berniesandersniece

[berniesandersniece]

Environmental Studies: Final Blog Revisions

Olivia Johnson

Blog 1: The Fluid Mosaic of Planet Earth

Olivia Johnson

The biological term fluid mosaic is most commonly used to describe the phospholipid bilayer of plasma membranes encasing most cells, and refers how molecules move fluidly within the membrane, which is embedded with various kinds of proteins. Just as the fluid mosaic provides structure and variety on a cellular level, the term can also be applied on a much larger scale to illustrate the diversity and interconnectedness of the environment on earth. Various ecosystems, each containing numerous species, interact with each other in a careful balance, and small disruptions can pose large threats. The fluid mosaic of life on earth is currently under direct threat from human activity, which has resulted in the increasingly severe degradation of the earth’s natural capital, the ecosystem services and natural resources which sustain not only humans but all species on earth. The subject of environmental studies seeks to address the ecological challenges brought on by the reckless pillaging of natural capital. According to the text Living in the Environment, the integrating theme of all environmental issues is sustainability: the capacity of the earth to support all species and adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Figure 1, Natural Capital.1

Currently, humanity is operating unsustainably, depleting resources and producing pollution at above the earth’s natural ability to regulate. Several main causes of our current environmental crisis include exponential population growth, wasteful and unsustainable resource use, poverty, the omission of harmful environmental and health costs of goods and services in market prices, increasing isolation from nature, and competing environmental world views.

Figure 2, Natural Capital Degradation.2

Perhaps the most concerning of these causes is the final one; when people in positions of power refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence of the damning effects of environmental degradation, entire populations can be put at risk. Living in the Environment incorporates ethics into the issue, asking, “Should every person be entitled to equal protection from environmental hazards regardless of race, gender, age, national origin, income, social class, or any other factor?”3. The answer expressed by many business leaders, politicians, and other individuals holding a human-centered environmental worldview is a resounding no. This is especially evident when looking at the disparity between more-developed countries and less-developed countries in terms of natural capital consumption. More-developed countries which consist of 17% of the global population consume 70% of the world’s resources, while less-developed countries which consist of 83% of the global population consume only 30%4.

Figure 3, Ecological Footprints.5

If everyone in the world consumed resources at the level of the United States in 2012, we would need five planet earths to sustain that demand. Even as a vegetarian who solely uses public transportation and attempts to live sustainably, we would still need 3.2 earths to sustain my own personal resource demands if everyone lived as such6.

Currently, our atmosphere, water resources, oceans, soil, forests, and living species are being degraded as a result of unsustainable human activity. However, this is by no means new information, and these concerns were outlined in the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, a formal address represented by the Union of Concerned Scientists almost 30 years ago. The origin of environmental degradation on a large scale dates back long before the 1990s, and can be seen in the entitled and exploitative nature of Western colonialism which began in the 1500s. The “discovery” of the Americas was accompanied with the attitude that the earth was full of inexhaustible resources which were to be “conquered” by the white man and used in whatever way and extent he might please. This mindset is clearly still at play, even with 500 years of scientific research and undeniable evidence of ecological destruction. During the past century, rapid global industrialization has exacerbated existing environmental issues and introduced additional concerns. Public demands against harmful pollution resulted in the establishment of the United States’s Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, whose regulations were met with backlash from business leaders and the onset of disinformation campaigns in order to protect economic interests.

Scientific, unbiased reports are issued in order to combat “fake news” and other misinformation that might hinder efforts to control and heal our environment. Published in 2005, the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provided a comprehensive summary of the current environmental concerns of the time, as well as outlined their own findings and specific problems that must be addressed so that life on earth can be sustained. The report, which involved 1,360 experts from 95 counties, stated, “Humans are fundamentally, and to a significant extent irreversibly, changing the diversity of life on Earth, and most of these changes represent a loss of biodiversity”7. What I found particularly alarming in this report is how these changes disproportionately affect certain groups of people, increase inequities among vulnerable populations, and exacerbate poverty on a large scale. Developing countries, indigenous populations, and those living in poverty are forced to suffer the extreme consequences brought on by the unsustainable living standards demanded by first world countries such as the United States.

Something I had never before considered is how the worsening environmental crises affect women differently, and put them at an even greater risk. Environmental disasters such as floods, droughts, and fires force communities to move from their homes, often resulting in unstable and unsafe temporary living conditions that put women at increased risk of sexual assault and human trafficking. Adequate reproductive resources and sanitary products may become unavailable; these effects are detrimental, especially in cultures where women act as the backbone of their households.

Figure 4, Women Carrying Water.8

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, “The pattern of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ associated with ecosystem changes– and in particular the impact of ecosystem changes on poor people, women, and indigenous peoples– has not been adequately taken into account in management decisions”9. There is an evident and complete lack of respect or even acknowledgement of these groups and the battles they must face as a result of environmental degradation. This is equally as frustrating as it is depressing, but reading over these materials also brought me a sense of empowerment. I am aware that I live in a country that depletes natural capital at an alarming and unsustainable rate, but also has the resources available to combat environmental injustices and repair damages that we have made. The vast amount of opportunities offered by Fordham, as well as outside internships, research positions, and organizations available in New York City excites me, as I am deeply passionate about the environmental issues we face in this critical time. As an empowered individual, I want to empower others to take responsibility and face the reality of what is needed to be done to save the beautiful diversity of the fluid mosaic that is life on earth.

Q: The text mentioned multiple times that we have seen some developments in environmental crises during the past few decades, but failed to include what exactly those changes are. Is this merely part of the construction of a positive narrative about environmental progress, or have we as a society actually made some substantial change in the right direction?

Word Count: 1204

__________________________

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 7.

2Miller, 11.

3Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 20.

4Miller, 9.

5Miller, 13.

6“How Many Planets Does It Take to Sustain Your Lifestyle?” Ecological Footprint Calculator. Accessed January 20, 2020. https://www.footprintcalculator.org/.

7Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 4.

8Urevig, Andrew, “When It Comes to Addressing Climate Change, Gender Matters.” Ensia. Accessed January 21, 2020. https://ensia.com/notable/gender-climate-change/.

9Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 13.

Blog 2: The Interconnectedness of Life on Earth

Olivia Johnson

By taking a look at the phylogenetic tree, one can observe the evolutionary path that has resulted in Homo sapiens sapiens, the human species equipped with opposable thumbs, the ability to stand upright, and a complex brain. These adaptations have allowed humans to become the dominant species on earth, capable of manipulating the planet’s natural capital on a large scale. However, we often forget that humans are in fact animals who share the earth with millions of other species. In his work Earth’s Mind: Essays in Native Literature Professor Roger Dunsmore explores the American Indian philosophy humanity’s place in nature, stating, “When we deny significance to other life forms, we deny significance to those parts of ourselves that were formed in our journey through them.”1This interconnectedness of life is found not only in the phylogenetic tree, but also in the variety of ecosystems and the diversity of species within them. Currently, humanity’s insatiable desire for natural capital and the major side effects of those processes are altering natural systems, degrading biomes, and threatening the biodiversity on earth. By negatively impacting these, we are threatening the vitality of millions of species, including our own.

According to the text Living in the Environment, the three factors that sustain life on earth include solar energy, the cycling of nutrients, and gravity2. Unlike fossil fuels which are contained in earth’s crust in limited supply, solar energy is a renewable resource, indefinitely warming the earth and providing energy for plant growth. Solar energy is essential to photosynthesis, originally catalyzed by cyanobacteria which first released oxygen into our atmosphere. Phytoplankton and ultraplankton are two microorganisms responsible for producing about half of the earth’s oxygen supply, and therefore are vital to sustaining life on our planet. In addition to adding oxygen to our atmosphere, they also play a role in the carbon cycle by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. However, humans have also been interfering in this cycle, and unsurprisingly in a detrimental way.

Since the 1960s, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been consistently rising as a result of human activity. Burning fossil fuels, deforestation, forest fires, and transportation have all contributed to rising carbon dioxide levels, which have resulted in ocean acidification and rising temperatures. As one of several greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide plays a role in the greenhouse effect, which when functioning normally determines the earth’s temperature and climate. Without this process, earth would be extremely cold and void of life; however, very large quantities of greenhouse gases can be detrimental to life. Humans are currently emitting carbon dioxide faster than it can be removed by the earth’s natural processes. Over the last 50 years, emissions have warmed the earth and significantly changed the climate.

Carbon Cycle, Red Arrows Showing Human Contributions to Levels of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere.3

This climate change has raised ocean levels, threatened biomes, and put many species at risk of extinction. In addition to change in climate, ecosystems also face direct threats from humans as we ravage them for natural capital. Many areas have been degraded to their ecological tipping point at which positive feedback loops are locked in place and the natural system can no longer self-correct. Deserts are just one type of biome that is especially vulnerable to human activity because of slow nutrient cycling and low species diversity. Tropical rain forests, which contain just 2% of earth’s land surface but at least 50% of all known species, have already been significantly destroyed at rates that are only increasing.4 At least half of all tropical rain forests on earth have been affected by humans, along with them their vastly diverse species which reside in highly specialized niches. Mountains, which contain water sources vital to over four billion people, are also at risk from the timber and agricultural industries. Overall, at least 60% of the world’s major terrestrial ecosystems are being degraded or used unsustainably, as shown by the figure below.

Natural Capital Degradation from Human Activities.5

Our destructive ways of living have also significantly affected the world’s water supply; ocean acidification, rising sea levels, overfishing, and harmful pollutants have degraded ocean and freshwater ecosystems. The oceans are vital to maintaining the earth’s biodiversity, and in turn its natural capital. Ocean researcher Sylvia Earle states, “The bottom line answer to the question about why biodiversity matters is fairly simple. The rest of the living world can get along without us but we can’t get along without them.”6 In fact, it is arguable that the world would be much better off without humans; we are negatively affecting life on earth much more than we are contributing to its vitality. Throughout the history of the earth, there have been five major natural extinctions– some scientists believe human activity is bringing on the 6th. We are currently experiencing a high extinction rate, and many species are expected to become extinct within the next 50 to 100 years.

Chart of Five Mass Extinctions, Predicting Human Activity Causing the 6th.7

Despite the overwhelming evidence that climate change is a direct result of human activity, some self-seeking individuals and proponents of “fake news” have used their authority to convince others that it is simply a natural process. While an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence suggests this could not be further from the truth, refusing to acknowledge humanity’s contribution to the warming of our planet and the ecological destruction that accompanies it is very dangerous. Just last year, an area of the Amazon the size of New Jersey was engulfed in flames, destroying habitats and forcing many indigenous communities from their homes.8 There was a global outcry, and #prayfortheamazon was trending on all social media platforms. Many people were under the assumption that, similarly to the fires in California and Australia, this was a natural disaster. However, a majority of the burning was caused directly by humans as a part of deforestation to clear land for agriculture and cattle. Politics plays a major role in this crisis; Brazil’s newly elected president Jair Bolsonaro was responsible for cutting environmental protections in the Amazon in favor of loggers. Those who sought to protect the rain forest are also put at risk. Paulo “Lobo” Paulino Guajajara (shown below), a leader of the “Forest Guardians” of the Guajajara tribe in the Amazon, was ambushed and shot dead by loggers. In a statement from the Guajajara Guardians of Arariboia Indigenous Territory, leaders state, “The protection of our land and its biodiversity has always been our struggle and always will be. It does not depend on politics or money. It is simply a matter of life and death for us, our relatives and future generations.”9 The violence of ecological degradation has proven to be deadly not only for many plant and animal species, but also for indigenous communities and other vulnerable populations whose way of life is closely tied to the earth.

In this day and age, reliable science is more important than ever when educating the public on the effects of climate change and humanity’s role in the process. How do we convince those, especially people in positions of authority, who refuse to acknowledge that climate change and ecological degradation is in fact a real and pressing issue that it must be addressed?

Words: 1175

1​Dunsmore, Roger. 1997. ​Earth’s Mind: Essays in Native Literature​. (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press), 42.

2Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. 2018. ​Living in the Environment.​ (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning), 51. 3​Miller, 65. 4Miller, 158.

5Miller, 161. 6Miller, 81. 7Miller, 93. 8Borunda, Alejandra. 2019. “See How Much of the Amazon Is Burning, How It Compares to Other Years.” National Geographic. August 29, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/amazon-fires-cause-deforestation-graphic-map/#close, 3.

9Guajajara Guardians of Arariboia Indigenous Territory, Brazil. “Amazon Guardians Respond to Killing of Paulo Paulino Guajajara.” Survival International, November 18, 2019. https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/12268, 1.

Blog 3: The Collapse of Modern Society

The word “history” is most often associated with past civilizations, wars, leaders, and other great milestones and achievements of humanity. The traditional subject of history typically begins around 5000 BCE with the development of agriculture and the establishment of major civilizations; while it centers on humankind as the focus of study, conventional history fails to view humanity in the larger context of the history of the universe. Big History, a term coined by historian David Christian in the 1990s, involves the interdisciplinary, big picture study of science and humanities to examine human existence. According to Christian, the very little time our planet and species has existed for is only understandable when viewing it from the context of the universe’s fourteen billion-year-old history. His study of Big History consists of nine “threshold moments”: the Big Bang and the creation of the universe (13 billion years ago), the creation of stars as the first complex objects (12 billion ya), the creation of chemical elements inside dying stars required for chemically-complex objects, the formation of planets more chemically complex than stars, the creation and evolution of life (3.8 billion ya), the development of our speciesHomo sapiens(250,000 ya), the appearance of agriculture which allowed for more complex societies (11,000 ya), the “modern revolution” which brought the world into the modern era, and finally whatever will happen in the future and predicting the next threshold of history.1

2 Natural Timeline of Universe.

Each of these thresholds represents a level of increasing complexity brought on by “Goldilocks conditions”, a set of very exact circumstances required for complex forms to exist. When looking at Christian’s final few thresholds, it is evident that Goldilocks conditions along with increasingly advanced human civilizations have allowed the human population to flourish in large numbers.

3 Goldilocks Conditions of Planet Earth, Neither too Close or Too Far from the Sun.

Throughout the past century, the amount of humans on Earth has exploded at an exponential rate. In 4 BCE, just 250 million Homo sapiens sapiensexisted. By 1850 CE, that number had quadrupled, and the human population reached one billion over the course of three to five million years. Another billion humans were added to that number over only 80 years, and the human population reached three billion in 1958, four billion in 1975, five billion in 1988, and six billion in 2000. Currently, there are almost nine billion humans on Earth, and that number is expected to reach twelve billion by 2060. Humans account for 36% of all mammals, and another 60% consists of mammals we raise for food, with wild mammals consisting of only 4%. It is evident humanity has come to dominate the planet. 4 We are currently living in what scientists refer to as the Anthropocene, the geological epoch beginning with the significant human impact on Earth’s ecosystems and geology.

5 The Anthropocene.

Through carbon emissions, the construction of roads and dams, soil degradation, deforestation, and other destructive activities, humans have brought on anthropogenic climate change, along with a severe negative impact on Earth’s ecosystems and biodiversity. Proposed starting dates of the Anthropocene range from the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago to the arrival of Europeans in the Americas all the way to the 1960s, but it is agreed that the Industrial Revolution was the time that significantly accelerated humanity’s damages to Earth. 6

According to historian Jared Diamond, author of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, the damages humans are currently inflicting upon our environment on a large scale are not entirely unique to our modern era. Diamond determines instances of past societal collapse have come down to five main factors: climate change, hostile neighbors, collapse of essential trading partners, environmental problems, and society’s response to the foregoing four factors.7 He states, “In fact, one of the main lessons to be learned from the collapses of the Maya, Anasazi, Easter Islanders, and those other past societies…is that a society’s steep decline may begin only a decade or two after society reaches its peak numbers, wealth, and power.” 8. This evidence is particularly alarming as the human population nears its potential carrying capacity; Earth’s sixth major extinction may be imminent.

9Easter Island, the Best Example of Societal Collapse According to Diamond.

The four major eras of US environmental history depict how the country’s relationship with the diverse ecosystems of the Americas over the past several hundred years. They consist of the Tribal Era (13,000 years ago-1600s), the Frontier Era (1607-1890), the Early Conservationist Era (1832-1870), and 1870- present times.10 The case study of the American bison examined by the text reflects the changes that occurred throughout these four eras. In 1500 CE, 30-60 million bison roamed the plains of North America, and were the center of life for many American Indian tribes. The arrival of European colonists and their frontier environmental world-view saw the Americas, American Indian tribes, and the bison as wilderness to be conquered by the white man. Bison were slaughtered by the millions for meat and entertainment by Europeans moving west, and even the US Army took part in this killing to drive tribes from their land. By 1892, only 85 bison remained; the endangerment of this species also brought on the endangerment of many Plains Indian tribes.

11Portrait of Plenty Coups.

Plenty Coups, leader of the Crow Nation in the early 1900s, said, “…when the buffalo went away the hearts of my people fell to the ground, and they could not life them up again. After this nothing happened.”12 The bison was relied on not only for its physical contributions to many tribes, but also as a prominent spiritual figure. After the bison was driven to near extinction, many tribes were traumatized and stripped of their identities. In his work An American Urphilosophie, author Robert Bunge states, “Would you [want to] know how an area is faring ecologically speaking, look then at the Indian population, for they reflect the ecological balance or lack of it in an exact manner.”13 Although the bison became protected and its population slowly grew, the effects the loss in numbers on many American Indian tribes have only worsened. Many tribes today are burdened with addiction, mental illness, poverty, and continuing attacks on their land and culture from the US government who continues to neglect and abuse them. With the critical climate conditions we are currently facing, the intimate bond between many American Indians and their land may hold the answers of how to address our environmental crisis; however, they are rarely included in the conversation despite having a deep knowledge of sustainable practices. As Diamond states in his book, the most vulnerable populations will be forced to bear the brunt of environmental degradation, and the many American Indian tribes living in the United States are no exception to this. As Americans, we are living on stolen land and are continuing to abuse it in the most profane matter; if major changes are not made in philosophy, lifestyle, and industry, our society will collapse.

How could looking to other environmental philosophies be beneficial in addressing our current climate crisis?

1“Big History.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 20, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History, 3.

2 ”Big History”, 3.

3“Big History”, 3.

4 Stoll, Steven. U.S. Environmentalism since 1945: a Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007.

5 Bliss, Sam. “The Anthropocene Is Here, Whether Geologists Make It Official or Not.” Grist. Grist, October 20, 2014. https://grist.org/climate-energy/the-anthropocene-is-here-whether-geologists-make-it-official-or-not/, 1.

6 “Anthropocene.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 6, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene.

7“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, January 19, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed, 2.

8Diamond, Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin, 2011, 509.

9“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”, 1.

10Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 20.

11“Plenty Coups.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, November 19, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenty_Coups, 1.

12Lear, Jonathan. Radical Hope Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation. Londres (Inglaterra): Harvard University Press, 2008, 4.

13Bunge, Robert. An American Urphilosophie: an American Philosophy, BP (before Pragmatism). Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984, 84.

Blog 4: Vitamin G Deficiency: the Modern Disconnect Between Humans and Nature

Olivia Johnson

In past chapters of his work Living in the Environment, Miller has touched on numerous current environmental crises, including ocean acidification, the rapid extinction of species, increasing carbon emissions, and the rapidly growing human population accompanied by an insatiable demand for natural capital. Government leaders are being pressured by the public to address these many problems, but often it seems that Congress is not adequately responding. In Chapter 25, Miller goes into depth on the dissent between environmental worldviews, which often prevent much needed change from happening. A person’s environmental worldview, which is essentially how one views their relationship with nature, is determined by their environmental ethics, the distinction between right and wrong behavior in one’s relationship with the environment. A human-centered worldview states that as the planet’s dominant species, humans should manage the earth for our benefit. A life-centered worldview, on the other hand, assumes humanity has an ethical responsibility to prevent the extinction of species through human activities.  Further, an earth-centered worldview takes on an ethical responsibility to preserve not just species, but all ecosystems and the biodiversity within them.

