus that enters the lake is due to hog barns I wonder if the government is actually targeting the correct source. Maybe more steps should be taken such as banning the use of phosphorous in detergents for the entire province. After all, if farmers have to give up their well-being, maybe the public could go without phosphorous containing detergents.
Also in class we watched the video “The Meatrix”; again I was upset by the way livestock producers were portrayed. They were portrayed as people who just exploit livestock for their own profit. Producers that I know love what they do, and respect their livestock; otherwise they would not do what they do. The photo to the left shows more healthy cattle form my own farm. I also don’t like that in a university atmosphere videos are shown that promote the abandonment of meat products. I feel that’s a personal belief and that a fair representation of meat production should be portrayed.
Also I had some previous knowledge regarding the Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser (shown below) case. I feel that Monsanto has every right to protect the gene the insert into the canola plant. Monsanto would have had to invest billions of dollars in the production of that roundup tolerance gene and it is unfair that society thinks that Monsanto doesn’t deserve credit for that patent. My personal, educated opinion, is that Percy is someone who broke the law and got caught. I don’t think he is in any way a hero, more of a fraud. It is unfortunate that once the name Monsanto is mentioned the public immediately assumes something bad. Monsanto has been of key importance of the development of higher yielding crops which help to feed the less fortunate people of the world.
This has been a very personal blog for me as I am very educated in the agriculture industry. Some of my opinions were formed at a young age and many others I have been educated about. I do agree that there are many environmental risks of agriculture but it must also be understood by the public that farmers are trying hard to make changes and to make agriculture more sustainable. Farmers don’t take actions with the intent of harming the environmental sustainability of the world.

Blog 3

2009-10-21T18:06:00.000-07:00

More Profit with Less Carbon
The article begins by discussing the savings how many large companies have become more efficient with their energy use. This decrease in energy usage saves the U.S. 1 billion dollars per day. It is mentioned that 5% of household electricity is wasted by running appliances, such as computers, that are not even turned on. This preventable wasted energy costs Americans hundreds of billions of dollars and the world over a trillion dollars per year. So why doesn’t everyone become more energy efficient? Many people think that means cutting back on their luxuries. Another reason is that a person saves in small amounts that add up and does not see a big “chunk” of savings. Some people are not current enough on technology to know how to save energy. Efficient energy usage is also important for preventing climate change. Interestingly, less than one third of fossil fuels burned today are carbon containing; most are hydrogen which is climate safe. An important concept today is doing more work per unit of energy.
Some cost efficient ways people could conserve energy are; using compact fluorescent lights, and window coatings. Lovins mentions her own house which is insulated so well that it only looses about 1 percent more heat than it gains. This home has no conventional heating system. This concept is also applicable to office buildings and factories, which would have the potential to reduce energy and costs greatly.
Vehicles are a large source of carbon emissions. This could be significantly decreased with the use of lightweight materials and better aerodynamics. Automobiles are extremely inefficient as only 13 percent of the energy used actually makes it to the wheels, and of this, half is wasted as heat. The author claims that with the proper materials a car can be big, comfortable, protective and efficient. Also, to decrease vehicle emissions people can turn to fuel alternatives, including ethanol and use of a lower carbon natural gas. Benefits of phasing out oil include over $70 million in savings, reducing carbon emissions, and eliminating social and political costs of getting and burning petroleum.
Some alternatives to coal plants include wind and solar power, as well as decentralized cogeneration plants which produce heat and electricity. Wind power is something that is growing in popularity, even in Manitoba. The article discusses the importance of stopping global warming before it gets much more serious. The climate problem was created collectively by millions of bad decisions and can be fixed by millions of reasonable choices. With the removal of institutional barriers markets will favour wealth and climate protection with the replacement o fossil fuels by cheaper alternatives.
I think that increasing the efficiency of homes and vehicles is a relatively easy step that people can take to decrease energy use and save money. This is not something that can be expected to happen overnight as homes are built to last decades and vehicles are built to be used for years. Changes can easily be made in new homes and in new vehicles as long as these changes do not negatively affect the users of these products. I think that people will not easily give up their large homes and large vehicles but they should take steps to make them more efficient.
If each person were to save a little energy each day, in the form of electricity, fossil fuels, and other forms, we would be able to drastically reduce the amount of wasted energy. This would also save people money. I agree that people may not be proactive to decrease energy use because they don’t think it will save them that much money, but if a person took multiple actions to save energy they could see huge savings over a lifetime.