With a variety of environmental worldviews comes the challenge of determining how land should be managed, and who makes that decision. In the United States, the government manages 35% of the country’s land, which technically then belongs to every American citizen. 40% of this land managed by the Bureau of Land Management is utilized for mining, logging, oil and gas extraction, and livestock raising. There is a large division between environmental advocates and developers as to how public lands should be treated. The former believes the lands should be used for protecting biodiversity, whereas the latter pushes for the best economical use of the lands regardless of the damage that may ensue.

1Interacting with nature.

At the heart of the environmental debate, Miller argues, is the modern disconnect between humans and nature. The concept of nature-deficit disorder explains how some psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit disorders, may result from or be exacerbated by a lack of exposure to nature. Richard Louv’s Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder explains the basis of this concept; we are all still biologically hunters and gatherers, so there remains in us an unexplained need for interaction with nature. In his “Land Ethic”, American ecologist Aldo Leopold presents his vision of a world where relationships between people and nature are intertwined. He states, “When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”2 Leopold’s land ethic depends on the concept of biophilia, which Edward O. Wilson describes as an “innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms” 3 The emotional, psychological, and social benefits of interaction with nature have instigated movements such as No Child Left Behind Act of 2009, which sought to encourage environmental education for children.

4Ways to live sustainably.

Forming a relationship with the earth is just one way we can learn to live more sustainably. Ghandi once stated, “The earth provides enough to satisfy every person’s need but not every person’s greed…When we take more than what we need, we are simply taking from each other, borrowing from the future, or destroying the environment and other species.”4 Other methods of sustainable living include relying more on renewable energy resources, protecting biodiversity, and leaving the earth in a condition better than how we found it for future generations.

The degradation of our ecosystems has not only negatively affected many animal and plant species, but also the most vulnerable human communities. In his Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, J. Baird Callicott explains the history and current predicament of environmental justice. Beginning in the 1980s, the modern environmental justice movement gained momentum with rising concerns from the public in regards to a concentration of environmental-related health issues in lower-class communities and communities of color, which typically were situated close to industrial plants, toxic landfills, and hazardous waste facilities. Research showed that although socioeconomic status did affect where these facilities were located, race was the more significant determining factor. An advocate against environmental racism, Reverend Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. described this as:

“racial discrimination in environmental policy making, and the unequal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations … the deliberate targeting of people of color communities for toxic waste facilities …the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in people of color communities for toxic waste facilities … the history of excluding people of color from the leadership of the environmental movement.”5

According to Callicott, the burdens of climate change are likely to increase the population of environmentally displaced people to 250 million by 2050. Intergenerational justice, a component of environmental justice, refers to the obligations members of one generation have to past or future generations. We have a duty to protect others from injustices; this concept applies not only to all those currently affected by environmental abuses, but also those in the future that may be negatively affected by our current exploitation of the environment.

6Advocating for the environment.

Chapter 25 of Living in the Environment begins with a quote from environmentalist David W. Orr in which he states, “The sustainability revolution is nothing less than a rethinking and remaking of our role in the natural world.”7. This is true, but purely from a Western, Eurocentric point of view. In this case, the word “our” excludes all those cultures who have already been living sustainably, especially indigenous communities throughout the world. The environmental movement has a bleak history of excluding people of color and indigenous peoples, whose leadership and knowledge surrounding sustainability could be vital to the movement. This is an instance of “arrogant ignorance”, the same concept Wendell Berry associates with the phrase “save the earth”.8 Life on earth has been sustained for 3.8 billion years; humanity will never destroy the planet, but we do have the power to destroy ourselves.

Many indigenous cultures possess an environmental wisdom worldview, seeing nature as a great and powerful teacher from which we can learn many lessons. The narcissistic perspective that humans are somehow above all other species is disgusting, and deprives all other life of rights and dignity. Viewing land as merely something to be conquered and ravaged for resources instead of a beautifully diverse haven for life has proven to be destructive for many animal, plant, and human communities. Author Dennis McPherson states, “Just because a certain way of looking at the world is useful does not imply that it is an accurate representation of the way the world actually is…in the long run, the ultimate pragmatic test of a worldview is how well it helps the holders of that view to survive.”9 The current worldviews of the Trump administration, responsible for the largest reduction in protection lands in history, prove how a human-centered worldview may become detrimental to our survival as a human species.10

11The Arctic National Wildlife Refugee in Alaska, US Interior Department is set to auction off land to oil and gas drillers.

Many legislators faced with making important decisions regarding our current climate crisis are backed by developers, big-business owners, and wealthy conservative individuals who want nothing more than a total abandonment of environmental regulations and protections. How do citizens demanding climate action stop these selfish few individuals from preventing change?

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 691.

2“The Land Ethic.” The Aldo Leopold Foundation. Accessed February 12, 2020. https://www.aldoleopold.org/about/the-land-ethic/, 1.

3Callicott, J. Baird., and Robert Frodeman. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009, 109.

4Miller, 693.

5Callicott, 343.

6Miller, 692.

7Miller, 681.

8Miller, 683.

9MacPherson, Dennis H., and John Douglas. Rabb. Indian from the inside: a Study in Ethno-Metaphysics. Thunder Bay, Ont.: Lakehead Univ., 1993, 26.

10Robbins, Jim. “Open for Business: The Trump Revolution on America’s Public Lands.” Yale E360. Accessed October 8, 2019. https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for-business-the-trump-revolution-on-public-lands, 1.

11Robbins, 1.

Blog 5: The Complex Relationship between Politics, Economies, and the Environment

Olivia Johnson

A thorough comprehension of the relationship between the human constructs of economics, politics, and law and our biosphere is essential to understanding and addressing our current global environmental crisis. Chapter 23 of Living in the Environment provides insight into how our global economy is functioning unsustainability, and what we can do to change that. The term economics refers to how scarce resources are distributed in a society, relying on human capital, manufactured capital, and, most importantly, natural capital.

1Inputs of the economy rely on natural capital in addition to manufactured and human capital.

The earth’s resources and ecosystem services provide the foundation for human economies. While neoclassical economists view natural capital as an unlimited factor of the human economy, ecological economists understand that human economic systems are subsystems of our bisophere. The latter recognize that economic growth becomes unsustainable when it degrades or depletes natural capital. This is the case in many industrialized nations which depend on high-throughput economies, which attempt to boost growth by increasing the flow of resources through an economic system to provide more goods and services. Viewing higher rates of production and consumption as an indicator of economic growth has proven to be unsustainable, as our current human economies have already pushed beyond many ecosystem services’ natural thresholds.

2Body of water polluted by copper mining operation, degrading natural capital.

A steady-state economy model, on the other hand, values sustainable innovation, development, and improvement over growth. In this model, all resources would be recycled and reused to benefit all, much like a natural ecosystem. Although there would be no overall growth, many environmental economists approve of this model as a sustainable alternative to our current destructive patterns of overconsumption and waste. This model may become a reality as many businesses transition to more sustainable practices, incentivised by the positive potential of environmental investments and research.

3Hidden costs of mining and drilling are not factored into market prices.

Markets often fail to provide environmental protections because they do not assign monetary value to the many benefits provided by earth’s natural capital. Many economists and environmental experts call for full-cost pricing, which would include the typically hidden costs associated with environmental harm in the market price of a good or service. Environmentalist and businessman Paul Hawken states, “If we have doubts about how to value a 500-year-old tree, we need only ask how much it would cost to make a new one from scratch? Or a new river? Or a new atmosphere?” 4 Many ecosystem services are irreplaceable and virtually impossible to replicate artificially, which places them at a high economic value. A 1997 study on the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital estimated its monetary value to be US $33 trillion.5 The researchers determined that this value will only increase as resources continue being depleted and become more scarce. Including ecosystem services in market prices would dramatically increase the prices of goods and services depending on these services. Currently, that value has increased to $125 trillion per year. In addition to full-cost pricing, other economic tools we can use to address environmental problems include phasing out perverse subsidies, implementing green taxes, labeling environmentally beneficial goods and services, and enacting environmental laws and regulations.

6Chart showing environmental policy-making process.

Chapter 24 of Living in the Environment discusses the role of the government in instituting such economic tools and making the transition to a sustainable society. Economic policy is heavily involved in this, which is developed and executed through the democratic process. However, problems arise when powerful corporations and wealthy individuals gain more influence over the political process than the average citizen. This has led to numerous environmental injustices, disproportionately affecting poorer communities of color and sparing the white and wealthy. The EPA lists at least 76 studies which show discrimination in relation to environmental justice; studies have proven that a large share of polluting factories, incinerators, and landfills in the United States are located in communities populated by African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. 7 However, a 2015 study showed that the EPA dismissed 95% of environmental justice claims. This is where environmental law, which aims to protect both ecosystems and individuals from environmental abuses, comes into play. Unfortunately, the judicial system can often work against victims; statutes of limitations can prevent people from suing if the damages, such as negative health effects, occur after a certain time, courts can often take years to reach a decision while damaging effects continue to take place, and some developers even file strategic lawsuits against public participation aimed at intimidating and discouraging individuals and groups who criticize their harmful activities.

8Residents of Detroit protesting for the shutting down of a medical waste incinerator which was polluting the air in their community.

The government’s failure to address these issues and the continued exploitation of natural capital by many corporations have ignited momentum in tens of thousands of nonprofit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide. Many of these large groups such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International have become influential in lobbying for sustainable policies and supporting political candidates who vow to protect the environment. Grassroots organizations and youth leaders have proven that political change comes from the bottom up; individual actions such as lobbying, campaigning for ecologically literate candidates, voting with your wallet, and running for office all contribute to the growing environmental movement.

9Greenpeace protesters fighting against the Japanese whaling industry.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ernest Partridge and his argument that the United States has become a society dominated by overconsumption, greed, and manipulation, three factors at the root of all environmental injustices. Partridge asks, “Are we Americans regarded by our ‘leaders’ as free and rational citizens of a functioning democracy, or merely as an aggregate of isolated and mindless consumers?”10 We have become addicted to consumption, facing an insatiable desire to accumulate unnecessary things. Partridge argues that there is a distinction between consumers and citizens; Americans have become model consumers, controlled like puppets by the “oligarchy”, the top one percent wealthy individuals who have perfected the art of influence and exploitation. This “standard of living” we are told we must have has proven to be unsustainable in every way imaginable, negatively affecting the most vulnerable human communities and virtually every biome on earth. This is the inevitable result of unchecked capitalism that values profit over lives and blatantly ignores the injustices forced upon humans and the environment. The fact that the world’s wealthiest 62 people possess as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people is absolutely disgusting.

This dynamic of unbridled overconsumption that benefits a select few while dramatically harming billions of others is no doubt at the root of our current environmental crisis. The environmental movement is gaining momentum, fighting for environmental justice and protections against the corporations and billionaires who wield great economic and political power. As the United States enters a major election year, the opportunity for an environmental revolution opens. Supporting candidates with an ambitious environmental plan and consistent politics, like Bernie Sanders, is crucial to overturning the imbalance of power in the United States and establishing a sustainable future for generations to come.

Living in the Environment proposes full-cost pricing as a means of accounting for environmental harms in the production of a good or service. The burdens of environmental degradation are proven to disproportionately affect the poor and communities of color. Would this “solution” only make access to basic goods like food and shelter even more inaccessible for those communities, while allowing the rich to continue consuming at an unsustainable rate?

Words: 1120

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 632.

2Miller, 665.

3Miller, 638.

4Miller, 639.

5Costanza, Robert, et. al. “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature, May 15, 1997, 1.

6Miller, 660.

7Miller, 658.

8Miller, 658.

9Miller, 668.

10Partridge, Ernest. “Consumer or Citizen?” Online Gadfly. The Gadfly Bytes, April 2002. http://gadfly.igc.org/politics/left/consumer.htm, 1.

Blog 6: The Impossible Hamster:  the Unsustainability of Overpopulation and Overconsumption

Olivia Johnson

1”The Impossible Hamster”

Imagine if a hamster maintained a constant rate of growth throughout its entire first year of life. The New Economic Foundation’s “The Impossible Hamster” depicts this situation, which results in a nine billion ton hamster, capable of consuming the world’s entire annual production of corn in a single day.2 Of course, this situation is only hypothetical, as species existing in nature can only grow to a certain size in order to maintain a stable population. The question is, therefore, do these same limits to growth apply to the human population as well? Further, is the concept of constant growth in human economies a realistic and sustainable principle?

Chapter 6 of Living in the Environment considers these questions, examining how many humans the earth can support, factors that influence the human population, and slowing population growth. When studying the current size, growth rate, and distribution of the human population, demographers recognize three key trends: the world’s population is continuing to grow despite a decrease in the rate of population growth in most years since 1965, human population growth is unevenly distributed with 98% of new individuals being added in less-developed countries, and a large movement from rural to urban areas. There is disagreement on whether there are limits to human and economic growth, especially considering constant developments in technology. However, the global economy fails to provide basic necessities of life to over one billion people, which seems like a clear indicator of unequal resource distribution and consumption.

3Population growth in less-developed countries v. more-developed countries.

When looking at the size of the human population, the main influences are current death, birth, and fertility rates, as well as migration and age structure. The text concludes that reducing poverty by means of economic development, elevating the status of women worldwide, and encouraging family planning will slow population growth. Demographers have determined that demographic transitions occur as countries become industrialized and more economically developed, which generates a per capita rise in income, decrease in poverty, and a slow in population growth.

4Woman in Nepal bringing home firewood, which takes 2 hours 2-3 times per week.

Some economists argue that the implementation of a steady-state economy, made up of a constant population size as well as a constant stock of capital, would work to solve the current human population predicament.5 Similarly, a plenitude economy argues that decreasing consumption and working hours will reduce environmental impact and instead build social capital by making a commitment to social interaction and community.6 This type of anti-consumerist ideology is supported by the Degrowth movement, whose advocates believe that overconsumption lies at the root of environmental issues and social inequalities.7 Instead of finding happiness in consumption, they encourage maximizing well-being through non-consumptive means, including devoting more time to the arts and community.

Chapter 22 of Living in the Environment examines the human population in regards to urbanization, the creation and growth of urban areas. More than half the world’s population lives in urban areas, with 244,000 individuals migrating to these areas each day. Three important trends to consider when looking at urbanization include: the percentage of the global population living in urban areas has increased sharply, the sizes of urban areas are increasing, and poverty is becoming increasingly urbanized, especially in less-developed countries. One negative effect of urbanization is urban sprawl, the term given to the growth of low density development on edges of urban areas which destroys local ecosystems and increases air and water pollution. Other negative effects include large ecological footprints, a lack of vegetation, excessive noise, and local climate effects. The one billion urban dwellers who live in poverty are forced to bear the burden of these effects; those residing in slums are faced with severe pollution and a lack of electricity or clean water supplies.

8Large network of roads in car-dependent cities, such as this one in Los Angeles.

When looking at the negative results of urbanization, it becomes clear how important sustainable land-planning can be; dividing the best uses of land by zoning allows for growth control and protection of ecosystems. Sustainable community development allows for cities or towns to focus on growing local produce, generating their own carbon-neutral energy, and reducing the use of motor vehicles by establishing effective mass transit systems. Initiatives in many cities worldwide, including New York City’s PlaNYC9 and Transition Towns10, have been made to reduce their ecological impacts as well as address the human population issue.

I believe Mark Albion’s “The Good Life” perfectly encapsulates our current economic and social addiction to consumption and growth.11 In the short film, Albion describes his encounter with a fisherman in a small coastal town as he tries to convince the man to increase his product quantity, develop his own business, and create growth and wealth. At the end of the day, Albion says, the man will be able to retire, enjoy his life, and spend time with his family. What Albion failed to recognize, however, is that in living a simple life and effectively balancing work and social time, the man was already happy. Mainstream culture teaches us that success equates to money, which allows for uncapped consumption which is the only path to fulfillment and happiness. Evidently, this is not true, and this cycle of overconsumption and an unrelentless desire for growth on every level only leads to social inequities, ecological devastation, and ultimately a lack of happiness and an overload of stress, especially for vulnerable communities.

12Depicts 183,000 birds, the estimated amount of birds that die every day in the United States from exposure to agricultural pesticides.

Reversing this ravenous cycle will not be easy by any means, especially considering the high consumption rates and resource uses of the average US citizen. Part of the problem, contemporary artist Chris Jordan suggests, is that we as a society have a difficult time understanding the raw numbers associated with the current ecological state of our country. Through his work Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait, Jordan hopes to make meaning of numbers, and states, “Employing themes such as the near versus the far, and the one versus the many, I hope to raise some questions about the roles and responsibilities we each play as individuals in a collective that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming.”13 I believe it is incredibly important to realize the individual impacts each of us have living in highly developed industrial first-world nations, and refrain from placing the blame our ecological crisis on complex systemic issues like poverty, as the text frequently does. Not only is this objective view of poverty incredibly ignorant, but it also fails to place responsibility on wealthier industrialized nations for creating these systems of poverty in the first place.

Question: Steady-state and plentitude economies are a direct contradiction of the constant and continuous growth principle that rules economics; considering this, how might we facilitate a transition to a more sustainable economy?

1“The Impossible Hamster.” Vimeo. New Economics Foundation, November 14, 2018. https://vimeo.com/8947526.

2“The Impossible Hamster.”, 0.34 min.

3Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 121.

4Miler, 131.

5“Steady-State Economy.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, March 1, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy.

6“Visualizing a Plentitude Economy.” Youtube. Center for a New American Dream, September 15, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR-YrD_KB0M&t=7s.

7“Degrowth.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 17, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth, 1.

8Miller, 615.

9“PlaNYC.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, November 1, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlaNYC, 1.

10“Transition Town.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 14, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_town, 1.

11Albion, Mark. “More Than Money- What Is ‘The Good Life’ Parable.” Youtube. Berrett Koehler, August 8, 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7JlI959slY.

12Jordan, Chris. “Running the Numbers.” Chris Jordan Photography, 2008. http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/rtn/#about, 1.

13Jordan, 1.

Blog 7: Saving Biodiversity: Our Role in Halting Species Extinction and Ecosystem Degradation

Olivia Johnson

Severe soil erosion caused by deforestation and overgrazing.1

When evaluating the earth’s current environmental crises, it is evident that humans are the key player in causing ocean acidification, habitat destruction, water and air pollution, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and the many other problems we force upon the planet’s species and ecosystems. Chapter 9 of Living in the Environment discusses these issues and what must be done to reverse and repair them, specifically regarding species and ecosystem services. The text begins by examining honeybees and their role in one of the earth’s most important ecosystem services: pollination. Since 1980, human activities have caused a dramatic decrease in their populations, especially as our own species’s population rapidly increases; however, bees are not the only species currently under threat from humans. Species are becoming extinct at least 1,000 times faster than the historical rate, which is about one species per year for every one million species on earth.2 This alarmingly high rate has led researchers to believe that the earth is currently experiencing its sixth mass extinction, which will likely severely impair vital ecosystem services and wipe out at least 20-50% of all species on earth within our lifetime. Researchers working on the Living Planet Index, created by the London Zoological Society and the World Wildlife Federation state, “Given the pace and scale of change, we can no longer exclude the possibility of reaching critical tipping points that could abruptly and irreversibly change living conditions on earth.”3 The great diversity of species on earth provide ecosystem and economic services that sustain not only humans, but all other residents of our planet. It is evident that we must try to sustain these wild species, not only because we benefit greatly from them, but also because they too have a right to live on the earth.

A critically endangered white northern rhinoceros killed by a poacher in South Africa.4

The acronym HIPPCO is useful when considering how our harmful actions are currently accelerating species extinction and the degradation of ecosystem services. Consisting of Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Population growth, Pollution, Climate change, and Overexploitation, HIPPCO explains how humans are directly causing the current unnatural rate of species extinction. According to the text, establishing and enforcing national environmental laws and creating and protecting wildlife sanctuaries could provide a solution to sustaining these species. By following the precautionary principle and taking preventative measures to protect the environment instead of constantly cleaning up the messes we have created, we may hope to restore ecosystems and slow the current species extinction rate.

Ways you can prevent extinction of wild species.5

Chapter 10 of Living in the Environment continues the conversation about our role in sustaining biodiversity by discussing ecosystems and the services they provide, specifically terrestrial ecosystems. In the past 8,000 years, human activities have wiped out over 50% of earth’s forests. United Nations environmental bodies have commented on this massive destruction of natural capital, stating, “Unless radical and creative action is taken to conserve the earth’s biodiversity, many local and regional ecosystems that help to support human lives and livelihoods are at risk of collapsing.”6Currently, unsustainable deforestation and climate change are the primary threats to forest ecosystems, which provide many vital ecosystem services, including reducing soil erosion, purifying air and water, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and supporting energy flow and chemical cycling. These services amount to an estimated minimum of $125 trillion every year, a value far greater than the value of wood and other raw materials they provide. By emphasizing this great economic value, we may hope to better manage and sustain forests without which we could not live. Several steps to achieve this goal include halting government subsidies that encourage deforestation, protecting old-growth forests, improving the management of forest fires, reducing the demand for harvested trees, and planting trees to reestablish forests.7

Map of biological hotspots.8

Forests are not the only ecosystems being severely degraded by human activities. Grasslands, which cover one fourth of the earth’s land surface, are under threat from overgrazing, development, and climate change. Like forests, grasslands provide numerous important ecosystem services including soil formation, erosion control, chemical cycling, and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The text emphasizes protecting biodiversity hotspots found within these ecosystems is especially important. These pertain to areas, such as Madagascar, rich in highly endangered species found nowhere else on earth that are now extremely threatened by human activities. Only around six percent of the earth’s land is strictly protected from the destructive touch of humanity, which is incredibly concerning as our world continues to sink into environmental collapse.

Ways to protect tropical forests.9

Something I found particularly interesting in Chapter 9 of Living in the Environment was the emphasis placed on invasive species as a global threat to species extinction and environmental degradation. Humans are to blame for introducing nonnative species that end up severely impairing their host ecosystems, but what we fail to realize is that in some ways we are currently acting similarly to an invasive species ourselves. Our population has surged and reaches almost every corner of the world, and with that has brought death and destruction to many species and ecosystems. We currently deplete natural capital at an alarming and unsustainable rate, leaving little to no resources for other species whom we share the earth with. The text states, “A problem can occur when an introduced species does not face the natural predators, competitors, parasites, viruses, bacteria, or fungi that controlled its populations in its native habitat. This can allow some nonnative species to outcompete populations of many native species for food, disrupt ecosystem services, transmit new diseases, and lead to economic losses.”10 Although humans are not necessarily a nonnative species, we are currently behaving as such because we have no natural predator containing our populations and maintaining our resource consumption.

Florence Reed, founder of Sustainable Harvest International.11 235

When considering solutions to this global consumption and destruction epidemic, I believe Florence Reed’s efforts to establish sustainable farming practices serves as a perfect example on how to provide a lasting and impactful solution to these environmental problems we have caused. Inspired by her experience working as a Peace Corps volunteer in Panama and witnessing agriculture-motivated deforestation on a large scale, Reed founded Sustainable Harvest International in 1997 to educate farmers in developing nations on sustainable agricultural practices. Unlike some aid programs, this does not create a dependence on wealthier nations for resources, but instead empowers and raises people out of poverty. Once taught these growing techniques, farmers can then share them with others, and also earn extra income by selling the surplus of their crop yields. Establishing these types of sustainable practices that encourage consumption of locally produced goods not only stimulates local economies, but also decreases the dependence on other nations for foods that involve highly unsustainable growing, manufacturing, and shipping measures.

Question: In Chapter 10 of Living in the Environment, the text addressed the problem of overgrazing and its threat to grassland ecosystems, but did not mention the key factor driving this destruction. Is the failure by this text and the general public to confront the meat industry and its role in deforestation and ecological degradation only worsening our current environmental crises?

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 228.

2Miller, 193.

3Beats, Geo. “Global Wildlife Population Declined By 50% In Last 40 Years - Video Dailymotion.” Dailymotion. Dailymotion, September 30, 2014. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26ybub.

4Miller, 207.

5Miller, 216.

6Miller, 222.

7Miller, 231.

8Miller, 245.

9Miller, 235.

10Miller, 200.

11Miller, 235.

Blog 8: Ocean Systems & Agriculture: Rethinking Solutions to Modern Problems

Olivia Johnson

Hawaiian monk seal that was slowly starving to death before a discarded piece of plastic was removed from its snout.1

The world’s oceans generate half of the oxygen we breathe, provide hundreds of millions of jobs, and help slow atmospheric warming and climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide produced by human activities. Yet, oceans are some of the most polluted and degraded ecosystems on our planet. Chapter 11 of Living in the Environment discusses the major threats to aquatic ecosystems and the potential steps we can take to manage and prevent them. Currently, the vast diversity of aquatic species and the ecosystem services they provide are threatened by invasive species, climate change, pollution, and habitat loss, all as a result of irresponsible and unsustainable human activities. Marine biologist Malin L. states, “If you cranked up the aquarium heater and dumped some acid in the water, your fish would not be very happy. In effect, that’s what we are doing to our oceans.”2 Coral bleaching, ocean acidification, and the ever increasing levels of carbon dioxide being added to our atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is threatening the vitality of many aquatic species and ecosystems, and has already produced lethal results. One million seabirds and 100,000 mammals are killed every year as a result of plastic pollution alone.

An albatross who died as a result of plastic consumption from pollution by humans.3

How do we reverse these deadly effects and take responsibility for the harm our species causes to so many others? The text suggests that by using laws and economic incentives to protect species, establishing marine sanctuaries to protect and reestablish endangered ecosystems, and creating community-based integrated coastal management we may be able to effectively be able to protect and sustain marine biodiversity. However, as in the case of any other environmental issue, these solutions do not come without a handful of challenges. Most of the harm done to oceans is not visible to most people, making it easy to ignore. Additionally, most of the world’s ocean area lies outside legal jurisdiction of any country, leaving it open to overexploitation and making establishing marine reserves very difficult. Over 98% of the world’s oceans lack effective protection from harmful human activities, and although many obstacles lie in the way, effective and collective action must be taken. Renowned oceanographer and National Geographic Explorer Sylvia Earle states, “There is still time, but not a lot, to turn things around...This mostly blue planet has kept us alive. It’s time for us to return the favor.”4 Integrated coastal management may provide a sustainable solution to the risks oceans currently face; community-based efforts may help in educating people in sustainable living and utilizing their resources more sustainably.

Ways to make fisheries more sustainable.5

As a result of overfishing and damaging fishing practices, many marine fisheries have been put at risk. Governments around the world give more than $30 billion per year in subsidies to assist fishing businesses, and researchers believe at least $10 billion of this is spent to encourage overfishing and the expansion of the fishing industry. This is not only economically inefficient, as the number of boats increases as the number of fish dramatically decreases, but it is also extremely harmful to marine ecosystems, fish populations, and the many aquatic mammals killed in the process. In addition to marine fisheries, wetlands and freshwater systems are also strongly affected by human activities, and adequate protection of these ecosystems must be put in place.

Industrialized beef production in Arizona.6

The oceans are a reliable source of necessary nutrition for numerous human communities worldwide. Chapter 12 of Living in the Environment continues the discussion regarding nutrition, food production, and the environmental effects of these processes. The current disproportion of food in the world is a major problem that must be addressed. Americans alone throw away 30-40% of the country’s food supply, while 49 million of their own citizens experience chronic hunger. One in every eight people on earth face chronic undernutrition and do not receive enough to eat on a daily basis. Many countries have turned to industrialized food production to dramatically increase their outputs due to the rapidly growing human population; however, these practices are often extremely harmful and unsustainable to both human communities and natural ecosystems. According to the text, future food production may be limited by soil erosion and degradation, desertification, air and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, water shortages, and climate change. Meat and other animal product production alone depletes an extremely large quantity of resources and pollutes surrounding ecosystems in the process. The production of just one hamburger requires 1,700 liters of water, the equivalent of 15-20 showers. The text states, “...industrialized livestock production generates about 18% of the world’s greenhouse gases– more than all of the world’s cars, trucks, buses, and planes combined.”7 Evidently, our current standards of food production are not sustainable and require massive and rapid changes.

Salad greens being grown by use of hydroponics.8

Living in the Environment suggests utilizing efficient resource consumption, decreasing the harmful environmental effects of industrialized food production, and eliminating government subsidies that promote such harmful impacts to address our current unsustainable food production predicament. The use of hydroponics and community-supported agriculture may also prove to be useful in decreasing the harmful environmental effects of food production.

A poultry farm in San Diego.9

As a supporter of a plant-based diet, I appreciated the text’s efforts to expose the meat industry for its unsustainable, and often incredibly inhumane, practices. Having done much of my own research on this subject in the past, the facts and statistics around the industrialized meat industry were not surprising, although they continue to be extremely alarming. Living in the Environment adequately discussed the many negative effects the meat and animal product industry has on ecosystems and the services they provide; however, the text failed to address the undeniable correlation between these negative effects and environmental racism. Researchers and environmentalists Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore created a model entitled “A Chicken-Nugget Theory of Capitalism”  correlating the meat industry, capitalism, and the disastrous environmental effects they have on various communities; I believe this model is very helpful in understanding the problems with our current system of food production. Patel states, “My colleague Jason W. Moore and I have traced a history of capitalism to seven cheap things: nature, work, care, food, money, energy, and lives. The modern chicken nugget shows how– in almost every case– the things that have made this breaded poultry confection are running out.”10 Work: the production of a chicken nugget requires cheap labor, including prison labor, and the industry’s workers are among the most poorly paid employees in America. Care: regulations have been cut, undermining workers’ safety in order to speed up the process and produce more at a faster rate. Food: processed meats are becoming increasingly cheaper to make, and lower-class communities often can only afford to eat this unhealthy food instead of pricey fruits and vegetables. Money: The government offers subsidies and low interest rates to the meat industry, only encouraging unsustainable practices and further exploitation. Energy: Industrialized meat production requires large amounts of fossil fuels, which yield negative environmental consequences. Lives: A majority of the people working in the dangerous and unhealthy conditions of the meat industry are women and people of color, who are viewed as disposable lives as a result of white supremacy and the patriarchy. This model exemplifies how environmental issues and climate justice are interrelated and must be addressed together.

Two solutions the text provided I believe would address the unsustainability of our current food production systems as well as the social issues explained above are hydroponics and community-supported agriculture. These both would encourage positive community collaboration, educate the public on healthy and sustainable consumption, and provide fresh nutritious produce to those living in food deserts. Additionally, they would dramatically reduce the pollution from food transportation, ensure food security, and address the “vitamin-G deficit” currently afflicting many urban populations.

Question: Living in the Environment addressed how some marine species, predominantly sharks, are becoming endangered, which is only exacerbated by the negative media portrayal of this species. As a keystone species that has existed for over 400 million years, sharks are invaluable to ocean ecosystems. How do we reverse the negative media frenzy regarding sharks and instead foster a love for the species and work to protect them?

Words: 1344

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 260.

2Miller, 255.

3“Albatross.” Albatross. Accessed March 18, 2020. https://www.albatrossthefilm.com/, 1.

4Miller, 270.

5Miller, 272.

6Miller, 292.

7Miller, 301.

8Miller, 310.

9Patel, Raj. “A Chicken-Nugget Theory of Capitalism.” The Nation, November 6, 2017. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-chicken-nugget-theory-of-capitalism/, 1.

10Patel, 1.

Blog 9: Soil: the Living Skin of the Earth

Olivia Johnson

Although often thought of as a static substance, soil acts as a foundation of life for earth’s terrestrial ecosystems, and is teeming with a rich diversity of organisms and activity. Deborah Koon’s documentary Symphony of the Soil depicts soil as the “living skin of the earth”, emphasizing the value of soil, explaining common misconceptions, and revealing our current unhealthy relationship with soil and the environmental issues that ensue from it. Described as “Times Square on New Years Eve”, soil is full of microorganisms and functions as an ecosystem in itself. “Soil” actually consists of 50% soil, and 50% soil pores, which are filled with liquid water, air, and water vapor. These pores are where the living organisms thrive, and they function to facilitate nutrient cycling and regulation. Fungi are one such type of organism residing in the soil. Fungi act as the largest organism on earth; without them, colonization of land by organisms would not have been possible. They play a vital role in sustaining plant life, absorbing key nutrients from rock and transporting them all the way up to leaves high up in the canopy. The process of photosynthesis nourishes the soil, providing organisms like fungi with nutrients through plant roots and decaying organic material.

Symphony of the Soil1

Nitrogen fixation is another essential process facilitated by the soil. Nitrogen is a very stable element, and is difficult to activate and engage in the chemistry of life. It only becomes available for use when activated by large electric charges, or by bacteria with very specific functions. In the early 20th century, humans began to manufacture and implement artificial nitrogen fertilizers into traditional agriculture practices. The initial results were extremely rewarding; these artificial fertilizers yielded an increase in crop productivity. However, as farmers began to quickly increase the amount of fertilizers, the demands on the soil soared. This new increase in crop productivity created a massive demand for increased amounts of fossil fuels, pesticides, and water. This new trend in agriculture became globally known as the green revolution, although its outcomes were certainly not all beneficial.

Soil placed under these harsh conditions quickly becomes very sick, waterlogged, and compact due to heavy machinery. Currently, over a third of the world’s arable land has been lost to soil erosion from unsustainable practices. New soil additives and chemicals have been created in order to address these problems; however, as the documentary emphasizes, farming while practicing the law of return is much more effective. Dr. Tim LaSalle, the former CEO of the Rodale Institute, states, “So when they talk about what we need is bioengineered plants for drought resistance, we’re kind of slapping our foreheads and going, ‘What we need is healthy soil with organic material in it, you don’t have to put a bioengineered gene into that plant. You can outproduce conventional by a whole bunch by just improving that soil.’”2 The best way to enhance and retain the living capacity of the soil is to return to the soil all the things that have been taken from it.

Industrial factory farms have posed yet another challenge to the soil via pollution from pesticides, fertilizers, and fossil fuels. There has been a recent demand for biofuels, which initially sound somewhat environmentally-friendly; however, that assumption could not be further from the truth. Author of Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations Dr. David R. Montgomery states, “We could be in a situation where we’re essentially trading a system that mines oil for a system that mines soil, in which case we’ve just changed the time frame over which we’re going to engineer disaster.”3 Corn production is extremely harmful for the environment, causing soil erosion, water pollution, and eventually huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. The current ways we are producing food in the United States are harmful not only to the soil and environment, but also to many communities of people.

Food, Inc. 4

Robert Kenner’s documentary Food, Inc. exposes the atrocity that is the United States’s food industry. The traditional image of agrarian America– the quaint countryside farms with peaceful animals and content farmers– is now merely a fairytale. In reality, our food is mass produced in huge factories where both animals and workers are violently abused. Massive multinational corporations have taken control of the industry, and have deliberately hidden the process from consumers. Eric Schlosser, author of The Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, states, “The industry doesn’t want you to know the truth about what you’re eating, because if you did know, you might not want to eat it.”5 These companies have obtained total control over farmers, keeping them in debt and threatening to fire them if any information is exposed.

The current food policy in the United States heavily subsidizes commodity crops and the meat industry, encouraging producers  to overproduce, grow big, and consolidate. At first, it might seem surprising that government regulatory agencies allow this to happen. However, as Schlosser states, “These regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies they’re supposed to be scrutinizing.”6 The industry is aimed at achieving the maximum efficiency at the lowest cost possible, even if it costs lives. Subsidizing unhealthy processed foods and making them cheap and available to everyone has caused severe health effects; one in every three Americans born after 2000 will now contract early onset diabetes. E Coli outbreaks from unsafe meat production have caused many deaths, and the meat packing industry is now one of the most dangerous jobs. Joel Salatin, a farmer from Virginia, states, “We’re willing to subsidize the food system to create the mystique of cheap food, when actually it is very expensive food when you add up the environmental costs, societal costs, and health costs...industrial food is not honest food. It is not priced honestly, it is not produced honestly, and it is not processed honestly.”7 The food industry in the United States has become incredibly powerful, putting business and profit above workers’ rights and lives. As seen in the tobacco industry, substantial change at the policy level is possible when the definition of success becomes the quality of public health, workplace safety, environmental health, and society as a whole.

I am frustrated, but not shocked, that the reality of the food industry in the United States is not general public knowledge. Powerful corporations such as the food, fossil fuel, and mining industries wield a massive amount of power that extends to a governmental scale. After watching Food, Inc., I want to distance myself as much as possible from the processed food industry, and try to buy my products locally and organically. However, I realize that most Americans do not have that choice; because the food industry is so heavily subsidized and therefore makes unhealthy food very affordable, it becomes the only choice for many people needing to feed their families. In an ideal world, organic products would be subsidized, and would nourish people, society, and the environment. Before watching Symphony of the Soil, I always assumed that the benefits from organic products were solely for our health, and never knew just how healing they could be for the earth as well.

Food Inc. only confirmed my choice to live a vegetarian lifestyle and only use animal products from confirmed sustainable, ethical sources. One particular element of the meat industry that I found particularly disgusting was their blatant abuse of undocumented immigrant workers. The huge corporations recruit farmers from Mexico who have been put out of work by NAFTA, ship them like animals to the United States to work in the hellish conditions of meat-processing factories, and once they have established lives in the US after years report them to ICE (a terrorist organization) to be torn apart from their families and returned to Mexico. This is perhaps the most cruel way the meat industry puts profit above lives, as the industry certainly would not have achieved “success” without the arduous labor of undocumented immigrants. The food industry in the United States has committed just as many crimes against the environment as it has against humanity, and rapid and effective action must be taken to destroy the system of power built upon countless lives.

Question: In order to address the injustices of the food industry, there must be change made at the policy-level; however, as many executives of the meat industry hold legislative power, how will that change be achieved?

1Symphony of the Soil. Lily Films, 2013.

2Symphony of the Soil.

3Symphony of the Soil.

4Food, Inc. Magnolia Pictures, 2008.

5Food, Inc.

6Food, Inc.

7Food, Inc.

Blog 10: The Toxicity of Throwaway Culture

Olivia Johnson

By now, we have established that unsustainable human activities are causing serious damage to the health of the earth and its ecosystems. However, our own destructive actions have resulted in serious health effects to our own species as well. Chapter 17 of Living in the Environment examines environmental hazards and their threats to human health. The types of health hazards we face include biological, chemical, cultural, and physical factors, in addition to the lifestyle choices we make. Attempting to understand the potential harms these environmental hazards may have on our health involves conducting a risk assessment, estimating the level of harm, and implementing risk management, deciding if and how to reduce risks.

Potential Solutions to Fighting Infectious Diseases1

These risk precautions may be most beneficent when taken against biological hazards to human health. The most serious of these are infectious diseases, caused by pathogens such as a bacterium, virus, or parasite. Influenza, human immunodeficiency (HIV), and hepatitis B virus are the most deadly infectious diseases to date. Although as a society we have made significant biotechnological advances in the past century, infectious diseases still pose a serious threat, as they have become immune to antibiotics and pesticides, and their growth rates have increased with climate change.

Movement of different forms of toxic mercury from the atmosphere into an aquatic ecosystem2

Chemical hazards also pose a major threat to human health; certain chemicals in the environment can cause cancers and birth defects, and disrupt the body’s vital processes. Most of these chemicals are classified as toxic, meaning that they can cause temporary or permanent harm, and potentially even death, to humans. Three categories of toxic chemicals include carcinogens, mutagnes, and teratogens, which can cause cancers, mutations, and birth defects respectively. Evaluating risks from these chemical hazards is absolutely essential, although reliable, widely-practiced methods are not yet available. One method involves scientists using performing tests on live laboratory animals, although these trials take between 2-5 years, are very costly, involve hundreds of thousands of test animals, and can be torturous to the animals involved, often causing great harm or death. Alternatives include case reports from people who have suffered the effects from exposure to chemicals, and epidemiological studies that compare the health of people exposed to a chemical to a control group.

Although there is no perfect solution to evaluating chemical hazards to human health, the demand for such information is in high demand. According to risk assessment expert Joseph V. Rodricks, “Toxicologists know a great deal about a few chemicals, a little about many, and next to nothing about most”.3 The United States National Academy of Sciences estimates that only 10% of more than 85,000 registered synthetic chemicals in commercial use have been thoroughly screened for toxicity, and hardly any have been screened for possible damage to vital human body systems. The text states, “Because of insufficient data and the high costs of regulation, federal and state governments do not supervise the use of nearly 99.5% of the commercially available chemicals in the US.”4 This rate is even worse in developing countries.