Reinventing the Energy System
This article begins by describing what people in 1893 imagined life would be like in thirty years; horse carriages, gas lights, and coal use. They imagined that electrical power would be highly used but didn’t think that there would be such devastating negative effects as there currently are. Currently 90 percent of energy in the industrialized countries comes from fossil fuels; coal, oil and natural gas. It is clear that technology must adapt to using ‘renewable’ energy sources, such as the sun, the wind, and hydrogen. The use of coal began in Europe in the seventeenth century. Now there is less than 11 days worth of sunshine remaining in stored fossil fuels. Today the energy system over provides for 2 million people, and under provides for another two million people, who cannot afford such things as fuel or electricity. We cannot rely on the fossil fuel sources of energy for another century as so much damage has been done in the form of release of combustible gases and depletion of non-renewable resources.
Previously, changes have occurred due to alterations in technology, or social, economical, or environmental forces. The article states that natural gas and coal supplies are sufficient enough to last until the end of the 21st century, but oil will not. At the time of printing, the authors estimate that there are 1 trillion barrels of oil remaining to be extracted, while 800 billion barrels have already been extracted. This means that about half of the exploitable oil has already been extracted. It is expected that extraction of oil will peak around 2010 and will then decline. 67 million barrels of oil are consumed daily, this is increasing due to the growth of developing countries. To continue meeting growing world oil demand would require tripling the world oil production. It will most likely be the health and environmental effects that force us to decrease fossil fuel use, rather than decreasing supply. Burning of fossil fuels is the main source of air pollution, which leads to water and land degradation, as well as lung cancer and respiratory problems. It is estimated that 178,000 deaths will be caused by coal burning in China alone. Experts have stated belief that human activity is causing an end to the relatively stable climate that has occurred over the last 10,000 years. A stabilization of CO2 levels will require a decrease of at least 60 percent of carbon emissions. It is important that a technology be developed that can sustain a growing population in an environmental fashion.
Some comparable energy forms are next considered in the writing; the silicon semi-conductor chip offers some promise for increasing processing power and decreasing the size of electronic devices, allowing for increased efficiency. Wind power is also an option as it is economically competitive with fossil fuel energy. Solar photovoltaic cells transform radiation from the sun into electric current, this form is now 80% more affordable than in the past. Also discussed is the fuel cell, which combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce water and energy.
The article mentions that increased use of solar-hydrogen and other sources of renewable energy would increase the evenness of countries to provide their own energy, as opposed to oil which is not evenly distributed. This would allow these developing countries to be able to not depend so largely on imports from other countries, making energy a ‘normal’ commodity. Increased use of renewable energy would prevent cartels from determining the future energy system. Iceland is mentioned as it has decided to convert to a ‘hydrogen economy’ within the next twenty years.
Benefits of the current fossil fuel system have not been as large to underdeveloped countries as they have here in Canada. Approximately one third of the world still relies on biomass, wood for example, as their main energy source. 58% of the world’s energy is used by the richest 20% of people. Energy would most likely be spread more fairly if a renewable energy source were used. This could lead to increased development in poorer areas of the world. Still, there must be a change in the amount of energy consumed, for example, owning smaller cars and homes. People need to look at energy as something to be valued and preserved, rather than abused. The sooner we implement hydrocarbon power, the sooner we can stop depleting the necessary resources of future generations.
I think that the most important effect that use of a renewable resource would have is, the increase in well being that is possible for underdeveloped nations. For areas that currently do not have fossil fuels to use or even sell, they must purchase them from another country, adding significant expenses for those countries. Many poor people in these countries would be able to provide for themselves more easily with accessible energy sources. If a form of fuel was more affordable to them, perhaps these countries could make their farming practices more mechanized, allowing them to produce enough food to provide for their people.
It is fairly shocking to see how much energy that the richer people of the world use. To think of how much energy use in North America is unessential is astounding. For example, to think of Las Vegas and how much energy must be used to light signs that maybe don’t even need to be lit up. This must be a ridiculous amount of energy each day. Another interesting fact I was once told is the amount of energy that the province of Saskatchewan could save by changing their time to daylight savings time. Daylight savings allows Manitobans, and people from other areas, to make best use of the daylight hours. By getting up earlier when the sun rises sooner we can make use of that time more efficiently than sleeping for an hour of daylight. We change our clocks so that we can have our lights on for fewer hours of the day, why doesn’t Saskatchewan?

Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change
Over the past 150 years the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have greatly increased. Increases in carbon dioxide are mainly due to fossil fuel use and land-use change. Increases of methane and nitrous oxide can mainly be attributed to agricultural production. Carbon dioxide has increased from 280ppm to 379ppm. An increase of 20% was seen for carbon dioxide radiative forcing for 1995-2005, this is the largest change for a decade in over 200 years. Methane increased from 715ppb to 1732ppb, and nitrous oxide from 270ppb to 319ppb.
Increases in the average global temperatures for the air and oceans, increased snow and ice melt, and rise in the sea level have been direct observations of recent climate change. The warming trend for the past 50 years is more than twice the increase was for the past hundred years. The lower and mid-troposphere also showed increased temperature. Water vapour in the atmosphere has increased as warm air is capable of holding more moisture. The oceans have warmed to at least 3000m deep as oceans absorb over 80% of the heat added to the system. Glacier and snow melt have added to sea level rise. Average sea rise is 1.8 mm per year, with estimates of a 17cm rise before the end of the 20th century. The temperature in the Arctic has increased nearly twice the global average rate for the past 100 years. Temperatures above the permafrost layer of the Arctic are quickly warming. Some areas have seen increased precipitation while other areas have seen decreased rainfall. More extreme temperatures, have been observed as there are more hot nights, hot days, and heat waves, while cooler extremes are less frequent.
Much of the temperature increase is attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations. The global warming patterns are most not likely due to natural causes, as external forcing seems to be apparent. Anthropogenic warming has been significant over every continent except Antarctica. It is difficult to determine if greenhouse gas emissions are to blame for climate change because the climate is naturally variable.
It is expected we will see a 0.2⁰C warming for each of next two decades. If greenhouse gas emissions remain steady or increase, further warming would cause changes larger than those that were observed in the 20th century. To make matters worse, warming causes more carbon dioxide to remain in the atmosphere as land and ocean uptake are decreased. Warming is most severe over land at high northern latitude and the Southern and North Atlantic Oceans. With increased warming, snow will contract causing increased thaw depth, sea ice will shrink in the Arctic and Antarctic, heat extremes will become more frequent, tropical cyclones and heavy precipitation events will increase in frequency, and tropical storms will more towards the poles. More carbon dioxide will be added to the atmosphere by climate carbon cycling as temperatures continue to increase. The Greenland ice sheet may melt, causing a 7 metre rise in sea level, which would be devastating to low altitude areas. It is predicted that the warming and sea rise will continue for over a millennium, due to the long life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The fact that everyone, especially those who affect it, know about global warming but very few seem to care is very disturbing. Facts have been very public about the amount of warming that is occurring, the effects it is having on the present, and the potential effects it will have in the future, yet there are only a select few that seem to take the issue as seriously as it should be taken. Even more disturbing is the fact that people are using more and more fossil fuels despite the fact that a person hears about global warming on a daily basis. It even seems that for each person that is publically fighting global warming, there is someone saying that global warming is a hoax. Cleary, from facts stated in this article we can determine that there have been some negative effects of burning fossil fuels. I believe that the current generation is far too concerned with their needs, and wants, to consider how we may be affecting the ability of future generations to sustain their needs.
　
Principles of Conversation
Pinchot begins by discussion the concept of conservation of natural resources and how he believes it began concerning the forests. Conservation now goes far beyond just natural resources. Conservation is about development and using resources that are required, while leaving any unneeded resources for the future generation.
The principles of conservation are:
1. Development- use of existing natural resources for our benefit
2. Prevention of waste- preventing waste is a matter of good business and we must be able to control the earth we live on. We must decide when specific resource use should not be allowed anymore.
3. Natural resources must be developed and preserved for the benefit of many, not for the profit of few- resources must be conserved and use appropriately so that as many people as possible can benefit from these goods.
These principles relate to any good that people may use. Conservation education is very important as all people should be taught how to make better use of the resources that they have, without depleting them.
The importance of conservation regarding all resources is very important. There is no reason that any society, or person, should use any more than it requires. Unfortunately, so many people waste food, energy, and other resources frequently. Even something such as agricultural overproduction is a waste as it depletes nutrients from the soil and uses fertilizer that may not have even been required. The fact that approximately the same number of people that are undernourished is equal to the number of people who are obese demonstrates the extreme selfishness of certain societies.