When tackling the problem of pollution from hazardous chemicals, it is important to consider how their negative effects on environmental and human health are intertwined. The precautionary principle is the best course of action when preventing pollution; we should take measures to prevent or reduce harm rather than waiting for the likely damages to ensue in order to protect both our ecosystems and human communities.

Our current waste habits compared to the ideal system5

Chapter 21 of Living in the Environment continues the discussion on hazardous materials, particularly in how we dispose of them. Solid and hazardous wastes pose significant threats to the environment, and also cause natural capital degradation, health problems, and premature deaths. Unsurprisingly, the US is the world’s largest producer of solid waste. The number of plastic bags used in the US every year alone (100 billion) would reach to the moon and back 60 times. When considering potential solutions to our waste problem, the four Rs of waste reduction– refuse, reduce, reuse, and recycle– are a useful approach to implement. By refusing and reducing resource use and by reusing and recycling what we use, we decrease the demand for new matter and energy resources, reduce pollution and natural capital degradation, and also save money.

A young girl in Dhaka, Bangladesh recycling batteries to extract tin and led6

One of the world’s largest waste categories in need of a more sustainable approach is e-waste. According to the UN, more than 70% of the world’s e-waste is shipped to China. One of its most popular destinations is the small port city of Guiyu, which as a result is engulfed in pollution. There, over 5,500 small scale e-waste businesses employ over 30,000 people, including children, who work for very low wages in extremely dangerous conditions without proper protection to extract valuable metals. The four Rs provide a long-term solution to this problem. The US produces 50% of the world’s e-waste; we must begin producing less waste, and ethically reusing or recycling what remains.

Individual actions to reduce hazardous waste.7

Shifting to a low-waste economy is absolutely essential to addressing our current waste and pollution problem. This will require individuals and businesses to reduce resource use while reusing and recycling any solid or hazardous wastes, along with action on a local, national, and global level. Grassroots campaigns have already taken action to create change, staging protests, signing petitions, and contacting lawmakers to prevent the construction of hazardous waste facilities in their communities. By adopting their mottos “not in anyone’s backyard” and “not on planet earth”, we may begin to implement these necessary changes to our current waste systems to save the health of our communities and planet.

I found Chapter 21’s Core Case Study of cradle-to-cradle design to be quite interesting in addressing our throwaway economy. This concept implements the biomimicry of earth’s chemical cycling system in order to create products designed to be recycled or reused, similar to nutrients in the biosphere. It employs creativity and the “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” principle to view garbage cans and landfills as a reserves of valuable materials that can be repurposed. Not only is the cradle-to-cradle design beneficial for reducing our overall consumption and waste, but it also encourages an appreciation of earth’s natural systems and an understanding of our place within earth’s ecosystems. As an artist, this design sparks an exciting new challenge involving creativity and engineering, and is something I would like to explore further in the future. I appreciate architect and visionary William McDonough and his business partner and chemist Michael Braugart’s thoughts on this concept, addressed in Living in the Environment: “They argue that waste is a resource out of place and the result of poor design, and that we must employ three strategies to deal with it: (1) design products and societies that produce no waste, (2) live off the earth’s endless supply of solar energy, and (3) respect and mimic the earth’s life-sustaining biodiversity.”8 This framework provides a structure for a sustainable society and a healthy earth, and views waste as a potential resource rather than a useless byproduct. The textile industry is just one such area of waste that would greatly benefit from this way of thinking; fast-fashion has created a huge demand for resources while producing a massive amount of waste. Thrifting, repurposing, and shopping sustainable brands have become increasingly popular trends in recent years, and implement the four Rs in order to reduce waste.

Question: The United States and other wealthy nations can afford to ship our trash to less-developed nations and essentially make our waste problem “disappear”. How do we break this trend that places a burden on vulnerable communities and force extremely wasteful countries like the US to be held accountable for their actions?

Words: 1263

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 452.

2Miller, 454

3Miller, 459.

4Miller, 460.

5Miller, 579.

6Miller, 590.

7Miller, 593.

8Miller, 581.

Blog 11: No Water, No Life

Olivia Johnson

1The Hoover Dam.

Population growth, climate change, and unsustainable use are just a few of the many threats the world’s water supply currently faces. These stressors placed on one of our most essential natural resources will only continue to grow if we do not boldly and rapidly confront this problem. Chapter 13 of Living in the Environment discusses this dilemma, as well as suggests possible solutions to address it. The general theme of this chapter can be summarized with the wise words of conservationist Sandra Postel when she said, “Through the cycling of water, across space and time, we are linked to all life...Water’s gift is life. No water, no life”2. Postel makes very clear how the vitality of humanity and many other species on earth is completely dependent on the presence of clean, drinkable water. Currently, we are using the earth’s 0.024% of available freshwater unsustainably by extracting it faster than nature can replenish it. In the United States, the Colorado River alone provides water to over 40 million people through an intricate man-made system of dams and reservoirs; this water source has come under considerable stress from growing populations and economic growth, and may cause serious conflict if supplies continue to dwindle. The text emphasizes how the low value we place on water encourages unsustainable use and pollution. Over 70% of water used is withdrawn solely for agricultural and livestock purposes; the production of one hamburger alone requires 1,700 liters of water. The United States, India, and China account for the world’s three largest water footprints, which is a “rough measure of the volume of freshwater that we use or pollute, directly or indirectly, to stay alive and to support our lifestyles.”3 Unsurprisingly, more-developed countries are responsible for much of the unsustainable water use, and therefore have larger water footprints.

Having a large water footprint is generally associated with an unsustainable removal of water from its source, which can cause lasting and serious damage. Groundwater is a major source of water for many sources, and is acquired by pumping water from aquifers laying beneath earth’s surface. When this water is removed faster than it can be replenished, aquifers can collapse and cause sinkholes, making recharging them virtually impossible. Dams and reservoirs also provide water to many populated areas, although they can pose major problems to the communities and ecosystems they disrupt. It is clear that freshwater must be used more sustainably, and this can be achieved through cutting water waste, slowing population growth, and protecting natural ecosystems that store freshwater.

If we continue to use our water supplies unsustainably, the serious threat of water pollution will only continue to diminish our resources. Chapter 20 of Living in the Environment discusses the causes and dangers of water pollution, as well as potential steps we can take to reduce and eradicate this major problem. Hydrologist Luna Leopold stated, “The health of our waters is the principal measure of how we live on the land.”4; water pollution is directly tied to our unsustainable activities that take place on land. A primary example of this is the large dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico caused by toxic chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers that make their way into the Mississippi River and dumped into the gulf. These agricultural byproducts cause an overfertilization of coastal waters and severely deplete the levels of dissolved oxygen in the gulf, preventing many species from being able to survive there. Besides agricultural activities, additional sources of water pollution are industrial facilities, mining, and untreated wastewater. These and other sources of water pollution can be categorized into two categories: point sources and nonpoint sources. Point sources discharge pollutants into water sources at specific locations, and are easy to identify and regulate. Nonpoint sources, on the other hand, are broad areas where rainfall or snowmelt washes pollutants off the land and into bodies of surface water, and are difficult to control and monitor.

5Women in India carrying water to their village.

Water pollution is a serious threat not only to many aquatic ecosystems, but also to the health and safety of humans. Exposure to infectious bacteria, viruses, and parasites transferred into water from the wastes of 2.5 billion people that lack access to adequate waste-disposal can cause life-threatening diseases. According to the text, “The World Health Organization estimates that each year, more than 1.6 million people die from largely preventable waterborne infectious diseases that they get by drinking contaminated water or by not having enough water to keep clean.”6 It is evident that widespread water pollution is not only an environmental issue, but also a socioeconomic issue that disproportionately affects less-developed countries, communities of color, and indigenous nations.

7Point source pollution from an abandoned open-pit coal mine.

In addition to our freshwater water supplies, we are also rapidly polluting the ocean and causing death to its ecosystems. Oceanographer Sylvia A. Earle states, “Even if you never have the chance to see or touch the ocean, the ocean touches you with every breath you take, every drop of water you drink, every bite you consume. Everyone, everywhere is inextricably connected to and utterly dependent upon the existence of the sea.”8 Despite the invaluable resources the ocean provides us, we treat it like the world’s largest dump for our trash and toxic wastes. This utter disrespect for the oceans has resulted in several gigantic, slowly rotating masses of plastic and other solid wastes that collect in the middle of the oceans, some as large as the state of Texas. Currently, there is no practical or affordable way to clean up marine litter, once again proving how prevention is the most effective method of combating pollution and other human inflicted wounds to our earth.

In order to reduce water pollution, we must first try to prevent it by working with nature, as well as use natural resources in more efficient ways. Preventing groundwater contamination, reducing nonpoint runoff, finding substitutes for toxic pollutants, reducing air pollution, and slowing population growth all would greatly reduce water pollution and the dangerous effects it poses to human and natural ecosystems. By taking steps to prevent water pollution and control it instead of dealing with the problematic and costly effects, we may hope to reduce water pollution and the deadly effects it is having on our earth.

Our unsustainable use and pollution of our water sources prove to be so harmful ultimately because of our abuse of the interconnectedness of nature. Causing harm to one ecosystem will inevitably cause harm to another, and containing pollution is virtually impossible. An excerpt from the text perfectly illustrates this concept, stating, “The seasonal formation of dead zones in the northern Gulf of Mexico and in other areas, mostly resulting from human activities, is a reminder that in nature, everything is connected. Plant nutrients flowing into the Mississippi from a farm in Iowa or a sewage treatment plant in Wisconsin help kill fish and shellfish a thousand miles away on the gulf coast of Texas. Researchers warn that if the size of the Gulf’s annual dead zone is not sharply reduced, its long-term effects could permanently alter the ecological makeup of these coastal waters.”9 The improper disposal of harsh chemicals in trash dumps can lead to a contamination of groundwater, and throwing away a plastic bag instead of recycling it can kill a sea turtle who mistakes it for a jellyfish. Our actions, no matter how big or small, can have astronomical negative effects on ecosystems thousands of miles away.It is critically important to be mindful of our actions as well as take action to prevent the current situation from getting even worse.

Something I found problematic about these chapters of Living in the Environment, as well as the text as a whole, is how it discusses poverty and its relationship to many environmental issues. Although it often marks poverty as a cause of these issues, the text rarely provides substantial solutions to these issues, nor does it delve into the causes of poverty. Further, the text does not make clear that it is not the fault of individuals living in poverty, but rather the unfair systematic actions of the global North that largely causes poverty in the first place. Additionally, the text seems to place more of an emphasis on poverty than the unsustainable living standards of more-developed countries as the cause of environmental degradation, and it fails to examine the relationship between these two that exacerbates said degradation. These seem to be key concepts in understanding the complex problems we pose to the environment, and I believe a whole understanding of these issues require an understanding of the relationships between more-developed and less-developed nations.

Question: As climate change continues to worsen and there is little improvement to current environmental conditions, environmental racism is a growing problem to the health and safety of many vulnerable communities; how should this be addressed, especially in a time where the presidential administration of the United States doesn't even acknowledge the validity of climate change?

Words: 1492

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 324.

2Miller, 323.

3Miller, 327.

4Miller, 328.

5Miller, 325.

6Miller, 544.

7Miller, 543.

8Miller, 557.

9Miller, 551.

Blog 12: Climate Change: Next Steps

Olivia Johnson

1The Human Planet: How we Created the Anthroposcene

The conversation on climate change is often dominated by the latest technologies, products, and methods created to combat the degradation and destruction human activities are inflicting upon our earth. While these are certainly necessary in cleaning up the mess we have caused with our unsustainable actions, there is a much more difficult conversation that needs to be had. Ultimately, our philosophy of the earth and how we see ourselves in relation to nature determines if we will truly be able to prevent our species and many others from impending doom. An adequate, lasting solution to climate change and other environmental problems requires a change of lifestyle and mindset, a challenge which, although necessary, is certainly not an easy goal to accomplish. Simon L. Lewis and Mark A. Maslin’s work The Human Planet: How we Created the Anthropocene discusses these complex tasks for humanity, and offers equally as complex solutions. Chapter 11, “Can Homo dominatus become Wise?” examines how climate change could lead to a mass collapse of societies, our current efforts to prevent this, and what changes are required by humanity in order to address this. The authors argue that what is ultimately needed is a complete restructuring of social systems worldwide. They state, “It is under this scenario that it is possible to envisage a near-future network of civilizations developing that is considered thoughtful and wise in our relations to each other and our home planet.”2 One factor that is currently preventing this is capitalism; while it does have its strengths and has led to a decrease in poverty and increase in human lifespan, capitalism has also created extreme inequality, alienation, and an unhealthy focus on competition instead of cooperation. Capitalism has arguably imposed socially and environmentally destructive effects on the entire planet, and there it is necessary that people acknowledge this if we are going to successfully curb our deadly impact on the earth. While humanity also faces threats of nuclear war and bioterrorism, the authors state, “...the central, pressing, existential threat to human civilization results from a core contradiction in today’s mode of living: it is powered by energy sources that are undermining the ability of today’s globally integrated network of cultures to persist.”3 It is quite alarming to consider the breakdown of society by its own hands, and even more terrifying to see global leaders and the general public fail to acknowledge just how devastating the effects of climate change will be.

The current efforts to combat climate change are largely based on the Paris Agreement, which set a goal to limit global warming “well below” 2°C and “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5°C; however, there are not clear penalties for violating the pledge, and even if it was fully implemented, it would not be enough to stop emission from rising. The global fossil fuel industry is an extremely lucrative business, and the United States alone pours $5 trillion into the market annually in subsidies. As many more-developed countries are making sincere efforts to curb their emissions and even reduce them to net zero, many less-developed countries do not have the infrastructure to do this, and also see this as an obstacle to building a stable economy. This of course is not because these nations do not feel a need to address climate change, but because they have been suppressed for so long by more-developed nations while the latter has polluted the earth at an ungodly rate. Equality is something that must be addressed while combating climate change; it would be extremely unfair for more-developed countries to impose these same conditions on less-developed after they essentially got rich from plunder the rest of the world and using up most of the world’s global carbon budget. A third of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere came from the United States alone. To address this, the authors state, “The West therefore owes the rest for its historical debt, and has a clear obligation to pay for the future damage that its emissions will cause.”4 A failure to accept this and deal with the consequences is one of the basic problems that has slowed climate talks for over two decades.

The ravenous cycle of consumer capitalism must be slowed. Lewis and Maslin state, “Growth matters. This is the path, which at some stage, ensures environmental breakdown as an ever greater fraction of humanity follow it with vigour. Could this cycle end before it is too late?” 5There is a need for change in the current standard mode of living for nations consuming unsustainably. Human needs must take priority over the greatest financial profit on investments, something much easier said than done. However, the authors remind their audience that there is hope; the fossil fuel market is proving to be a bad long-term investment, a large scale implementation of clean energy sources is quickly becoming viable, and some countries have made sincere efforts with already promising results. Lewis and Maslin propose two critical and complex ideas that could hold possible solutions to climate change. The first concerns how the need to sell our labor produces a dependency relationship, and results in inequality and sometimes outright abuse. To reduce and even eliminate this, they argue, people should receive a Universal Basic Income, a financial payment to every citizen without an obligation to work, which would result in increased autonomy and reduced consumption and environmental impacts. The second big idea is Half-Earth rewilding; originally proposed by biologist E. O. Wilson, this would allocate half the Earth’s surface primarily for the benefit of other species, while letting humans have the other half. The authors state, “Radical changes in society tend to change our views on nature, aesthetics, and our relationship with the natural world.”6 If these changes are implemented, the society that could potentially result from these changes could establish a beautiful relationship with nature and each other.

A concept I found particularly interesting in this chapter was Lewis and Maslin’s connection between climate change and other social injustices. A change in how we treat our environment would mean, they state, “...to see and deal with the domination of men over women, old over young, one class over another, and of people over the rest of nature, which may as well all be linked.”7 In our capitalistic society, our current view of our relationship was largely formed during the Industrial Revolution, which exacerbated racism, sexism, inequality, and abuses to our environment. This explains why injustices, such as the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline that seriously threatens the Standing Rock Sioux and the Flint Water Crisis that has seriously harmed communities of color, continue to happen. Profit trumps people, and this facet of capitalism is largely why environmental degradation has continued to occur despite concrete scientific evidence that it will harm us. In order to address climate change, we must address how we treat each other, and how our unsustainable actions are not only detrimental to the earth, but to many vulnerable populations throughout the world that are suffering as a result of our selfishness. Although our society is seriously ill, I am hopeful that change will continue to happen if the efforts of grassroots campaigns and other individuals who continue to fight are seen and heard.

Question: The Industrial Revolution led to the period of Romanticism; what social movement will come out of this time, or already is being developed?

Words: 1236

1Lewis, Simon, and Mark Maslin. The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene: a Pelican Book. London: Pelican, 2018.

2Lewis, 371.

3Lewis, 378.

4Lewis, 389.

5Lewis, 399.

6Lewis, 410

7Lewis, 404.

[berniesandersniece]

Climate Change: Next Steps

Olivia Johnson

1The Human Planet: How we Created the Anthroposcene

The conversation on climate change is often dominated by the latest technologies, products, and methods created to combat the degradation and destruction human activities are inflicting upon our earth. While these are certainly necessary in cleaning up the mess we have caused with our unsustainable actions, there is a much more difficult conversation that needs to be had. Ultimately, our philosophy of the earth and how we see ourselves in relation to nature determines if we will truly be able to prevent our species and many others from impending doom. An adequate, lasting solution to climate change and other environmental problems requires a change of lifestyle and mindset, a challenge which, although necessary, is certainly not an easy goal to accomplish. Simon L. Lewis and Mark A. Maslin’s work The Human Planet: How we Created the Anthropocene discusses these complex tasks for humanity, and offers equally as complex solutions. Chapter 11, “Can Homo dominatus become Wise?” examines how climate change could lead to a mass collapse of societies, our current efforts to prevent this, and what changes are required by humanity in order to address this. The authors argue that what is ultimately needed is a complete restructuring of social systems worldwide. They state, “It is under this scenario that it is possible to envisage a near-future network of civilizations developing that is considered thoughtful and wise in our relations to each other and our home planet.”2 One factor that is currently preventing this is capitalism; while it does have its strengths and has led to a decrease in poverty and increase in human lifespan, capitalism has also created extreme inequality, alienation, and an unhealthy focus on competition instead of cooperation. Capitalism has arguably imposed socially and environmentally destructive effects on the entire planet, and there it is necessary that people acknowledge this if we are going to successfully curb our deadly impact on the earth. While humanity also faces threats of nuclear war and bioterrorism, the authors state, “...the central, pressing, existential threat to human civilization results from a core contradiction in today’s mode of living: it is powered by energy sources that are undermining the ability of today’s globally integrated network of cultures to persist.”3 It is quite alarming to consider the breakdown of society by its own hands, and even more terrifying to see global leaders and the general public fail to acknowledge just how devastating the effects of climate change will be.

The current efforts to combat climate change are largely based on the Paris Agreement, which set a goal to limit global warming “well below” 2°C and “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5°C; however, there are not clear penalties for violating the pledge, and even if it was fully implemented, it would not be enough to stop emission from rising. The global fossil fuel industry is an extremely lucrative business, and the United States alone pours $5 trillion into the market annually in subsidies. As many more-developed countries are making sincere efforts to curb their emissions and even reduce them to net zero, many less-developed countries do not have the infrastructure to do this, and also see this as an obstacle to building a stable economy. This of course is not because these nations do not feel a need to address climate change, but because they have been suppressed for so long by more-developed nations while the latter has polluted the earth at an ungodly rate. Equality is something that must be addressed while combating climate change; it would be extremely unfair for more-developed countries to impose these same conditions on less-developed after they essentially got rich from plunder the rest of the world and using up most of the world’s global carbon budget. A third of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere came from the United States alone. To address this, the authors state, “The West therefore owes the rest for its historical debt, and has a clear obligation to pay for the future damage that its emissions will cause.”4 A failure to accept this and deal with the consequences is one of the basic problems that has slowed climate talks for over two decades.

The ravenous cycle of consumer capitalism must be slowed. Lewis and Maslin state, “Growth matters. This is the path, which at some stage, ensures environmental breakdown as an ever greater fraction of humanity follow it with vigour. Could this cycle end before it is too late?” 5There is a need for change in the current standard mode of living for nations consuming unsustainably. Human needs must take priority over the greatest financial profit on investments, something much easier said than done. However, the authors remind their audience that there is hope; the fossil fuel market is proving to be a bad long-term investment, a large scale implementation of clean energy sources is quickly becoming viable, and some countries have made sincere efforts with already promising results. Lewis and Maslin propose two critical and complex ideas that could hold possible solutions to climate change. The first concerns how the need to sell our labor produces a dependency relationship, and results in inequality and sometimes outright abuse. To reduce and even eliminate this, they argue, people should receive a Universal Basic Income, a financial payment to every citizen without an obligation to work, which would result in increased autonomy and reduced consumption and environmental impacts. The second big idea is Half-Earth rewilding; originally proposed by biologist E. O. Wilson, this would allocate half the Earth’s surface primarily for the benefit of other species, while letting humans have the other half. The authors state, “Radical changes in society tend to change our views on nature, aesthetics, and our relationship with the natural world.”6 If these changes are implemented, the society that could potentially result from these changes could establish a beautiful relationship with nature and each other.

A concept I found particularly interesting in this chapter was Lewis and Maslin’s connection between climate change and other social injustices. A change in how we treat our environment would mean, they state, “...to see and deal with the domination of men over women, old over young, one class over another, and of people over the rest of nature, which may as well all be linked.”7 In our capitalistic society, our current view of our relationship was largely formed during the Industrial Revolution, which exacerbated racism, sexism, inequality, and abuses to our environment. This explains why injustices, such as the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline that seriously threatens the Standing Rock Sioux and the Flint Water Crisis that has seriously harmed communities of color, continue to happen. Profit trumps people, and this facet of capitalism is largely why environmental degradation has continued to occur despite concrete scientific evidence that it will harm us. In order to address climate change, we must address how we treat each other, and how our unsustainable actions are not only detrimental to the earth, but to many vulnerable populations throughout the world that are suffering as a result of our selfishness. Although our society is seriously ill, I am hopeful that change will continue to happen if the efforts of grassroots campaigns and other individuals who continue to fight are seen and heard.

Question: The Industrial Revolution led to the period of Romanticism; what social movement will come out of this time, or already is being developed?

Words: 1236

1Lewis, Simon, and Mark Maslin. The Human Planet: How We Created the Anthropocene: a Pelican Book. London: Pelican, 2018.

2Lewis, 371.

3Lewis, 378.

4Lewis, 389.

5Lewis, 399.

6Lewis, 410

7Lewis, 404.

[berniesandersniece]

No Water, No Life (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

1The Hoover Dam.

Population growth, climate change, and unsustainable use are just a few of the many threats the world’s water supply currently faces. These stressors placed on one of our most essential natural resources will only continue to grow if we do not boldly and rapidly confront this problem. Chapter 13 of Living in the Environment discusses this dilemma, as well as suggests possible solutions to address it. The general theme of this chapter can be summarized with the wise words of conservationist Sandra Postel when she said, “Through the cycling of water, across space and time, we are linked to all life...Water’s gift is life. No water, no life”2. Postel makes very clear how the vitality of humanity and many other species on earth is completely dependent on the presence of clean, drinkable water. Currently, we are using the earth’s 0.024% of available freshwater unsustainably by extracting it faster than nature can replenish it. In the United States, the Colorado River alone provides water to over 40 million people through an intricate man-made system of dams and reservoirs; this water source has come under considerable stress from growing populations and economic growth, and may cause serious conflict if supplies continue to dwindle. The text emphasizes how the low value we place on water encourages unsustainable use and pollution. Over 70% of water used is withdrawn solely for agricultural and livestock purposes; the production of one hamburger alone requires 1,700 liters of water. The United States, India, and China account for the world’s three largest water footprints, which is a “rough measure of the volume of freshwater that we use or pollute, directly or indirectly, to stay alive and to support our lifestyles.”3 Unsurprisingly, more-developed countries are responsible for much of the unsustainable water use, and therefore have larger water footprints.

Having a large water footprint is generally associated with an unsustainable removal of water from its source, which can cause lasting and serious damage. Groundwater is a major source of water for many sources, and is acquired by pumping water from aquifers laying beneath earth’s surface. When this water is removed faster than it can be replenished, aquifers can collapse and cause sinkholes, making recharging them virtually impossible. Dams and reservoirs also provide water to many populated areas, although they can pose major problems to the communities and ecosystems they disrupt. It is clear that freshwater must be used more sustainably, and this can be achieved through cutting water waste, slowing population growth, and protecting natural ecosystems that store freshwater.

If we continue to use our water supplies unsustainably, the serious threat of water pollution will only continue to diminish our resources. Chapter 20 of Living in the Environment discusses the causes and dangers of water pollution, as well as potential steps we can take to reduce and eradicate this major problem. Hydrologist Luna Leopold stated, “The health of our waters is the principal measure of how we live on the land.”4; water pollution is directly tied to our unsustainable activities that take place on land. A primary example of this is the large dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico caused by toxic chemicals, pesticides, and fertilizers that make their way into the Mississippi River and dumped into the gulf. These agricultural byproducts cause an overfertilization of coastal waters and severely deplete the levels of dissolved oxygen in the gulf, preventing many species from being able to survive there. Besides agricultural activities, additional sources of water pollution are industrial facilities, mining, and untreated wastewater. These and other sources of water pollution can be categorized into two categories: point sources and nonpoint sources. Point sources discharge pollutants into water sources at specific locations, and are easy to identify and regulate. Nonpoint sources, on the other hand, are broad areas where rainfall or snowmelt washes pollutants off the land and into bodies of surface water, and are difficult to control and monitor.

5Women in India carrying water to their village.

Water pollution is a serious threat not only to many aquatic ecosystems, but also to the health and safety of humans. Exposure to infectious bacteria, viruses, and parasites transferred into water from the wastes of 2.5 billion people that lack access to adequate waste-disposal can cause life-threatening diseases. According to the text, “The World Health Organization estimates that each year, more than 1.6 million people die from largely preventable waterborne infectious diseases that they get by drinking contaminated water or by not having enough water to keep clean.”6 It is evident that widespread water pollution is not only an environmental issue, but also a socioeconomic issue that disproportionately affects less-developed countries, communities of color, and indigenous nations.

7Point source pollution from an abandoned open-pit coal mine.

In addition to our freshwater water supplies, we are also rapidly polluting the ocean and causing death to its ecosystems. Oceanographer Sylvia A. Earle states, “Even if you never have the chance to see or touch the ocean, the ocean touches you with every breath you take, every drop of water you drink, every bite you consume. Everyone, everywhere is inextricably connected to and utterly dependent upon the existence of the sea.”8 Despite the invaluable resources the ocean provides us, we treat it like the world’s largest dump for our trash and toxic wastes. This utter disrespect for the oceans has resulted in several gigantic, slowly rotating masses of plastic and other solid wastes that collect in the middle of the oceans, some as large as the state of Texas. Currently, there is no practical or affordable way to clean up marine litter, once again proving how prevention is the most effective method of combating pollution and other human inflicted wounds to our earth.

In order to reduce water pollution, we must first try to prevent it by working with nature, as well as use natural resources in more efficient ways. Preventing groundwater contamination, reducing nonpoint runoff, finding substitutes for toxic pollutants, reducing air pollution, and slowing population growth all would greatly reduce water pollution and the dangerous effects it poses to human and natural ecosystems. By taking steps to prevent water pollution and control it instead of dealing with the problematic and costly effects, we may hope to reduce water pollution and the deadly effects it is having on our earth.

Our unsustainable use and pollution of our water sources prove to be so harmful ultimately because of our abuse of the interconnectedness of nature. Causing harm to one ecosystem will inevitably cause harm to another, and containing pollution is virtually impossible. An excerpt from the text perfectly illustrates this concept, stating, “The seasonal formation of dead zones in the northern Gulf of Mexico and in other areas, mostly resulting from human activities, is a reminder that in nature, everything is connected. Plant nutrients flowing into the Mississippi from a farm in Iowa or a sewage treatment plant in Wisconsin help kill fish and shellfish a thousand miles away on the gulf coast of Texas. Researchers warn that if the size of the Gulf’s annual dead zone is not sharply reduced, its long-term effects could permanently alter the ecological makeup of these coastal waters.”9 The improper disposal of harsh chemicals in trash dumps can lead to a contamination of groundwater, and throwing away a plastic bag instead of recycling it can kill a sea turtle who mistakes it for a jellyfish. Our actions, no matter how big or small, can have astronomical negative effects on ecosystems thousands of miles away.It is critically important to be mindful of our actions as well as take action to prevent the current situation from getting even worse.

Something I found problematic about these chapters of Living in the Environment, as well as the text as a whole, is how it discusses poverty and its relationship to many environmental issues. Although it often marks poverty as a cause of these issues, the text rarely provides substantial solutions to these issues, nor does it delve into the causes of poverty. Further, the text does not make clear that it is not the fault of individuals living in poverty, but rather the unfair systematic actions of the global North that largely causes poverty in the first place. Additionally, the text seems to place more of an emphasis on poverty than the unsustainable living standards of more-developed countries as the cause of environmental degradation, and it fails to examine the relationship between these two that exacerbates said degradation. These seem to be key concepts in understanding the complex problems we pose to the environment, and I believe a whole understanding of these issues require an understanding of the relationships between more-developed and less-developed nations.

Question: As climate change continues to worsen and there is little improvement to current environmental conditions, environmental racism is a growing problem to the health and safety of many vulnerable communities; how should this be addressed, especially in a time where the presidential administration of the United States doesn't even acknowledge the validity of climate change?

Words: 1492

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 324.

2Miller, 323.

3Miller, 327.

4Miller, 328.

5Miller, 325.

6Miller, 544.

7Miller, 543.

8Miller, 557.

9Miller, 551.

[berniesandersniece]

The Toxicity of Throwaway Culture (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

By now, we have established that unsustainable human activities are causing serious damage to the health of the earth and its ecosystems. However, our own destructive actions have resulted in serious health effects to our own species as well. Chapter 17 of Living in the Environment examines environmental hazards and their threats to human health. The types of health hazards we face include biological, chemical, cultural, and physical factors, in addition to the lifestyle choices we make. Attempting to understand the potential harms these environmental hazards may have on our health involves conducting a risk assessment, estimating the level of harm, and implementing risk management, deciding if and how to reduce risks.

Potential Solutions to Fighting Infectious Diseases1

These risk precautions may be most beneficent when taken against biological hazards to human health. The most serious of these are infectious diseases, caused by pathogens such as a bacterium, virus, or parasite. Influenza, human immunodeficiency (HIV), and hepatitis B virus are the most deadly infectious diseases to date. Although as a society we have made significant biotechnological advances in the past century, infectious diseases still pose a serious threat, as they have become immune to antibiotics and pesticides, and their growth rates have increased with climate change.

Movement of different forms of toxic mercury from the atmosphere into an aquatic ecosystem2

Chemical hazards also pose a major threat to human health; certain chemicals in the environment can cause cancers and birth defects, and disrupt the body’s vital processes. Most of these chemicals are classified as toxic, meaning that they can cause temporary or permanent harm, and potentially even death, to humans. Three categories of toxic chemicals include carcinogens, mutagnes, and teratogens, which can cause cancers, mutations, and birth defects respectively. Evaluating risks from these chemical hazards is absolutely essential, although reliable, widely-practiced methods are not yet available. One method involves scientists using performing tests on live laboratory animals, although these trials take between 2-5 years, are very costly, involve hundreds of thousands of test animals, and can be torturous to the animals involved, often causing great harm or death. Alternatives include case reports from people who have suffered the effects from exposure to chemicals, and epidemiological studies that compare the health of people exposed to a chemical to a control group.

Although there is no perfect solution to evaluating chemical hazards to human health, the demand for such information is in high demand. According to risk assessment expert Joseph V. Rodricks, “Toxicologists know a great deal about a few chemicals, a little about many, and next to nothing about most”.3 The United States National Academy of Sciences estimates that only 10% of more than 85,000 registered synthetic chemicals in commercial use have been thoroughly screened for toxicity, and hardly any have been screened for possible damage to vital human body systems. The text states, “Because of insufficient data and the high costs of regulation, federal and state governments do not supervise the use of nearly 99.5% of the commercially available chemicals in the US.”4 This rate is even worse in developing countries.

When tackling the problem of pollution from hazardous chemicals, it is important to consider how their negative effects on environmental and human health are intertwined. The precautionary principle is the best course of action when preventing pollution; we should take measures to prevent or reduce harm rather than waiting for the likely damages to ensue in order to protect both our ecosystems and human communities.

Our current waste habits compared to the ideal system5

Chapter 21 of Living in the Environment continues the discussion on hazardous materials, particularly in how we dispose of them. Solid and hazardous wastes pose significant threats to the environment, and also cause natural capital degradation, health problems, and premature deaths. Unsurprisingly, the US is the world’s largest producer of solid waste. The number of plastic bags used in the US every year alone (100 billion) would reach to the moon and back 60 times. When considering potential solutions to our waste problem, the four Rs of waste reduction– refuse, reduce, reuse, and recycle– are a useful approach to implement. By refusing and reducing resource use and by reusing and recycling what we use, we decrease the demand for new matter and energy resources, reduce pollution and natural capital degradation, and also save money.

A young girl in Dhaka, Bangladesh recycling batteries to extract tin and led6

One of the world’s largest waste categories in need of a more sustainable approach is e-waste. According to the UN, more than 70% of the world’s e-waste is shipped to China. One of its most popular destinations is the small port city of Guiyu, which as a result is engulfed in pollution. There, over 5,500 small scale e-waste businesses employ over 30,000 people, including children, who work for very low wages in extremely dangerous conditions without proper protection to extract valuable metals. The four Rs provide a long-term solution to this problem. The US produces 50% of the world’s e-waste; we must begin producing less waste, and ethically reusing or recycling what remains.

Individual actions to reduce hazardous waste.7

Shifting to a low-waste economy is absolutely essential to addressing our current waste and pollution problem. This will require individuals and businesses to reduce resource use while reusing and recycling any solid or hazardous wastes, along with action on a local, national, and global level. Grassroots campaigns have already taken action to create change, staging protests, signing petitions, and contacting lawmakers to prevent the construction of hazardous waste facilities in their communities. By adopting their mottos “not in anyone’s backyard” and “not on planet earth”, we may begin to implement these necessary changes to our current waste systems to save the health of our communities and planet.

I found Chapter 21’s Core Case Study of cradle-to-cradle design to be quite interesting in addressing our throwaway economy. This concept implements the biomimicry of earth’s chemical cycling system in order to create products designed to be recycled or reused, similar to nutrients in the biosphere. It employs creativity and the “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” principle to view garbage cans and landfills as a reserves of valuable materials that can be repurposed. Not only is the cradle-to-cradle design beneficial for reducing our overall consumption and waste, but it also encourages an appreciation of earth’s natural systems and an understanding of our place within earth’s ecosystems. As an artist, this design sparks an exciting new challenge involving creativity and engineering, and is something I would like to explore further in the future. I appreciate architect and visionary William McDonough and his business partner and chemist Michael Braugart’s thoughts on this concept, addressed in Living in the Environment: “They argue that waste is a resource out of place and the result of poor design, and that we must employ three strategies to deal with it: (1) design products and societies that produce no waste, (2) live off the earth’s endless supply of solar energy, and (3) respect and mimic the earth’s life-sustaining biodiversity.”8 This framework provides a structure for a sustainable society and a healthy earth, and views waste as a potential resource rather than a useless byproduct. The textile industry is just one such area of waste that would greatly benefit from this way of thinking; fast-fashion has created a huge demand for resources while producing a massive amount of waste. Thrifting, repurposing, and shopping sustainable brands have become increasingly popular trends in recent years, and implement the four Rs in order to reduce waste.

Question: The United States and other wealthy nations can afford to ship our trash to less-developed nations and essentially make our waste problem “disappear”. How do we break this trend that places a burden on vulnerable communities and force extremely wasteful countries like the US to be held accountable for their actions?

Words: 1263

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 452.

2Miller, 454

3Miller, 459.

4Miller, 460.

5Miller, 579.

6Miller, 590.

7Miller, 593.

8Miller, 581.

[berniesandersniece]

Soil: the Living Skin of the Earth (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

Although often thought of as a static substance, soil acts as a foundation of life for earth’s terrestrial ecosystems, and is teeming with a rich diversity of organisms and activity. Deborah Koon’s documentary Symphony of the Soil depicts soil as the “living skin of the earth”, emphasizing the value of soil, explaining common misconceptions, and revealing our current unhealthy relationship with soil and the environmental issues that ensue from it. Described as “Times Square on New Years Eve”, soil is full of microorganisms and functions as an ecosystem in itself. “Soil” actually consists of 50% soil, and 50% soil pores, which are filled with liquid water, air, and water vapor. These pores are where the living organisms thrive, and they function to facilitate nutrient cycling and regulation. Fungi are one such type of organism residing in the soil. Fungi act as the largest organism on earth; without them, colonization of land by organisms would not have been possible. They play a vital role in sustaining plant life, absorbing key nutrients from rock and transporting them all the way up to leaves high up in the canopy. The process of photosynthesis nourishes the soil, providing organisms like fungi with nutrients through plant roots and decaying organic material.

Symphony of the Soil1

Nitrogen fixation is another essential process facilitated by the soil. Nitrogen is a very stable element, and is difficult to activate and engage in the chemistry of life. It only becomes available for use when activated by large electric charges, or by bacteria with very specific functions. In the early 20th century, humans began to manufacture and implement artificial nitrogen fertilizers into traditional agriculture practices. The initial results were extremely rewarding; these artificial fertilizers yielded an increase in crop productivity. However, as farmers began to quickly increase the amount of fertilizers, the demands on the soil soared. This new increase in crop productivity created a massive demand for increased amounts of fossil fuels, pesticides, and water. This new trend in agriculture became globally known as the green revolution, although its outcomes were certainly not all beneficial.

Soil placed under these harsh conditions quickly becomes very sick, waterlogged, and compact due to heavy machinery. Currently, over a third of the world’s arable land has been lost to soil erosion from unsustainable practices. New soil additives and chemicals have been created in order to address these problems; however, as the documentary emphasizes, farming while practicing the law of return is much more effective. Dr. Tim LaSalle, the former CEO of the Rodale Institute, states, “So when they talk about what we need is bioengineered plants for drought resistance, we’re kind of slapping our foreheads and going, ‘What we need is healthy soil with organic material in it, you don’t have to put a bioengineered gene into that plant. You can outproduce conventional by a whole bunch by just improving that soil.’”2 The best way to enhance and retain the living capacity of the soil is to return to the soil all the things that have been taken from it.

Industrial factory farms have posed yet another challenge to the soil via pollution from pesticides, fertilizers, and fossil fuels. There has been a recent demand for biofuels, which initially sound somewhat environmentally-friendly; however, that assumption could not be further from the truth. Author of Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations Dr. David R. Montgomery states, “We could be in a situation where we’re essentially trading a system that mines oil for a system that mines soil, in which case we’ve just changed the time frame over which we’re going to engineer disaster.”3 Corn production is extremely harmful for the environment, causing soil erosion, water pollution, and eventually huge dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. The current ways we are producing food in the United States are harmful not only to the soil and environment, but also to many communities of people.

Food, Inc. 4

Robert Kenner’s documentary Food, Inc. exposes the atrocity that is the United States’s food industry. The traditional image of agrarian America– the quaint countryside farms with peaceful animals and content farmers– is now merely a fairytale. In reality, our food is mass produced in huge factories where both animals and workers are violently abused. Massive multinational corporations have taken control of the industry, and have deliberately hidden the process from consumers. Eric Schlosser, author of The Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, states, “The industry doesn’t want you to know the truth about what you’re eating, because if you did know, you might not want to eat it.”5 These companies have obtained total control over farmers, keeping them in debt and threatening to fire them if any information is exposed.