A Sand County Almanac
The article begins by stating that ‘only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf’. Leopold tells a story about himself when he killed a wolf and it made him realize the damage that can be done by killing one creature. Killing wolves over many states has caused increased deer populations which graze bushes to death, damage trees, and then die due to starvation caused by their own large population that was not controlled because wolves were killed off. The quote above states that only a mountain at risk of being defoliated can understand the true importance of a wolf. It takes many years for a mountain to recover from such defoliation. A rancher may also kill wolves to prevent them from killing his livestock, he is then assuming the role of the wolf as the manager of the population. If a livestock population grows too large land degradation is of extreme concern. Often wolves are killed to increase safety, but decreasing a keystone population is extremely dangerous.
Leopold discusses ethics in an ecological sense as limiting freedom of action in the struggle for existence. Competition in a free-for all sense has been replaced by a mechanism in which co-operation is important. Efficiency of co-operation has been increased by the use of tools. Currently, there is no ethic regarding a man’s relation to land and the animals and plants it contains. Land is thought of in only an economic matter, with privileges but not obligations.
In other cases ethical beliefs are based on the fact that an individual is a part of a set of interdependent elements. The ethical view of the land would add soil, water, plants, and animals, collectively referred to as the land. Land must be though of for more than just its economical value. Regarding farming, producers have the opinion that the land causes them to be a slave, so they find ways to exploit the land making production practices easier, despite the negative impacts to the land. An important concept is the need for preserving integrity, stability, and the beauty of the living community. People must stop believing the economics determines the use of a landscape. Land ethics must be treated like all other ethics; social commendation for right actions, and social disapproval for wrong actions.
This is related to the importance of maintaining biodiversity in each community. This is very important and whenever possible, people should act to reduce their impact on the land. Reducing human impact will significantly reduce the loss of biodiversity. One way that I think humans can reduce their influence on nature is to live inside cities and not spread into suburban areas. People can also argue that less land should be farmed but I think that farmland is more important than building houses, if unnecessary, outside of city limits. Generally, people could remain in cities and older areas could be rebuilt with tall apartment buildings. If cities were to be built upwards rather than outwards we could decrease the area of land that is altered by humans.
I feel that it is very important that humans adopt a more biocentric view of the world and start to look at nature as a more significant element of the world. Humans need to focus less on their own personal gain and more on using what they need and no more.

Al Gore – Book : An Inconvenient Truth-The Crisis of Global Warming
In the book, Al Gore discusses the changes to the earth that are effecting its own viability. Discussed is the reason that greenhouse gases effect earth; they collect in space and as sunlight attempts to reflect off the earth’s surface these gases soak up some of the infrared light, not allowing it to exit back into space. This causes an overall warming of earth’s atmosphere as well as the oceans. The famous graph used by Gore to show the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is shown at left; a line that rises rapidly. This line has a peak and a low for each year, which is due to the change in seasons, as the amount of respiration of plants increases in the summer, therefore decreasing carbon dioxide concentration. The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has risen from about 315ppm to 380ppm in the past 60 years.
Gore displays the extreme glacier retreat and snow melt using pictures of glaciers from Mount Kilimanjaro, Glacier National Park, the Himalayas, and more. This book was written in 2005, it states that the hottest day ever recorded was in 2005. Also, of the 21 hottest years ever, 20 of them were in the past five years. Agriculturally, this warmth is a danger as warm air dries out soil, which then may not have enough moisture to sustain a crop. Also discussed is the increase in severe storms, Hurricane Katrina occurred in 2005. Also expected is an increase in precipitation in some areas and a decrease in other areas. Canada is estimated to have increased rain, while much of Africa and Asia will have less rain. The two areas expected to have the most substantial change to their climate are the Polar Regions, the Arctic and the Antarctic. This is dangerous because these areas contain many glaciers and a large amount of snow. As ice and snow melt they will add to the sea, causing an increased sea level which will then be disastrous for low altitude regions, such as Florida, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and New York City.
A world map is shown; each countries size is determined by its contribution to global warming. The United States attributes to 30.3% of global warming, Europe is 27.7%, and Canada and Greenland together are 2.3%. The developing nations contribute very little to global warming in comparison to the developed nations. Gore finishes with a few alternatives we can use to decrease our carbon footprint; solar panels, geothermal power stations, fluorescent light bulbs, green roofs, hybrid cars, hydrogen fuel-cell buses, and wind power. Australia and United states are two advanced nations that have not joined the KYOTO protocol, but I believe Australia may be included in KYOTO now.
This is a very interesting book that I have had for a while with the intention of reading. There are many illustrations in the book which are also in the film. The book allows a person to examine the illustrations carefully. The book is interesting because there are so many photos and some very strong, informative points.

Classroom Reflections
How can parks meet their dual mandate of access and protection?
-This would be difficult because as discussed in class, if someone finds something worth protecting and then makes it a park the public will be attracted to it. This will then inevitably lead to a decrease in the protection of its natural attributes. If there is a way to allow people to observe what happens at the park without actually going there that would be optimal. For example, if a park housed many different species of wildlife maybe there is a way to set up cameras so that people could watch videos of the park online, or on a television channel. This would be far less destructive then allowing thousands of people to attend the park, therefore chasing away or destroying much of the wildlife.
How can this be achieved in Wapusk?
-Waspusk would be a good location for broadcasting the activities of the park online or on television. If many cameras could be placed in trees or on stands in the park people could tune in and watch the wildlife each day. I think this would be a relatively low disturbance option, although likely fairly costly.

Craik Sustainable Living Project
This past March I had the opportunity to visit the Craik Sustainable Living Project (pictured below), in Craik Saskatchewan, while at a school conference at the University of Saskatchewan. The community of Craik is located between Regina and Saskatoon. This project is a building that is very energy efficient, using integrated heating, cooling and renewable energy systems. Cory Gordon, the project manager, gave me and the rest of a group of agriculture students from universities across North America a, tour of the building. The building acts as a gathering place for the community as it functions as the golf course clubhouse, a conference centre, a restaurant, and a gift shop for travellers.
Some interesting things that I remember about the building were the bathrooms; the toilets led to a below ground holding tank for composting human waste. Within the tank were earthworms to aid in the breakdown of the feces. This compost was originally used to fertilize the golf course fairways, but now it only fertilizes the trees along the fairways. The restaurant was known for its pizza which was baked in a fire oven, which also functions as the heat source for the building. The walls and roof were about twelve inches think, and inside were packed with straw for insulation. There south wall was almost completely windows, allowing much sunlight in during the day. Across from the south windows was a wall made of rocks, which hold the heat very well. The beams of the building were all from an old grain elevator that had been torn down. The tables and chairs inside were also made of the recycled elevator lumber. They made use of all the beams which would have otherwise remained unused. The water was heated using a special energy efficient system; unfortunately I don’t remember how it worked.
When I visited the building they were just beginning to sell lots for an energy efficient housing development, with much interest. This tour was very interesting and I would recommend anyone to stop there for a tour.
http://www.craikecovillage.ca/ 　
Vision Statement
　“We believe that sustainability will become the dominant issue of the 21st century. Our society needs to develop ways of living that are economically viable and socially just which do not at the same time destroy the ecological base that sustains us and all other life on the planet. The Town and the Rural Municipality of Craik therefore, propose to embark on a joint long-term project in search of ways of living that address the issue of sustainability and rural revitalization through physical demonstration of viable solutions.”
　

Blog 2

2009-10-08T20:57:00.000-07:00

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis
This article begins by describing some of the effects that humans have had on the environment. First is discussed how areas of England which was once grassland is now covered in brush because humans caused the death or rabbits who previously controlled grassland growth. Humans introduced a disease that killed the rabbits because they were eating their crops. The article also mentions that negative environmental impacts caused by humans are often unintentional.
Early in the 14th century humans were already extracting material from the environment to be used in cannons. Cannons required potash, sulphur, iron ore and charcoal which were found in forests and mountains and caused erosion and deforestation. Often measures used to protect ourselves often produce issues more serious than the ones we are trying to fix.
The article discusses science and technology to be Western. It discusses the use of water power to crush grain and wind power being harnessed and then the use of power machinery to decrease labour costs. The article says that we must consider the impact that new developments have on ecology.
Agriculture is discussed as it was previously the main occupation of advance societies. Ploughing began as a simple practice that merely scratched the soil surface but then was changed to a process that could alter the soil surface greatly. This allowed farmers to exploit the soil. A neat quote from the article is “Man and nature are two things, and man is master.” This implies that both things are important, but that man has the ability to exploit nature to the point that he can control it. Religion controls how much a person will respect nature. Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion in the world. This means that humans think of themselves as the most important thing. I feel that humans have a very anthropocentric belief and that humans feel the right to remove any resources from the land. Humans must learn to think long term about the actions we take that may cause terrible circumstances for future generations.