The current food policy in the United States heavily subsidizes commodity crops and the meat industry, encouraging producers  to overproduce, grow big, and consolidate. At first, it might seem surprising that government regulatory agencies allow this to happen. However, as Schlosser states, “These regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies they’re supposed to be scrutinizing.”6 The industry is aimed at achieving the maximum efficiency at the lowest cost possible, even if it costs lives. Subsidizing unhealthy processed foods and making them cheap and available to everyone has caused severe health effects; one in every three Americans born after 2000 will now contract early onset diabetes. E Coli outbreaks from unsafe meat production have caused many deaths, and the meat packing industry is now one of the most dangerous jobs. Joel Salatin, a farmer from Virginia, states, “We’re willing to subsidize the food system to create the mystique of cheap food, when actually it is very expensive food when you add up the environmental costs, societal costs, and health costs...industrial food is not honest food. It is not priced honestly, it is not produced honestly, and it is not processed honestly.”7 The food industry in the United States has become incredibly powerful, putting business and profit above workers’ rights and lives. As seen in the tobacco industry, substantial change at the policy level is possible when the definition of success becomes the quality of public health, workplace safety, environmental health, and society as a whole.

I am frustrated, but not shocked, that the reality of the food industry in the United States is not general public knowledge. Powerful corporations such as the food, fossil fuel, and mining industries wield a massive amount of power that extends to a governmental scale. After watching Food, Inc., I want to distance myself as much as possible from the processed food industry, and try to buy my products locally and organically. However, I realize that most Americans do not have that choice; because the food industry is so heavily subsidized and therefore makes unhealthy food very affordable, it becomes the only choice for many people needing to feed their families. In an ideal world, organic products would be subsidized, and would nourish people, society, and the environment. Before watching Symphony of the Soil, I always assumed that the benefits from organic products were solely for our health, and never knew just how healing they could be for the earth as well.

Food Inc. only confirmed my choice to live a vegetarian lifestyle and only use animal products from confirmed sustainable, ethical sources. One particular element of the meat industry that I found particularly disgusting was their blatant abuse of undocumented immigrant workers. The huge corporations recruit farmers from Mexico who have been put out of work by NAFTA, ship them like animals to the United States to work in the hellish conditions of meat-processing factories, and once they have established lives in the US after years report them to ICE (a terrorist organization) to be torn apart from their families and returned to Mexico. This is perhaps the most cruel way the meat industry puts profit above lives, as the industry certainly would not have achieved “success” without the arduous labor of undocumented immigrants. The food industry in the United States has committed just as many crimes against the environment as it has against humanity, and rapid and effective action must be taken to destroy the system of power built upon countless lives.

Question: In order to address the injustices of the food industry, there must be change made at the policy-level; however, as many executives of the meat industry hold legislative power, how will that change be achieved?

1Symphony of the Soil. Lily Films, 2013.

2Symphony of the Soil.

3Symphony of the Soil.

4Food, Inc. Magnolia Pictures, 2008.

5Food, Inc.

6Food, Inc.

7Food, Inc.

[berniesandersniece]

Ocean Systems & Agriculture: Rethinking Solutions to Modern Problems (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

Hawaiian monk seal that was slowly starving to death before a discarded piece of plastic was removed from its snout.1

The world’s oceans generate half of the oxygen we breathe, provide hundreds of millions of jobs, and help slow atmospheric warming and climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide produced by human activities. Yet, oceans are some of the most polluted and degraded ecosystems on our planet. Chapter 11 of Living in the Environment discusses the major threats to aquatic ecosystems and the potential steps we can take to manage and prevent them. Currently, the vast diversity of aquatic species and the ecosystem services they provide are threatened by invasive species, climate change, pollution, and habitat loss, all as a result of irresponsible and unsustainable human activities. Marine biologist Malin L. states, “If you cranked up the aquarium heater and dumped some acid in the water, your fish would not be very happy. In effect, that’s what we are doing to our oceans.”2 Coral bleaching, ocean acidification, and the ever increasing levels of carbon dioxide being added to our atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is threatening the vitality of many aquatic species and ecosystems, and has already produced lethal results. One million seabirds and 100,000 mammals are killed every year as a result of plastic pollution alone.

An albatross who died as a result of plastic consumption from pollution by humans.3

How do we reverse these deadly effects and take responsibility for the harm our species causes to so many others? The text suggests that by using laws and economic incentives to protect species, establishing marine sanctuaries to protect and reestablish endangered ecosystems, and creating community-based integrated coastal management we may be able to effectively be able to protect and sustain marine biodiversity. However, as in the case of any other environmental issue, these solutions do not come without a handful of challenges. Most of the harm done to oceans is not visible to most people, making it easy to ignore. Additionally, most of the world’s ocean area lies outside legal jurisdiction of any country, leaving it open to overexploitation and making establishing marine reserves very difficult. Over 98% of the world’s oceans lack effective protection from harmful human activities, and although many obstacles lie in the way, effective and collective action must be taken. Renowned oceanographer and National Geographic Explorer Sylvia Earle states, “There is still time, but not a lot, to turn things around...This mostly blue planet has kept us alive. It’s time for us to return the favor.”4 Integrated coastal management may provide a sustainable solution to the risks oceans currently face; community-based efforts may help in educating people in sustainable living and utilizing their resources more sustainably.

Ways to make fisheries more sustainable.5

As a result of overfishing and damaging fishing practices, many marine fisheries have been put at risk. Governments around the world give more than $30 billion per year in subsidies to assist fishing businesses, and researchers believe at least $10 billion of this is spent to encourage overfishing and the expansion of the fishing industry. This is not only economically inefficient, as the number of boats increases as the number of fish dramatically decreases, but it is also extremely harmful to marine ecosystems, fish populations, and the many aquatic mammals killed in the process. In addition to marine fisheries, wetlands and freshwater systems are also strongly affected by human activities, and adequate protection of these ecosystems must be put in place.

Industrialized beef production in Arizona.6

The oceans are a reliable source of necessary nutrition for numerous human communities worldwide. Chapter 12 of Living in the Environment continues the discussion regarding nutrition, food production, and the environmental effects of these processes. The current disproportion of food in the world is a major problem that must be addressed. Americans alone throw away 30-40% of the country’s food supply, while 49 million of their own citizens experience chronic hunger. One in every eight people on earth face chronic undernutrition and do not receive enough to eat on a daily basis. Many countries have turned to industrialized food production to dramatically increase their outputs due to the rapidly growing human population; however, these practices are often extremely harmful and unsustainable to both human communities and natural ecosystems. According to the text, future food production may be limited by soil erosion and degradation, desertification, air and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, water shortages, and climate change. Meat and other animal product production alone depletes an extremely large quantity of resources and pollutes surrounding ecosystems in the process. The production of just one hamburger requires 1,700 liters of water, the equivalent of 15-20 showers. The text states, “...industrialized livestock production generates about 18% of the world’s greenhouse gases– more than all of the world’s cars, trucks, buses, and planes combined.”7 Evidently, our current standards of food production are not sustainable and require massive and rapid changes.

Salad greens being grown by use of hydroponics.8

Living in the Environment suggests utilizing efficient resource consumption, decreasing the harmful environmental effects of industrialized food production, and eliminating government subsidies that promote such harmful impacts to address our current unsustainable food production predicament. The use of hydroponics and community-supported agriculture may also prove to be useful in decreasing the harmful environmental effects of food production.

A poultry farm in San Diego.9

As a supporter of a plant-based diet, I appreciated the text’s efforts to expose the meat industry for its unsustainable, and often incredibly inhumane, practices. Having done much of my own research on this subject in the past, the facts and statistics around the industrialized meat industry were not surprising, although they continue to be extremely alarming. Living in the Environment adequately discussed the many negative effects the meat and animal product industry has on ecosystems and the services they provide; however, the text failed to address the undeniable correlation between these negative effects and environmental racism. Researchers and environmentalists Raj Patel and Jason W. Moore created a model entitled “A Chicken-Nugget Theory of Capitalism”  correlating the meat industry, capitalism, and the disastrous environmental effects they have on various communities; I believe this model is very helpful in understanding the problems with our current system of food production. Patel states, “My colleague Jason W. Moore and I have traced a history of capitalism to seven cheap things: nature, work, care, food, money, energy, and lives. The modern chicken nugget shows how– in almost every case– the things that have made this breaded poultry confection are running out.”10 Work: the production of a chicken nugget requires cheap labor, including prison labor, and the industry’s workers are among the most poorly paid employees in America. Care: regulations have been cut, undermining workers’ safety in order to speed up the process and produce more at a faster rate. Food: processed meats are becoming increasingly cheaper to make, and lower-class communities often can only afford to eat this unhealthy food instead of pricey fruits and vegetables. Money: The government offers subsidies and low interest rates to the meat industry, only encouraging unsustainable practices and further exploitation. Energy: Industrialized meat production requires large amounts of fossil fuels, which yield negative environmental consequences. Lives: A majority of the people working in the dangerous and unhealthy conditions of the meat industry are women and people of color, who are viewed as disposable lives as a result of white supremacy and the patriarchy. This model exemplifies how environmental issues and climate justice are interrelated and must be addressed together.

Two solutions the text provided I believe would address the unsustainability of our current food production systems as well as the social issues explained above are hydroponics and community-supported agriculture. These both would encourage positive community collaboration, educate the public on healthy and sustainable consumption, and provide fresh nutritious produce to those living in food deserts. Additionally, they would dramatically reduce the pollution from food transportation, ensure food security, and address the “vitamin-G deficit” currently afflicting many urban populations.

Question: Living in the Environment addressed how some marine species, predominantly sharks, are becoming endangered, which is only exacerbated by the negative media portrayal of this species. As a keystone species that has existed for over 400 million years, sharks are invaluable to ocean ecosystems. How do we reverse the negative media frenzy regarding sharks and instead foster a love for the species and work to protect them?

Words: 1344

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 260.

2Miller, 255. 

3“Albatross.” Albatross. Accessed March 18, 2020. https://www.albatrossthefilm.com/, 1.

4Miller, 270.

5Miller, 272.

6Miller, 292.

7Miller, 301.

8Miller, 310.

9Patel, Raj. “A Chicken-Nugget Theory of Capitalism.” The Nation, November 6, 2017. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-chicken-nugget-theory-of-capitalism/, 1.

10Patel, 1. 

[berniesandersniece]

Midterm Blog Posts

Blog 1: The Fluid Mosaic of Planet Earth

Olivia Johnson

The biological term fluid mosaic is most commonly used to describe the phospholipid bilayer of plasma membranes encasing most cells, and refers how molecules move fluidly within the membrane, which is embedded with various kinds of proteins. Just as the fluid mosaic provides structure and variety on a cellular level, the term can also be applied on a much larger scale to illustrate the diversity and interconnectedness of the environment on earth. Various ecosystems, each containing numerous species, interact with each other in a careful balance, and small disruptions can pose large threats. The fluid mosaic of life on earth is currently under direct threat from human activity, which has resulted in the increasingly severe degradation of the earth’s natural capital, the ecosystem services and natural resources which sustain not only humans but all species on earth. The subject of environmental studies seeks to address the ecological challenges brought on by the reckless pillaging of natural capital. According to the text Living in the Environment, the integrating theme of all environmental issues is sustainability: the capacity of the earth to support all species and adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Figure 1, Natural Capital.1

Currently, humanity is operating unsustainably, depleting resources and producing pollution at above the earth’s natural ability to regulate. Several main causes of our current environmental crisis include exponential population growth, wasteful and unsustainable resource use, poverty, the omission of harmful environmental and health costs of goods and services in market prices, increasing isolation from nature, and competing environmental world views.

Figure 2, Natural Capital Degradation.2

Perhaps the most concerning of these causes is the final one; when people in positions of power refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence of the damning effects of environmental degradation, entire populations can be put at risk. Living in the Environment incorporates ethics into the issue, asking, “Should every person be entitled to equal protection from environmental hazards regardless of race, gender, age, national origin, income, social class, or any other factor?”3. The answer expressed by many business leaders, politicians, and other individuals holding a human-centered environmental worldview is a resounding no. This is especially evident when looking at the disparity between more-developed countries and less-developed countries in terms of natural capital consumption. More-developed countries which consist of 17% of the global population consume 70% of the world’s resources, while less-developed countries which consist of 83% of the global population consume only 30%4.

Figure 3, Ecological Footprints.5

If everyone in the world consumed resources at the level of the United States in 2012, we would need five planet earths to sustain that demand. Even as a vegetarian who solely uses public transportation and attempts to live sustainably, we would still need 3.2 earths to sustain my own personal resource demands if everyone lived as such6.

Currently, our atmosphere, water resources, oceans, soil, forests, and living species are being degraded as a result of unsustainable human activity. However, this is by no means new information, and these concerns were outlined in the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, a formal address represented by the Union of Concerned Scientists almost 30 years ago. The origin of environmental degradation on a large scale dates back long before the 1990s, and can be seen in the entitled and exploitative nature of Western colonialism which began in the 1500s. The “discovery” of the Americas was accompanied with the attitude that the earth was full of inexhaustible resources which were to be “conquered” by the white man and used in whatever way and extent he might please. This mindset is clearly still at play, even with 500 years of scientific research and undeniable evidence of ecological destruction. During the past century, rapid global industrialization has exacerbated existing environmental issues and introduced additional concerns. Public demands against harmful pollution resulted in the establishment of the United States’s Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, whose regulations were met with backlash from business leaders and the onset of disinformation campaigns in order to protect economic interests.

Scientific, unbiased reports are issued in order to combat “fake news” and other misinformation that might hinder efforts to control and heal our environment. Published in 2005, the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provided a comprehensive summary of the current environmental concerns of the time, as well as outlined their own findings and specific problems that must be addressed so that life on earth can be sustained. The report, which involved 1,360 experts from 95 counties, stated, “Humans are fundamentally, and to a significant extent irreversibly, changing the diversity of life on Earth, and most of these changes represent a loss of biodiversity”7. What I found particularly alarming in this report is how these changes disproportionately affect certain groups of people, increase inequities among vulnerable populations, and exacerbate poverty on a large scale. Developing countries, indigenous populations, and those living in poverty are forced to suffer the extreme consequences brought on by the unsustainable living standards demanded by first world countries such as the United States.

Something I had never before considered is how the worsening environmental crises affect women differently, and put them at an even greater risk. Environmental disasters such as floods, droughts, and fires force communities to move from their homes, often resulting in unstable and unsafe temporary living conditions that put women at increased risk of sexual assault and human trafficking. Adequate reproductive resources and sanitary products may become unavailable; these effects are detrimental, especially in cultures where women act as the backbone of their households.

Figure 4, Women Carrying Water.8

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, “The pattern of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ associated with ecosystem changes– and in particular the impact of ecosystem changes on poor people, women, and indigenous peoples– has not been adequately taken into account in management decisions”9. There is an evident and complete lack of respect or even acknowledgement of these groups and the battles they must face as a result of environmental degradation. This is equally as frustrating as it is depressing, but reading over these materials also brought me a sense of empowerment. I am aware that I live in a country that depletes natural capital at an alarming and unsustainable rate, but also has the resources available to combat environmental injustices and repair damages that we have made. The vast amount of opportunities offered by Fordham, as well as outside internships, research positions, and organizations available in New York City excites me, as I am deeply passionate about the environmental issues we face in this critical time. As an empowered individual, I want to empower others to take responsibility and face the reality of what is needed to be done to save the beautiful diversity of the fluid mosaic that is life on earth.

Q: The text mentioned multiple times that we have seen some developments in environmental crises during the past few decades, but failed to include what exactly those changes are. Is this merely part of the construction of a positive narrative about environmental progress, or have we as a society actually made some substantial change in the right direction?

Word Count: 1204

__________________________

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 7.

2Miller, 11.

3Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 20.

4Miller, 9.

5Miller, 13.

6“How Many Planets Does It Take to Sustain Your Lifestyle?” Ecological Footprint Calculator. Accessed January 20, 2020. https://www.footprintcalculator.org/.

7Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 4.

8Urevig, Andrew, “When It Comes to Addressing Climate Change, Gender Matters.” Ensia. Accessed January 21, 2020. https://ensia.com/notable/gender-climate-change/.

9Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 13.

Blog 2: The Interconnectedness of Life on Earth

Olivia Johnson

By taking a look at the phylogenetic tree, one can observe the evolutionary path that has resulted in Homo sapiens sapiens, the human species equipped with opposable thumbs, the ability to stand upright, and a complex brain. These adaptations have allowed humans to become the dominant species on earth, capable of manipulating the planet’s natural capital on a large scale. However, we often forget that humans are in fact animals who share the earth with millions of other species. In his work Earth’s Mind: Essays in Native Literature Professor Roger Dunsmore explores the American Indian philosophy humanity’s place in nature, stating, “When we deny significance to other life forms, we deny significance to those parts of ourselves that were formed in our journey through them.”1This interconnectedness of life is found not only in the phylogenetic tree, but also in the variety of ecosystems and the diversity of species within them. Currently, humanity’s insatiable desire for natural capital and the major side effects of those processes are altering natural systems, degrading biomes, and threatening the biodiversity on earth. By negatively impacting these, we are threatening the vitality of millions of species, including our own.

According to the text Living in the Environment, the three factors that sustain life on earth include solar energy, the cycling of nutrients, and gravity2. Unlike fossil fuels which are contained in earth’s crust in limited supply, solar energy is a renewable resource, indefinitely warming the earth and providing energy for plant growth. Solar energy is essential to photosynthesis, originally catalyzed by cyanobacteria which first released oxygen into our atmosphere. Phytoplankton and ultraplankton are two microorganisms responsible for producing about half of the earth’s oxygen supply, and therefore are vital to sustaining life on our planet. In addition to adding oxygen to our atmosphere, they also play a role in the carbon cycle by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. However, humans have also been interfering in this cycle, and unsurprisingly in a detrimental way.

Since the 1960s, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been consistently rising as a result of human activity. Burning fossil fuels, deforestation, forest fires, and transportation have all contributed to rising carbon dioxide levels, which have resulted in ocean acidification and rising temperatures. As one of several greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide plays a role in the greenhouse effect, which when functioning normally determines the earth’s temperature and climate. Without this process, earth would be extremely cold and void of life; however, very large quantities of greenhouse gases can be detrimental to life. Humans are currently emitting carbon dioxide faster than it can be removed by the earth’s natural processes. Over the last 50 years, emissions have warmed the earth and significantly changed the climate.

Carbon Cycle, Red Arrows Showing Human Contributions to Levels of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere.3

This climate change has raised ocean levels, threatened biomes, and put many species at risk of extinction. In addition to change in climate, ecosystems also face direct threats from humans as we ravage them for natural capital. Many areas have been degraded to their ecological tipping point at which positive feedback loops are locked in place and the natural system can no longer self-correct. Deserts are just one type of biome that is especially vulnerable to human activity because of slow nutrient cycling and low species diversity. Tropical rain forests, which contain just 2% of earth’s land surface but at least 50% of all known species, have already been significantly destroyed at rates that are only increasing.4 At least half of all tropical rain forests on earth have been affected by humans, along with them their vastly diverse species which reside in highly specialized niches. Mountains, which contain water sources vital to over four billion people, are also at risk from the timber and agricultural industries. Overall, at least 60% of the world’s major terrestrial ecosystems are being degraded or used unsustainably, as shown by the figure below.

Natural Capital Degradation from Human Activities.5

Our destructive ways of living have also significantly affected the world’s water supply; ocean acidification, rising sea levels, overfishing, and harmful pollutants have degraded ocean and freshwater ecosystems. The oceans are vital to maintaining the earth’s biodiversity, and in turn its natural capital. Ocean researcher Sylvia Earle states, “The bottom line answer to the question about why biodiversity matters is fairly simple. The rest of the living world can get along without us but we can’t get along without them.”6 In fact, it is arguable that the world would be much better off without humans; we are negatively affecting life on earth much more than we are contributing to its vitality. Throughout the history of the earth, there have been five major natural extinctions– some scientists believe human activity is bringing on the 6th. We are currently experiencing a high extinction rate, and many species are expected to become extinct within the next 50 to 100 years.