The Tragedy of the Commons
Hardin begins by pointing out that he feels that the ‘population problem’ is a ‘no technical solution problem’, meaning that the problem cannot be changed by a change in the techniques of the natural sciences. The ‘population problem’ is related to overpopulation and loss of current privileges.
Next the article describes what ‘tragedy of the common’ means. It uses an example of cattle farmers who share a public pasture. Long ago when there weren’t many cattle they could all share the pasture between all of their cattle without a problem. But as time went on and cattle numbers increased they each began to add more cattle to the pasture. Each farmer profited more from having increased cattle raised, but the pasture quality weakened as overgrazing occurred. The tragedy is that each farmer isn’t doing a lot of damage but together the combined damage is very detrimental. Another example used is public parks, which if many people continue to abuse will not be available for anyone in the future. How to determine who gets to use the park is the difficult task.
The article also discusses pollution as a form of tragedy of the commons as people all add their own wastes to the environment often thinking it’s their right, or that it will go unnoticed. But if 6.7 billion people do this it would cause unimaginable damage to the earth. The article also mentions population as an issue because people feel have the right to produce as many children as possible. Increased birth rates means there are more people to exploit the earth.
The article ends discussing that exploiting the commons would be justifiable if there was a low population. For example, when the cattle farmers had only few cows each the land could sustain the livestock with out really being exploited. The final point mentioned is that Hardin feels the most important thing to control is population, or breeding. He discusses overpopulation being the most pertinent issue today. He proposes that we control this issue by increasing education.
When having a similar discussion with my family about the world population I was on the same side as Hardin. I feel that people should be educated and that is shown to decrease birth rates, and I do feel that birth rates must be decreased quickly in a humane way. I think that if there was an easy way to control the world population that would be the best way to decrease environmental destruction, poverty, famine, and many other issues today. Unfortunately many places in the world have many children to increase the odds of having a child survive, and then having someone to care for them when their old. Also, in some areas people feel that children will work and bring home a profit for the family. But in developed countries generally people see children as more of an expense and must save money before having kids. I personally feel that it is socially irresponsible to have more children than you can reasonably afford to care for.

Will Hurricane Katrina Impact Shoreline Management?
This article discusses the impacts of hurricanes in the past. Hurricane Camille is discussed first, describing the debris and wreckage caused to Mississippi and surrounding areas. The article then describes the damage done by Hurricane Katrina. Dauphin Island (shown at left) is discussed as this is an island area which has been redeveloped after five hurricanes have done extreme damage to the area. It is then mentioned that perhaps this area should not be rebuilt because it is imminent that the area will be destroyed again by another storm. I agree with this statement because it would take huge amounts of money to rebuild this area each time it gets wiped out. Perhaps it’s possible that the land could be used for another purpose, for example maybe some of the land has high agricultural capability.
Next the article discusses the fact that one would assume that people would retreat from the shorelines but instead hurricanes have caused the opposite. Hurricanes have caused people to build bigger, better houses and buildings therefore increasing the property values in shoreline areas.
The article also discusses beach replenishment which is rebuilding beaches after a storm event. This is to delay shoreline retreat caused by rising sea level. Problems with this include that the beach looks stable but often isn’t. Often claims are made that the rebuilt beach will protect citizens from storms such as Katrina but with waves ten metres high a beach would not protect much at all. Also when moving sand onto a beach it kills organisms which can take up to four years for the populations to recover. Also, much tax money must be used in this process and it is not a solution to shoreline erosion.
Research has shown that with increasing sea temperatures caused by global warming we should expect more powerful storms than ever before. The authors state their belief that the federal government should stop repairing the vulnerable areas of the coast. Some issues that justify rebuilding are mentioned including the fact that the United States is a compassionate nation with people who feel sorry for those who have lost their houses and want to help them rebuild. The United States is proud and many will not be ‘chased from their own community’. Also, those who own property along the coast will continue to fight for their land.
The authors propose a committee that evaluates which vulnerable areas should no longer receive federal assistance. Many experts from Louisiana have promoted the restoration of Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and the delta’s barrier island claiming that it may have reduced Katrina’s impact on New Orleans, this the article states that this is false. Also experts believe that maintaining offshore islands would protect the wetlands, this is also stated to be false. The authors also state that there are other wetlands that should be restored before coastal wetlands should be. The authors state that restoring the costal areas of Louisiana should not be mislabelled as storm protection.
I agree with many of the points the authors have made in this reading. They state that coastal areas will continue to be devastated by storms which I believe is true. It is strange that people choose to continue living and rebuilding their homes in these areas, but perhaps I have no right to criticise. Perhaps if I lived there I would also be attached to the area and continue to rebuild. However, these areas are clearly a very dangerous place to live. So, maybe it is unjust to allow these people to continually put themselves at risk. I agree that wetland restoration is important but perhaps government money could be better spent repairing wetlands where they were less likely to be destroyed in just a short number of years. In my opinion, research shows that people should not live there, but to take human feelings into account that is where they want to live. It certainly would not be easy to ask an entire city to leave and make somewhere else ‘home’.

Ecosystems and Human Well-being
This article begins by addressing the fact that humans have altered many ecosystems for their own benefit. As alteration went on many regions as well as groups of people have benefited, but many have been harmed. Many ecosystems are being lost and degraded but measuring the damage is difficult. The people who incur the costs of the damaged ecosystem are most often poor or the next generation. In many areas we are causing likely irreversible changes such as ocean dead zones. Due to harmful effects especially impacting poor areas we are continually adding to the world class separation. It is expected that in the next forty years that use of ecosystem services will grow by three to six times, despite the fact that population growth is slowing.
Many factors are involved in the ecosystem degredation problem including climate change, decreased biodiversity, and the degredation of land. Often efforts are made to decrease ecosystem damage but they usually don’t last for long because of growing pressure and demand. Ecosystem management will require changes in government, economic policies, social factors, technology, and education. If many sectors for example, agriculture, forestry, finance, and health united much more could be accomplished.
During the second half of the twentieth century more change was done to the ecosystems of the world than at any other time in history. During this time much land was converted to cropland, much of the world’s coral reefs were lost, dams were built to impound water, nitrogen and phosphorus amounts significantly increased, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased, and species biodiversity is decreasing. Most often damage is done to ecosystems because of growing demands on each ecosystem. Demands often include food, fibre, water, timber, and fuel. Some of the changes have been beneficial because they led to reducing the amount of malnourished and unhealthy people.
The importance of being proactive and solving problems before they are extreme is stated. This includes using new laws and policies that are enforced to prevent further damage to ecosystems. The article mentions four scenarios including:
1. Global Orchestration- global society focused on trade and reducing poverty and inequality. Economic growth is high.
2. Order from Strength – security and protection is of high priority. Public goods are of low concern. Low economic growth and high population growth.
3. Adapting Mosaic – watershed scale ecosystems are of high importance. Economic growth begins low but increases, population growth is high.
4. TechnoGarden – globally connected, relies on environmentally safe technology, proactive in avoiding problems, high economic growth.
The article mentions the Millennium Development Goals which are an attempt by the United Nations to improve human well-being. The degradation of ecosystem services is a barrier to achieving these goals. Many regions facing problems with achieving their goals also are facing problems of ecosystem degradation. Three other goals specifically depend on management of ecosystem degradation; these include hunger, child mortality and disease.
Again the article review that attempts have been made to curb ecosystem degradation, and although they did help significantly, more must be done. The article mentions that in some cases we can use substitutes, for example using other materials other than wood, this can decrease pressure on specific ecosystems but may not necessarily be good for the environment. Often substitutes can be more expensive than the original product. The article describes five things as indirect drivers of change; population change, economic activity change, socio-political factors, cultural factors, and technological change. These factors have a huge effect on the use of ecosystem services. Often action can slow ecosystem degradation but don’t actually address these drivers. Often there are many barriers to these drivers including the market, government policies, education, and lack of funding.
I believe this is a very important issue for the world today. We don’t feel the effects in Canada today too much because we have enough food and resources to take care of ourselves, but in areas where this isn’t true people suffer greatly. Developed nations take advantage of underdeveloped countries by exploiting their resources and they don’t have the power to stop the more powerful nations. As time goes on if nothing is done to stop the overuse of ecosystem resources everyone will feel the effects. Unfortunately the generations of the future will feel the largest effect if nothing is done to stop the problem.

Andy Goldsworthy
The art of Andy Goldsworthy is in one word, calming. After watching videos and visiting website for this artist I found that everything I saw was soothing, beautiful, and so natural. Andy has photos of many nature scenes as well as pictures of nature that he has turned into something beautiful, such as the orange and red leaves that he forms into a circle with the black hole in the middle. The art doesn’t seem to mean anything but leaves much room for personal interpretation. Another point I have noticed is that the music in all videos is very relaxing.
In the video “Rivers & Tides” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWBSMc47bw v=3TWBSMc47bw Andy speaks about how he only feels like himself when he is around nature. He enjoys being by himself in nature. While watching this video as Andy is building a piece of art I wondered to myself how many of Andy’s art pieces I had seen before in the media. I would guess I’ve seen quite a few before. His art piece came crashing down and I must feel so bad for him because of all that work, but it is also somewhat humorous. Andy must have a lot of patience. In “River and Tides (extraits 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9TyHzP-8b8 I am again amazed by his artwork. For someone to make art out of icicles must be extremely difficult.
Throughout the videos Andy speaks about his appreciation for the earth which he uses to make artwork. He does not feel that the earth needs him. My favourite video was “Rivers and Tides” and my favourite part was the circle made of leaves that began yellow and darkened to red. Andy’s artwork is inspiring and leaves you wanting to go for a walk in the forest. Too bad it’s so cold.

Discussion
In class we were asked to describe how we rely on the environment in a physical ways. I rely on the environment everyday to eat. All food I eat is produced by the environment, using soil, water, and nutrients, all of which must be managed properly. I think this is my main reliance on nature. Also important is the nature that built the house that I live in. Although many of the building products are likely synthetic most things likely came from some form of nature. Nature is also something to enjoy. Each day I rollerblade home from class and appreciate the nature we have here, the birds, the grass, and the trees.
We were also asked what promotes human connection to nature. I actually think that human connection to nature is promoted on television. Channels like discovery channel give people an opportunity to experience nature that may be on the other side of the world that they cannot see. I feel that some televisions shows, commercials, movies, etc. promote an appreciation for nature because we appreciate things more that we don’t see. For example, anyone who lives in rural Manitoba probably doesn’t appreciate deer very much but if we were to see a kangaroo, which is thought of similarly in Australia, we would likely be pretty amazed.
What promotes a human disconnection to nature? I don’t really think disconnection with nature is ever ‘promoted’ but in many cases the effects on nature are hidden from the public. For example, until recently people weren’t told how much of a negative effect burning fossil fuels had on the environment.
Is a deeper connection to nature likely to influence our decisions? I believe this is probably yes, however I feel that I appreciate nature a lot but I still often take advantage of it. I drive more than I need to, and I don’t recycle as much as I should. Perhaps if I spent more time outside I would, but I think most important is public education to promote sustainable decision making. We were asked to discuss where our environmental ethics lie. I feel that I am most likely a mix of all three ecocentric, biocentric and anthropocentric. I believe that basically everything we have comes from nature. I am from a farm so I can appreciate that everything I eat in a day had to be produced somewhere with inputs from nature, this makes me ecocentric and biocentric. At the same time I often take advantage of the environment. I do feel that humans are the most powerful species, and I know that we necessarily, and unnecessarily, take advantage of other species. I think I’m fairly understanding of the environment but at the same time I am somewhat selfish, this makes me a mix of all three beliefs.