Chart of Five Mass Extinctions, Predicting Human Activity Causing the 6th.7

Despite the overwhelming evidence that climate change is a direct result of human activity, some self-seeking individuals and proponents of “fake news” have used their authority to convince others that it is simply a natural process. While an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence suggests this could not be further from the truth, refusing to acknowledge humanity’s contribution to the warming of our planet and the ecological destruction that accompanies it is very dangerous. Just last year, an area of the Amazon the size of New Jersey was engulfed in flames, destroying habitats and forcing many indigenous communities from their homes.8 There was a global outcry, and #prayfortheamazon was trending on all social media platforms. Many people were under the assumption that, similarly to the fires in California and Australia, this was a natural disaster. However, a majority of the burning was caused directly by humans as a part of deforestation to clear land for agriculture and cattle. Politics plays a major role in this crisis; Brazil’s newly elected president Jair Bolsonaro was responsible for cutting environmental protections in the Amazon in favor of loggers. Those who sought to protect the rain forest are also put at risk. Paulo “Lobo” Paulino Guajajara (shown below), a leader of the “Forest Guardians” of the Guajajara tribe in the Amazon, was ambushed and shot dead by loggers. In a statement from the Guajajara Guardians of Arariboia Indigenous Territory, leaders state, “The protection of our land and its biodiversity has always been our struggle and always will be. It does not depend on politics or money. It is simply a matter of life and death for us, our relatives and future generations.”9 The violence of ecological degradation has proven to be deadly not only for many plant and animal species, but also for indigenous communities and other vulnerable populations whose way of life is closely tied to the earth.

In this day and age, reliable science is more important than ever when educating the public on the effects of climate change and humanity’s role in the process. How do we convince those, especially people in positions of authority, who refuse to acknowledge that climate change and ecological degradation is in fact a real and pressing issue that it must be addressed?

Words: 1175

1​Dunsmore, Roger. 1997. ​Earth’s Mind: Essays in Native Literature​. (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press), 42.

2Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. 2018. ​Living in the Environment.​ (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning), 51. 3​Miller, 65. 4Miller, 158.

5Miller, 161. 6Miller, 81. 7Miller, 93. 8Borunda, Alejandra. 2019. “See How Much of the Amazon Is Burning, How It Compares to Other Years.” National Geographic. August 29, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/amazon-fires-cause-deforestation-graphic-map/#close, 3.

9Guajajara Guardians of Arariboia Indigenous Territory, Brazil. “Amazon Guardians Respond to Killing of Paulo Paulino Guajajara.” Survival International, November 18, 2019. https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/12268, 1.

Blog 3: The Collapse of Modern Society

The word “history” is most often associated with past civilizations, wars, leaders, and other great milestones and achievements of humanity. The traditional subject of history typically begins around 5000 BCE with the development of agriculture and the establishment of major civilizations; while it centers on humankind as the focus of study, conventional history fails to view humanity in the larger context of the history of the universe. Big History, a term coined by historian David Christian in the 1990s, involves the interdisciplinary, big picture study of science and humanities to examine human existence. According to Christian, the very little time our planet and species has existed for is only understandable when viewing it from the context of the universe’s fourteen billion-year-old history. His study of Big History consists of nine “threshold moments”: the Big Bang and the creation of the universe (13 billion years ago), the creation of stars as the first complex objects (12 billion ya), the creation of chemical elements inside dying stars required for chemically-complex objects, the formation of planets more chemically complex than stars, the creation and evolution of life (3.8 billion ya), the development of our speciesHomo sapiens(250,000 ya), the appearance of agriculture which allowed for more complex societies (11,000 ya), the “modern revolution” which brought the world into the modern era, and finally whatever will happen in the future and predicting the next threshold of history.1

2 Natural Timeline of Universe.

Each of these thresholds represents a level of increasing complexity brought on by “Goldilocks conditions”, a set of very exact circumstances required for complex forms to exist. When looking at Christian’s final few thresholds, it is evident that Goldilocks conditions along with increasingly advanced human civilizations have allowed the human population to flourish in large numbers.

3 Goldilocks Conditions of Planet Earth, Neither too Close or Too Far from the Sun.

Throughout the past century, the amount of humans on Earth has exploded at an exponential rate. In 4 BCE, just 250 million Homo sapiens sapiensexisted. By 1850 CE, that number had quadrupled, and the human population reached one billion over the course of three to five million years. Another billion humans were added to that number over only 80 years, and the human population reached three billion in 1958, four billion in 1975, five billion in 1988, and six billion in 2000. Currently, there are almost nine billion humans on Earth, and that number is expected to reach twelve billion by 2060. Humans account for 36% of all mammals, and another 60% consists of mammals we raise for food, with wild mammals consisting of only 4%. It is evident humanity has come to dominate the planet. 4 We are currently living in what scientists refer to as the Anthropocene, the geological epoch beginning with the significant human impact on Earth’s ecosystems and geology.

5 The Anthropocene.

Through carbon emissions, the construction of roads and dams, soil degradation, deforestation, and other destructive activities, humans have brought on anthropogenic climate change, along with a severe negative impact on Earth’s ecosystems and biodiversity. Proposed starting dates of the Anthropocene range from the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago to the arrival of Europeans in the Americas all the way to the 1960s, but it is agreed that the Industrial Revolution was the time that significantly accelerated humanity’s damages to Earth. 6

According to historian Jared Diamond, author of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, the damages humans are currently inflicting upon our environment on a large scale are not entirely unique to our modern era. Diamond determines instances of past societal collapse have come down to five main factors: climate change, hostile neighbors, collapse of essential trading partners, environmental problems, and society’s response to the foregoing four factors.7 He states, “In fact, one of the main lessons to be learned from the collapses of the Maya, Anasazi, Easter Islanders, and those other past societies…is that a society’s steep decline may begin only a decade or two after society reaches its peak numbers, wealth, and power.” 8. This evidence is particularly alarming as the human population nears its potential carrying capacity; Earth’s sixth major extinction may be imminent.

9Easter Island, the Best Example of Societal Collapse According to Diamond.

The four major eras of US environmental history depict how the country’s relationship with the diverse ecosystems of the Americas over the past several hundred years. They consist of the Tribal Era (13,000 years ago-1600s), the Frontier Era (1607-1890), the Early Conservationist Era (1832-1870), and 1870- present times.10 The case study of the American bison examined by the text reflects the changes that occurred throughout these four eras. In 1500 CE, 30-60 million bison roamed the plains of North America, and were the center of life for many American Indian tribes. The arrival of European colonists and their frontier environmental world-view saw the Americas, American Indian tribes, and the bison as wilderness to be conquered by the white man. Bison were slaughtered by the millions for meat and entertainment by Europeans moving west, and even the US Army took part in this killing to drive tribes from their land. By 1892, only 85 bison remained; the endangerment of this species also brought on the endangerment of many Plains Indian tribes.

11Portrait of Plenty Coups.

Plenty Coups, leader of the Crow Nation in the early 1900s, said, “…when the buffalo went away the hearts of my people fell to the ground, and they could not life them up again. After this nothing happened.”12 The bison was relied on not only for its physical contributions to many tribes, but also as a prominent spiritual figure. After the bison was driven to near extinction, many tribes were traumatized and stripped of their identities. In his work An American Urphilosophie, author Robert Bunge states, “Would you [want to] know how an area is faring ecologically speaking, look then at the Indian population, for they reflect the ecological balance or lack of it in an exact manner.”13 Although the bison became protected and its population slowly grew, the effects the loss in numbers on many American Indian tribes have only worsened. Many tribes today are burdened with addiction, mental illness, poverty, and continuing attacks on their land and culture from the US government who continues to neglect and abuse them. With the critical climate conditions we are currently facing, the intimate bond between many American Indians and their land may hold the answers of how to address our environmental crisis; however, they are rarely included in the conversation despite having a deep knowledge of sustainable practices. As Diamond states in his book, the most vulnerable populations will be forced to bear the brunt of environmental degradation, and the many American Indian tribes living in the United States are no exception to this. As Americans, we are living on stolen land and are continuing to abuse it in the most profane matter; if major changes are not made in philosophy, lifestyle, and industry, our society will collapse.

How could looking to other environmental philosophies be beneficial in addressing our current climate crisis?

1“Big History.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 20, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History, 3.

2 ”Big History”, 3.

3“Big History”, 3.

4 Stoll, Steven. U.S. Environmentalism since 1945: a Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007.

5 Bliss, Sam. “The Anthropocene Is Here, Whether Geologists Make It Official or Not.” Grist. Grist, October 20, 2014. https://grist.org/climate-energy/the-anthropocene-is-here-whether-geologists-make-it-official-or-not/, 1.

6 “Anthropocene.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 6, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene.

7“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, January 19, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed, 2.

8Diamond, Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin, 2011, 509.

9“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”, 1.

10Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 20.

11“Plenty Coups.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, November 19, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenty_Coups, 1.

12Lear, Jonathan. Radical Hope Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation. Londres (Inglaterra): Harvard University Press, 2008, 4.

13Bunge, Robert. An American Urphilosophie: an American Philosophy, BP (before Pragmatism). Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984, 84.

Blog 4: Vitamin G Deficiency: the Modern Disconnect Between Humans and Nature

Olivia Johnson

In past chapters of his work Living in the Environment, Miller has touched on numerous current environmental crises, including ocean acidification, the rapid extinction of species, increasing carbon emissions, and the rapidly growing human population accompanied by an insatiable demand for natural capital. Government leaders are being pressured by the public to address these many problems, but often it seems that Congress is not adequately responding. In Chapter 25, Miller goes into depth on the dissent between environmental worldviews, which often prevent much needed change from happening. A person’s environmental worldview, which is essentially how one views their relationship with nature, is determined by their environmental ethics, the distinction between right and wrong behavior in one’s relationship with the environment. A human-centered worldview states that as the planet’s dominant species, humans should manage the earth for our benefit. A life-centered worldview, on the other hand, assumes humanity has an ethical responsibility to prevent the extinction of species through human activities.  Further, an earth-centered worldview takes on an ethical responsibility to preserve not just species, but all ecosystems and the biodiversity within them.

With a variety of environmental worldviews comes the challenge of determining how land should be managed, and who makes that decision. In the United States, the government manages 35% of the country’s land, which technically then belongs to every American citizen. 40% of this land managed by the Bureau of Land Management is utilized for mining, logging, oil and gas extraction, and livestock raising. There is a large division between environmental advocates and developers as to how public lands should be treated. The former believes the lands should be used for protecting biodiversity, whereas the latter pushes for the best economical use of the lands regardless of the damage that may ensue.

1Interacting with nature.

At the heart of the environmental debate, Miller argues, is the modern disconnect between humans and nature. The concept of nature-deficit disorder explains how some psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit disorders, may result from or be exacerbated by a lack of exposure to nature. Richard Louv’s Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder explains the basis of this concept; we are all still biologically hunters and gatherers, so there remains in us an unexplained need for interaction with nature. In his “Land Ethic”, American ecologist Aldo Leopold presents his vision of a world where relationships between people and nature are intertwined. He states, “When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”2 Leopold’s land ethic depends on the concept of biophilia, which Edward O. Wilson describes as an “innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms” 3 The emotional, psychological, and social benefits of interaction with nature have instigated movements such as No Child Left Behind Act of 2009, which sought to encourage environmental education for children.

4Ways to live sustainably.

Forming a relationship with the earth is just one way we can learn to live more sustainably. Ghandi once stated, “The earth provides enough to satisfy every person’s need but not every person’s greed…When we take more than what we need, we are simply taking from each other, borrowing from the future, or destroying the environment and other species.”4 Other methods of sustainable living include relying more on renewable energy resources, protecting biodiversity, and leaving the earth in a condition better than how we found it for future generations.

The degradation of our ecosystems has not only negatively affected many animal and plant species, but also the most vulnerable human communities. In his Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, J. Baird Callicott explains the history and current predicament of environmental justice. Beginning in the 1980s, the modern environmental justice movement gained momentum with rising concerns from the public in regards to a concentration of environmental-related health issues in lower-class communities and communities of color, which typically were situated close to industrial plants, toxic landfills, and hazardous waste facilities. Research showed that although socioeconomic status did affect where these facilities were located, race was the more significant determining factor. An advocate against environmental racism, Reverend Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. described this as:

“racial discrimination in environmental policy making, and the unequal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations … the deliberate targeting of people of color communities for toxic waste facilities …the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in people of color communities for toxic waste facilities … the history of excluding people of color from the leadership of the environmental movement.”5

According to Callicott, the burdens of climate change are likely to increase the population of environmentally displaced people to 250 million by 2050. Intergenerational justice, a component of environmental justice, refers to the obligations members of one generation have to past or future generations. We have a duty to protect others from injustices; this concept applies not only to all those currently affected by environmental abuses, but also those in the future that may be negatively affected by our current exploitation of the environment.

6Advocating for the environment.

Chapter 25 of Living in the Environment begins with a quote from environmentalist David W. Orr in which he states, “The sustainability revolution is nothing less than a rethinking and remaking of our role in the natural world.”7. This is true, but purely from a Western, Eurocentric point of view. In this case, the word “our” excludes all those cultures who have already been living sustainably, especially indigenous communities throughout the world. The environmental movement has a bleak history of excluding people of color and indigenous peoples, whose leadership and knowledge surrounding sustainability could be vital to the movement. This is an instance of “arrogant ignorance”, the same concept Wendell Berry associates with the phrase “save the earth”.8 Life on earth has been sustained for 3.8 billion years; humanity will never destroy the planet, but we do have the power to destroy ourselves.

Many indigenous cultures possess an environmental wisdom worldview, seeing nature as a great and powerful teacher from which we can learn many lessons. The narcissistic perspective that humans are somehow above all other species is disgusting, and deprives all other life of rights and dignity. Viewing land as merely something to be conquered and ravaged for resources instead of a beautifully diverse haven for life has proven to be destructive for many animal, plant, and human communities. Author Dennis McPherson states, “Just because a certain way of looking at the world is useful does not imply that it is an accurate representation of the way the world actually is…in the long run, the ultimate pragmatic test of a worldview is how well it helps the holders of that view to survive.”9 The current worldviews of the Trump administration, responsible for the largest reduction in protection lands in history, prove how a human-centered worldview may become detrimental to our survival as a human species.10

11The Arctic National Wildlife Refugee in Alaska, US Interior Department is set to auction off land to oil and gas drillers.

Many legislators faced with making important decisions regarding our current climate crisis are backed by developers, big-business owners, and wealthy conservative individuals who want nothing more than a total abandonment of environmental regulations and protections. How do citizens demanding climate action stop these selfish few individuals from preventing change?

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 691.

2“The Land Ethic.” The Aldo Leopold Foundation. Accessed February 12, 2020. https://www.aldoleopold.org/about/the-land-ethic/, 1.

3Callicott, J. Baird., and Robert Frodeman. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009, 109.

4Miller, 693.

5Callicott, 343.

6Miller, 692.

7Miller, 681.

8Miller, 683.

9MacPherson, Dennis H., and John Douglas. Rabb. Indian from the inside: a Study in Ethno-Metaphysics. Thunder Bay, Ont.: Lakehead Univ., 1993, 26.

10Robbins, Jim. “Open for Business: The Trump Revolution on America’s Public Lands.” Yale E360. Accessed October 8, 2019. https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for-business-the-trump-revolution-on-public-lands, 1.

11Robbins, 1.

Blog 5: The Complex Relationship between Politics, Economies, and the Environment

Olivia Johnson

A thorough comprehension of the relationship between the human constructs of economics, politics, and law and our biosphere is essential to understanding and addressing our current global environmental crisis. Chapter 23 of Living in the Environment provides insight into how our global economy is functioning unsustainability, and what we can do to change that. The term economics refers to how scarce resources are distributed in a society, relying on human capital, manufactured capital, and, most importantly, natural capital.

1Inputs of the economy rely on natural capital in addition to manufactured and human capital.

The earth’s resources and ecosystem services provide the foundation for human economies. While neoclassical economists view natural capital as an unlimited factor of the human economy, ecological economists understand that human economic systems are subsystems of our bisophere. The latter recognize that economic growth becomes unsustainable when it degrades or depletes natural capital. This is the case in many industrialized nations which depend on high-throughput economies, which attempt to boost growth by increasing the flow of resources through an economic system to provide more goods and services. Viewing higher rates of production and consumption as an indicator of economic growth has proven to be unsustainable, as our current human economies have already pushed beyond many ecosystem services’ natural thresholds.

2Body of water polluted by copper mining operation, degrading natural capital.

A steady-state economy model, on the other hand, values sustainable innovation, development, and improvement over growth. In this model, all resources would be recycled and reused to benefit all, much like a natural ecosystem. Although there would be no overall growth, many environmental economists approve of this model as a sustainable alternative to our current destructive patterns of overconsumption and waste. This model may become a reality as many businesses transition to more sustainable practices, incentivised by the positive potential of environmental investments and research.

3Hidden costs of mining and drilling are not factored into market prices.

Markets often fail to provide environmental protections because they do not assign monetary value to the many benefits provided by earth’s natural capital. Many economists and environmental experts call for full-cost pricing, which would include the typically hidden costs associated with environmental harm in the market price of a good or service. Environmentalist and businessman Paul Hawken states, “If we have doubts about how to value a 500-year-old tree, we need only ask how much it would cost to make a new one from scratch? Or a new river? Or a new atmosphere?” 4 Many ecosystem services are irreplaceable and virtually impossible to replicate artificially, which places them at a high economic value. A 1997 study on the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital estimated its monetary value to be US $33 trillion.5 The researchers determined that this value will only increase as resources continue being depleted and become more scarce. Including ecosystem services in market prices would dramatically increase the prices of goods and services depending on these services. Currently, that value has increased to $125 trillion per year. In addition to full-cost pricing, other economic tools we can use to address environmental problems include phasing out perverse subsidies, implementing green taxes, labeling environmentally beneficial goods and services, and enacting environmental laws and regulations.

6Chart showing environmental policy-making process.

Chapter 24 of Living in the Environment discusses the role of the government in instituting such economic tools and making the transition to a sustainable society. Economic policy is heavily involved in this, which is developed and executed through the democratic process. However, problems arise when powerful corporations and wealthy individuals gain more influence over the political process than the average citizen. This has led to numerous environmental injustices, disproportionately affecting poorer communities of color and sparing the white and wealthy. The EPA lists at least 76 studies which show discrimination in relation to environmental justice; studies have proven that a large share of polluting factories, incinerators, and landfills in the United States are located in communities populated by African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. 7 However, a 2015 study showed that the EPA dismissed 95% of environmental justice claims. This is where environmental law, which aims to protect both ecosystems and individuals from environmental abuses, comes into play. Unfortunately, the judicial system can often work against victims; statutes of limitations can prevent people from suing if the damages, such as negative health effects, occur after a certain time, courts can often take years to reach a decision while damaging effects continue to take place, and some developers even file strategic lawsuits against public participation aimed at intimidating and discouraging individuals and groups who criticize their harmful activities.

8Residents of Detroit protesting for the shutting down of a medical waste incinerator which was polluting the air in their community.

The government’s failure to address these issues and the continued exploitation of natural capital by many corporations have ignited momentum in tens of thousands of nonprofit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide. Many of these large groups such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International have become influential in lobbying for sustainable policies and supporting political candidates who vow to protect the environment. Grassroots organizations and youth leaders have proven that political change comes from the bottom up; individual actions such as lobbying, campaigning for ecologically literate candidates, voting with your wallet, and running for office all contribute to the growing environmental movement.