Blog 1

2009-09-23T18:33:00.001-07:00

The Population Explosion: Why We Should Care and What We Should Do About It This article describes the extreme increase in population, known as the population explosion. The article notes that annually the world population increases by an amount equal to the population of Germany. It goes on to say that likely many more 'Germany's' will be added to the total population before we see any halt in population growth. A formula which allows us to calculate a society's impact on the environment is discussed. The factors in this include the number of people, the affluence per person, and the damage caused by technology. It is noted that most of the environmental damage includes vehicles, machinery, appliances, infrastructure, lighting, heating, making of paper, furniture and homes, and agriculture. America is mentioned as it has a very high impact on the environment. It is often assumed that the overpopulated developing countries cause the most environmental impact but compared to America this is not true. Even though developing countries have a much larger population Americans were found to use over ten times more energy then those of developing countries. When considering population and energy consumption numbers the United States is considered the most overpopulated nation. Possible ways to solve the population explosion are discussed, firstly mentioning bringing our population to a sustainable size. Issues with this statement that arise include determining a correct sustainable population. Also, what is a humane way to reduce the population to this size. The second option mentioned to solve the population explosion issue is to decrease the amount of energy used per person. Another solution is to control reproduction. The difference in birth rates between developed and developing countries is discussed. Developing countries have much higher birth rates and this could be slowed by increasing health care, sanitation, education, economic opportunities for both men and women, local resources and providing a fair, responsible government. It seems that for the most effective way to combat population explosion is to decrease all factors; population, damage per person, and technology's damage.
I strongly agree that a decrease in the population growth rate is essential for survival of future generations. Learning from previous classes that the human population is estimated to grow to approximately 9 billion by 2050 and likely continue growing. From multiple classes I have learned the extreme importance of increasing food production. Discussions in other classes show that it is difficult to increase agricultural land so we must increase crop yields. But, it is likely that eventually we will reach a point where agricultural yields cannot further be increased.
Although it is a difficult topic to discuss I feel that most likely we will eventually need to limit the amount of children a couple can have. I feel this is most important in developing countries, but it would also be most difficult to enforce humanely in those areas. The article does note that this would be beneficial in the United States as well due to the huge energy use there. It maybe wouldn't be as helpful in the United States because they are already decreasing birth rates but have such high energy use.
I feel as time goes on if nothing is done to reduce the energy use per person, especially in developed countries, it will be virtually impossible. I feel this way because it is more difficult to take away something from someone. For example, we can assume that people who drive SUVs enjoy them. To take away their SUV and have them drive a smaller, more efficient car would be very difficult as they would see it as an inconvenience. The sooner we place limits on this such as vehicle use, household energy consumption, and other issues, the easier it will be for people to make the adjustment to being energy savvy. The article ends with stating that if our generation cares about the livelihood of future generations we must try to find a solution to this environmental concern. This is a very important point but I feel that many people don't understand the importance. Many people probably just care that they can use unlimited fresh water, or consume as much fuel as they like during their own lifetime.

Our Stolen Future
This article begins describing the similarities between humans and other invertebrates, including primates, mice, alligators, and turtles. It is noted that persistent synthetic chemicals store in our body fat just as they do in other animals that have experienced extreme negative effects in the past, leading us to assume harm can also be done to humans. Critics then argue that testing is not done appropriately as scientists test extremely high doses on small mice, so extreme that a human probably couldn't consume that amount of chemical in a lifetime. The focus of this article is endocrine-disrupting synthetic chemicals. Unfortunately the article doesn't mention many of the chemical names. The article refers to DES, which was taken by pregnant women and resulted in newborn abnormalities. This is a tragic example which, from knowledge, resulted from under testing of the medication. This example shows the drastic effect that under researched medications can have on humans. DES is an example of an opportunity cost, in which decreasing sickness of pregnant women was the main focus, but what was given up to achieve this was the unknown risk to their unborn children. This can also be related to DDT, in which controlling malaria infected mosquitoes was the main focus, but the egg shell strength of birds in the habitat were severely affected, resulting in the death of developing birds. By examining past studies scientists have determined that humans as well as other animals are in jeopardy of the major effects of hormones on normal development. The difficulty in determining the potential impact is discussed as it is transgenerational, so there can be a significant time lag before noticeable damage, the difference in nature of contamination, and the fact that often the damage is invisible. Over the years many cases of genital abnormalities reported by pediatricians have been reported but it is difficult to report all cases. Endocrine disruption problems may have to become a crisis before enough attention is given to the issue. It is believed that continued animal testing will provide insight for potential human health issues.

I believe that as much testing as possible should be done on a chemical or product before its public use is allowed. But in some cases products are brought out for emergency use, for example Folicur, a wheat fungicide, was allowed to be sold in Manitoba before it had been registered by CFIA because risk of rust infection was so threatening. It is possible that although Folicur had undergone much research not all possible effects had been discovered. When speaking of the precautionary principle I feel there are many situations when a product must be used in the hope it will help, but it should not be unexpected that sometimes serious issues will arise from the use of under-tested products.

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
This article is about past societies that have 'failed' by depleting their ecosystems of various essential objects, including fertile soil, sanitary water, and wildlife populations. It is also about the realizations that must be made so our current societies don't also fail. Diamond discusses his own opinions as well as the opinions of others to discuss the state of societies in the past, the present, and the future. The article asks the reader a few questions; Will modern technology solve our problems, or is it creating new problems faster than it solves old ones? When we deplete one resource can we count on being able to substitute some new resource? Isn't the rate of human population growth declining, such that we're already on course for the world's population to level off at some manageable number of people?

I believe that fairly far into the future technology will still be able solve our problems and that it will help us to find new resources that can be used instead of depleted resources. Thorough out my own lifetime I have seen technology 'dig us out of many holes'. For example, with increasing populations comes the need for increased food. This has been provided by use of technology to enhance crop yields. But I do feel that possibly someday we will max out the ability of technology to save us. I do agree that technology is also a huge source of new problems. I do believe that the rate of human population is leveling off to create a 'carrying capacity' for the Earth, but I do feel this is mainly happening in developed countries. This leads me to believe that the developing countries are most at risk for a collapse as they already have limited resources that they are trying to spread even more thinly throughout a large population.

In most cases the benefits that we have over past civilizations are also our largest detriments. Including technology, medicine, and globalization. Diamond feels that the most important factors that contribute to environmental collapse include environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbours, friendly trade partners and a society's response to its environmental problems. Diamond mentions that there are two different groups of people with opinions regarding thoughts on environmental issues; the 'environmentalists', and the 'non-environmentalists', who feel the environmentalists are exaggerating. Diamond mentions that most people belong to either group, I feel that most people lie somewhere in between the two extremes, and possibly fall into both groups depending on the specific issue. I feel that I fall into both categories in many ways. For example, I'm skeptical of climate change but believe strongly that environmental degradation is a huge concern. This article has succeeded in discussing many of the issues that cause us to be at risk for a collapse in society. The article also hints that learning from past societies who have failed would be very wise.

Fragile Earth - Yann Arthus-Bertrand
In this short video, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/yann_arthus_bertrand_captures_fragile_earth_in_wide_angle.html , Yann discusses many environmental issues of today. He states that people do not want to admit what we know. A shocking point he makes early in the discussion is that we use three times more oil than we currently extract each year. He also discusses things such as the risk to the coral reefs, the state of the arctic region, loss of ice to Mount Kilimanjaro, over exploitation of fish stocks, and grain utilization in North America. The video also goes through selections of people from around the world discussing various issues. Also shown is a preview for Yann's film "Home" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU which discusses environmental safety and the importance of sustaining our planet.
This video gave various facts that I was surprised at, such as the amount of oil extracted as well as how much ice has melted from Mount Kilimanjaro. I enjoyed the preview for the film "Home" and would like to watch it soon. I thought the clips shown from various people around the world were rather confusing. The discussions of the people did not seem to follow a general theme. It seems as if it is a preview for an upcoming video.

Classroom Issues
So far in class many issues have been discussed. I found it interesting when each student was assigned to bring in a 'hot topic' to discuss in class. Lately, for this class as well as in others, and in general interest searches I have been frustrated by the media and sources who only seem to show 'one side' of a certain topic. It would be nice to find reliable sources that discuss issues from both sides, not just defending their own opinion.

This has come up while doing searches especially regarding agricultural issues, ie. pesticide use, soil fertility, genetically modified foods, and many more. With these issues often material presented doesn't take into account many factors such as how food is actually produced in a conventional atmosphere. I feel like in the conventional vs. organic farming debate conventional agriculture is not given enough credit. For example, in a report on conventional beef production the article claimed that all cattle were given antibiotics and growth hormones. On my family's conventional beef farm we have never once used growth hormones in over 20 years of raising beef cattle.

In a recent class a professor claimed that Monsanto had produced GMO canola that causes an issue as it is resistant to the chemical that a farmer sprays to control broadleaf weeds in his wheat crop. This is untrue, there are two types of resistant GMO canolas; Roundup Ready (RR), and LibertyLink (LL). RR canolas are resistant to glyphosate (Roundup), and LL canolas are resistant to Glufosinate-Ammonium (Liberty). Neither of these chemicals would be sprayed on a wheat field, they would kill it. However, any product that would be sprayed on a wheat field, with the intention of controlling broadleaf weeds would control either of these two types of canola, given proper chemical rate, water volume, environmental conditions, etc. Incorrect facts such as the two mentioned seem to 'hit a nerve' as I feel that people who are uneducated about agriculture show a bias against it, when really the presenter didn't know his facts.

To answer the question recently asked in class about whether or not the precautionary principle should be used, I have mixed opinions. To bring up DDT as an extreme case, this pesticide was sprayed to control mosquitos carrying Malaria. DDT may have saved many lives, but had extremely unfortunate effects on bird populations as the chemical collected in their tissues, causing their shells to be too weak to protect a growing chick. I suppose DDT should have had more testing done to prove safety, or lack of, but how much testing is enough? Can anyone ever be sure of the safety of their product? In the case of DDT I believe it was an issue of opportunity cost; do you risk malaria infection or do you spray a chemical that you think is safe? Perhaps we in Canada, where there wasn't such an extreme risk of death from Malaria, don't have the right to make that judgement. Afterall, it wasn't our lives at risk, or our birds.