9Greenpeace protesters fighting against the Japanese whaling industry.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ernest Partridge and his argument that the United States has become a society dominated by overconsumption, greed, and manipulation, three factors at the root of all environmental injustices. Partridge asks, “Are we Americans regarded by our ‘leaders’ as free and rational citizens of a functioning democracy, or merely as an aggregate of isolated and mindless consumers?”10 We have become addicted to consumption, facing an insatiable desire to accumulate unnecessary things. Partridge argues that there is a distinction between consumers and citizens; Americans have become model consumers, controlled like puppets by the “oligarchy”, the top one percent wealthy individuals who have perfected the art of influence and exploitation. This “standard of living” we are told we must have has proven to be unsustainable in every way imaginable, negatively affecting the most vulnerable human communities and virtually every biome on earth. This is the inevitable result of unchecked capitalism that values profit over lives and blatantly ignores the injustices forced upon humans and the environment. The fact that the world’s wealthiest 62 people possess as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people is absolutely disgusting.

This dynamic of unbridled overconsumption that benefits a select few while dramatically harming billions of others is no doubt at the root of our current environmental crisis. The environmental movement is gaining momentum, fighting for environmental justice and protections against the corporations and billionaires who wield great economic and political power. As the United States enters a major election year, the opportunity for an environmental revolution opens. Supporting candidates with an ambitious environmental plan and consistent politics, like Bernie Sanders, is crucial to overturning the imbalance of power in the United States and establishing a sustainable future for generations to come.

Living in the Environment proposes full-cost pricing as a means of accounting for environmental harms in the production of a good or service. The burdens of environmental degradation are proven to disproportionately affect the poor and communities of color. Would this “solution” only make access to basic goods like food and shelter even more inaccessible for those communities, while allowing the rich to continue consuming at an unsustainable rate?

Words: 1120

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 632.

2Miller, 665.

3Miller, 638.

4Miller, 639.

5Costanza, Robert, et. al. “The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature, May 15, 1997, 1.

6Miller, 660.

7Miller, 658.

8Miller, 658.

9Miller, 668.

10Partridge, Ernest. “Consumer or Citizen?” Online Gadfly. The Gadfly Bytes, April 2002. http://gadfly.igc.org/politics/left/consumer.htm, 1.

Blog 6: The Impossible Hamster:  the Unsustainability of Overpopulation and Overconsumption

Olivia Johnson

1”The Impossible Hamster”

Imagine if a hamster maintained a constant rate of growth throughout its entire first year of life. The New Economic Foundation’s “The Impossible Hamster” depicts this situation, which results in a nine billion ton hamster, capable of consuming the world’s entire annual production of corn in a single day.2 Of course, this situation is only hypothetical, as species existing in nature can only grow to a certain size in order to maintain a stable population. The question is, therefore, do these same limits to growth apply to the human population as well? Further, is the concept of constant growth in human economies a realistic and sustainable principle?

Chapter 6 of Living in the Environment considers these questions, examining how many humans the earth can support, factors that influence the human population, and slowing population growth. When studying the current size, growth rate, and distribution of the human population, demographers recognize three key trends: the world’s population is continuing to grow despite a decrease in the rate of population growth in most years since 1965, human population growth is unevenly distributed with 98% of new individuals being added in less-developed countries, and a large movement from rural to urban areas. There is disagreement on whether there are limits to human and economic growth, especially considering constant developments in technology. However, the global economy fails to provide basic necessities of life to over one billion people, which seems like a clear indicator of unequal resource distribution and consumption.

3Population growth in less-developed countries v. more-developed countries.

When looking at the size of the human population, the main influences are current death, birth, and fertility rates, as well as migration and age structure. The text concludes that reducing poverty by means of economic development, elevating the status of women worldwide, and encouraging family planning will slow population growth. Demographers have determined that demographic transitions occur as countries become industrialized and more economically developed, which generates a per capita rise in income, decrease in poverty, and a slow in population growth.

4Woman in Nepal bringing home firewood, which takes 2 hours 2-3 times per week.

Some economists argue that the implementation of a steady-state economy, made up of a constant population size as well as a constant stock of capital, would work to solve the current human population predicament.5 Similarly, a plenitude economy argues that decreasing consumption and working hours will reduce environmental impact and instead build social capital by making a commitment to social interaction and community.6 This type of anti-consumerist ideology is supported by the Degrowth movement, whose advocates believe that overconsumption lies at the root of environmental issues and social inequalities.7 Instead of finding happiness in consumption, they encourage maximizing well-being through non-consumptive means, including devoting more time to the arts and community.

Chapter 22 of Living in the Environment examines the human population in regards to urbanization, the creation and growth of urban areas. More than half the world’s population lives in urban areas, with 244,000 individuals migrating to these areas each day. Three important trends to consider when looking at urbanization include: the percentage of the global population living in urban areas has increased sharply, the sizes of urban areas are increasing, and poverty is becoming increasingly urbanized, especially in less-developed countries. One negative effect of urbanization is urban sprawl, the term given to the growth of low density development on edges of urban areas which destroys local ecosystems and increases air and water pollution. Other negative effects include large ecological footprints, a lack of vegetation, excessive noise, and local climate effects. The one billion urban dwellers who live in poverty are forced to bear the burden of these effects; those residing in slums are faced with severe pollution and a lack of electricity or clean water supplies.

8Large network of roads in car-dependent cities, such as this one in Los Angeles.

When looking at the negative results of urbanization, it becomes clear how important sustainable land-planning can be; dividing the best uses of land by zoning allows for growth control and protection of ecosystems. Sustainable community development allows for cities or towns to focus on growing local produce, generating their own carbon-neutral energy, and reducing the use of motor vehicles by establishing effective mass transit systems. Initiatives in many cities worldwide, including New York City’s PlaNYC9 and Transition Towns10, have been made to reduce their ecological impacts as well as address the human population issue.

I believe Mark Albion’s “The Good Life” perfectly encapsulates our current economic and social addiction to consumption and growth.11 In the short film, Albion describes his encounter with a fisherman in a small coastal town as he tries to convince the man to increase his product quantity, develop his own business, and create growth and wealth. At the end of the day, Albion says, the man will be able to retire, enjoy his life, and spend time with his family. What Albion failed to recognize, however, is that in living a simple life and effectively balancing work and social time, the man was already happy. Mainstream culture teaches us that success equates to money, which allows for uncapped consumption which is the only path to fulfillment and happiness. Evidently, this is not true, and this cycle of overconsumption and an unrelentless desire for growth on every level only leads to social inequities, ecological devastation, and ultimately a lack of happiness and an overload of stress, especially for vulnerable communities.

12Depicts 183,000 birds, the estimated amount of birds that die every day in the United States from exposure to agricultural pesticides.

Reversing this ravenous cycle will not be easy by any means, especially considering the high consumption rates and resource uses of the average US citizen. Part of the problem, contemporary artist Chris Jordan suggests, is that we as a society have a difficult time understanding the raw numbers associated with the current ecological state of our country. Through his work Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait, Jordan hopes to make meaning of numbers, and states, “Employing themes such as the near versus the far, and the one versus the many, I hope to raise some questions about the roles and responsibilities we each play as individuals in a collective that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming.”13 I believe it is incredibly important to realize the individual impacts each of us have living in highly developed industrial first-world nations, and refrain from placing the blame our ecological crisis on complex systemic issues like poverty, as the text frequently does. Not only is this objective view of poverty incredibly ignorant, but it also fails to place responsibility on wealthier industrialized nations for creating these systems of poverty in the first place.

Question: Steady-state and plentitude economies are a direct contradiction of the constant and continuous growth principle that rules economics; considering this, how might we facilitate a transition to a more sustainable economy?

1“The Impossible Hamster.” Vimeo. New Economics Foundation, November 14, 2018. https://vimeo.com/8947526.

2“The Impossible Hamster.”, 0.34 min.

3Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 121.

4Miler, 131.

5“Steady-State Economy.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, March 1, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy.

6“Visualizing a Plentitude Economy.” Youtube. Center for a New American Dream, September 15, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR-YrD_KB0M&t=7s.

7“Degrowth.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 17, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth, 1.

8Miller, 615.

9“PlaNYC.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, November 1, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlaNYC, 1.

10“Transition Town.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 14, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_town, 1.

11Albion, Mark. “More Than Money- What Is ‘The Good Life’ Parable.” Youtube. Berrett Koehler, August 8, 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7JlI959slY.

12Jordan, Chris. “Running the Numbers.” Chris Jordan Photography, 2008. http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/rtn/#about, 1.

13Jordan, 1.

Blog 7: Saving Biodiversity: Our Role in Halting Species Extinction and Ecosystem Degradation

Olivia Johnson

Severe soil erosion caused by deforestation and overgrazing.1

When evaluating the earth’s current environmental crises, it is evident that humans are the key player in causing ocean acidification, habitat destruction, water and air pollution, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and the many other problems we force upon the planet’s species and ecosystems. Chapter 9 of Living in the Environment discusses these issues and what must be done to reverse and repair them, specifically regarding species and ecosystem services. The text begins by examining honeybees and their role in one of the earth’s most important ecosystem services: pollination. Since 1980, human activities have caused a dramatic decrease in their populations, especially as our own species’s population rapidly increases; however, bees are not the only species currently under threat from humans. Species are becoming extinct at least 1,000 times faster than the historical rate, which is about one species per year for every one million species on earth.2 This alarmingly high rate has led researchers to believe that the earth is currently experiencing its sixth mass extinction, which will likely severely impair vital ecosystem services and wipe out at least 20-50% of all species on earth within our lifetime. Researchers working on the Living Planet Index, created by the London Zoological Society and the World Wildlife Federation state, “Given the pace and scale of change, we can no longer exclude the possibility of reaching critical tipping points that could abruptly and irreversibly change living conditions on earth.”3 The great diversity of species on earth provide ecosystem and economic services that sustain not only humans, but all other residents of our planet. It is evident that we must try to sustain these wild species, not only because we benefit greatly from them, but also because they too have a right to live on the earth.

A critically endangered white northern rhinoceros killed by a poacher in South Africa.4

The acronym HIPPCO is useful when considering how our harmful actions are currently accelerating species extinction and the degradation of ecosystem services. Consisting of Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Population growth, Pollution, Climate change, and Overexploitation, HIPPCO explains how humans are directly causing the current unnatural rate of species extinction. According to the text, establishing and enforcing national environmental laws and creating and protecting wildlife sanctuaries could provide a solution to sustaining these species. By following the precautionary principle and taking preventative measures to protect the environment instead of constantly cleaning up the messes we have created, we may hope to restore ecosystems and slow the current species extinction rate.

Ways you can prevent extinction of wild species.5

Chapter 10 of Living in the Environment continues the conversation about our role in sustaining biodiversity by discussing ecosystems and the services they provide, specifically terrestrial ecosystems. In the past 8,000 years, human activities have wiped out over 50% of earth’s forests. United Nations environmental bodies have commented on this massive destruction of natural capital, stating, “Unless radical and creative action is taken to conserve the earth’s biodiversity, many local and regional ecosystems that help to support human lives and livelihoods are at risk of collapsing.”6Currently, unsustainable deforestation and climate change are the primary threats to forest ecosystems, which provide many vital ecosystem services, including reducing soil erosion, purifying air and water, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and supporting energy flow and chemical cycling. These services amount to an estimated minimum of $125 trillion every year, a value far greater than the value of wood and other raw materials they provide. By emphasizing this great economic value, we may hope to better manage and sustain forests without which we could not live. Several steps to achieve this goal include halting government subsidies that encourage deforestation, protecting old-growth forests, improving the management of forest fires, reducing the demand for harvested trees, and planting trees to reestablish forests.7

Map of biological hotspots.8

Forests are not the only ecosystems being severely degraded by human activities. Grasslands, which cover one fourth of the earth’s land surface, are under threat from overgrazing, development, and climate change. Like forests, grasslands provide numerous important ecosystem services including soil formation, erosion control, chemical cycling, and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The text emphasizes protecting biodiversity hotspots found within these ecosystems is especially important. These pertain to areas, such as Madagascar, rich in highly endangered species found nowhere else on earth that are now extremely threatened by human activities. Only around six percent of the earth’s land is strictly protected from the destructive touch of humanity, which is incredibly concerning as our world continues to sink into environmental collapse.

Ways to protect tropical forests.9

Something I found particularly interesting in Chapter 9 of Living in the Environment was the emphasis placed on invasive species as a global threat to species extinction and environmental degradation. Humans are to blame for introducing nonnative species that end up severely impairing their host ecosystems, but what we fail to realize is that in some ways we are currently acting similarly to an invasive species ourselves. Our population has surged and reaches almost every corner of the world, and with that has brought death and destruction to many species and ecosystems. We currently deplete natural capital at an alarming and unsustainable rate, leaving little to no resources for other species whom we share the earth with. The text states, “A problem can occur when an introduced species does not face the natural predators, competitors, parasites, viruses, bacteria, or fungi that controlled its populations in its native habitat. This can allow some nonnative species to outcompete populations of many native species for food, disrupt ecosystem services, transmit new diseases, and lead to economic losses.”10 Although humans are not necessarily a nonnative species, we are currently behaving as such because we have no natural predator containing our populations and maintaining our resource consumption.

Florence Reed, founder of Sustainable Harvest International.11 235

When considering solutions to this global consumption and destruction epidemic, I believe Florence Reed’s efforts to establish sustainable farming practices serves as a perfect example on how to provide a lasting and impactful solution to these environmental problems we have caused. Inspired by her experience working as a Peace Corps volunteer in Panama and witnessing agriculture-motivated deforestation on a large scale, Reed founded Sustainable Harvest International in 1997 to educate farmers in developing nations on sustainable agricultural practices. Unlike some aid programs, this does not create a dependence on wealthier nations for resources, but instead empowers and raises people out of poverty. Once taught these growing techniques, farmers can then share them with others, and also earn extra income by selling the surplus of their crop yields. Establishing these types of sustainable practices that encourage consumption of locally produced goods not only stimulates local economies, but also decreases the dependence on other nations for foods that involve highly unsustainable growing, manufacturing, and shipping measures.

Question: In Chapter 10 of Living in the Environment, the text addressed the problem of overgrazing and its threat to grassland ecosystems, but did not mention the key factor driving this destruction. Is the failure by this text and the general public to confront the meat industry and its role in deforestation and ecological degradation only worsening our current environmental crises?

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 228.

2Miller, 193.

3Beats, Geo. “Global Wildlife Population Declined By 50% In Last 40 Years - Video Dailymotion.” Dailymotion. Dailymotion, September 30, 2014. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26ybub.

4Miller, 207.

5Miller, 216.

6Miller, 222.

7Miller, 231.

8Miller, 245.

9Miller, 235.

10Miller, 200.

11Miller, 235.

Practicum:

Over the course of this semester, I have supplemented my work in this class with my involvement in two of Fordham’s environmental-related organizations, the Social Innovation Collaboratory (SIC) and Students for Environmental Awareness and Justice (SEAJ). I first joined SIC at the start of this semester, and am involved in the Financial Inclusion, Systems Thinking, and Climate Impact Initiative groups, which amount to about five hours a week of collaboration and research. My work in the Climate Impact Initiative project most closely relates to this course, and I am able to contribute my findings from our readings and class discussions to our projects. Currently, we are working on evaluating Fordham’s environmental impact by using the program STARS, the sustainability tracking, assessment, and rating system utilized by many universities throughout the United States. Our findings so far have been a bit grim; Fordham is definitely not a leader in sustainability by any means whatsoever. We plan on reporting our research and final assessment to University authorities, along with a list of demands for a more sustainable campus. One of the most alarming areas of concern is Fordham’s food waste, and specifically its involvement with Aramark, our current food provider. Aramark is directly connected with the private prison industry, and Fordham’s refusal to break ties with this company while simultaneously claiming to be a Jesuit university is absolutely disgusting. Overall, my involvement with SIC has been incredibly rewarding, and I love being able to work with students who are just as passionate as I am about climate change and environmental justice. In addition to SIC, I have also been attending weekly SEAJ meetings, which provide a community for students to share and discuss our concerns about the current environmental crises we face. I have been involved with SEAJ over the past year, and I plan on applying for a position on the executive board to further contribute to this club. I contribute about an hour a week to this club. Lastly, I plan on conducting research on my interest in sustainable farming and local community gardens through participating in WWOOF over Easter break, and I hope my plans are not thwarted by the coronavirus. My participation in the mentioned organizations have allowed me to become more familiar with the topics we study in this course, as well as allow the opportunity to have thorough discussions and engage in impactful action related to our current environmental crises.  

[berniesandersniece]

Saving Biodiversity: Our Role in Halting Species Extinction and Ecosystem Degradation (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

Severe soil erosion caused by deforestation and overgrazing.1

When evaluating the earth’s current environmental crises, it is evident that humans are the key player in causing ocean acidification, habitat destruction, water and air pollution, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and the many other problems we force upon the planet’s species and ecosystems. Chapter 9 of Living in the Environment discusses these issues and what must be done to reverse and repair them, specifically regarding species and ecosystem services. The text begins by examining honeybees and their role in one of the earth’s most important ecosystem services: pollination. Since 1980, human activities have caused a dramatic decrease in their populations, especially as our own species’s population rapidly increases; however, bees are not the only species currently under threat from humans. Species are becoming extinct at least 1,000 times faster than the historical rate, which is about one species per year for every one million species on earth.2 This alarmingly high rate has led researchers to believe that the earth is currently experiencing its sixth mass extinction, which will likely severely impair vital ecosystem services and wipe out at least 20-50% of all species on earth within our lifetime. Researchers working on the Living Planet Index, created by the London Zoological Society and the World Wildlife Federation state, “Given the pace and scale of change, we can no longer exclude the possibility of reaching critical tipping points that could abruptly and irreversibly change living conditions on earth.”3 The great diversity of species on earth provide ecosystem and economic services that sustain not only humans, but all other residents of our planet. It is evident that we must try to sustain these wild species, not only because we benefit greatly from them, but also because they too have a right to live on the earth.

A critically endangered white northern rhinoceros killed by a poacher in South Africa.4

The acronym HIPPCO is useful when considering how our harmful actions are currently accelerating species extinction and the degradation of ecosystem services. Consisting of Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Population growth, Pollution, Climate change, and Overexploitation, HIPPCO explains how humans are directly causing the current unnatural rate of species extinction. According to the text, establishing and enforcing national environmental laws and creating and protecting wildlife sanctuaries could provide a solution to sustaining these species. By following the precautionary principle and taking preventative measures to protect the environment instead of constantly cleaning up the messes we have created, we may hope to restore ecosystems and slow the current species extinction rate.

Ways you can prevent extinction of wild species.5

Chapter 10 of Living in the Environment continues the conversation about our role in sustaining biodiversity by discussing ecosystems and the services they provide, specifically terrestrial ecosystems. In the past 8,000 years, human activities have wiped out over 50% of earth’s forests. United Nations environmental bodies have commented on this massive destruction of natural capital, stating, “Unless radical and creative action is taken to conserve the earth’s biodiversity, many local and regional ecosystems that help to support human lives and livelihoods are at risk of collapsing.”6 Currently, unsustainable deforestation and climate change are the primary threats to forest ecosystems, which provide many vital ecosystem services, including reducing soil erosion, purifying air and water, removing carbon from the atmosphere, and supporting energy flow and chemical cycling. These services amount to an estimated minimum of $125 trillion every year, a value far greater than the value of wood and other raw materials they provide. By emphasizing this great economic value, we may hope to better manage and sustain forests without which we could not live. Several steps to achieve this goal include halting government subsidies that encourage deforestation, protecting old-growth forests, improving the management of forest fires, reducing the demand for harvested trees, and planting trees to reestablish forests.7

Map of biological hotspots.8

Forests are not the only ecosystems being severely degraded by human activities. Grasslands, which cover one fourth of the earth’s land surface, are under threat from overgrazing, development, and climate change. Like forests, grasslands provide numerous important ecosystem services including soil formation, erosion control, chemical cycling, and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The text emphasizes protecting biodiversity hotspots found within these ecosystems is especially important. These pertain to areas, such as Madagascar, rich in highly endangered species found nowhere else on earth that are now extremely threatened by human activities. Only around six percent of the earth’s land is strictly protected from the destructive touch of humanity, which is incredibly concerning as our world continues to sink into environmental collapse.

Ways to protect tropical forests.9

Something I found particularly interesting in Chapter 9 of Living in the Environment was the emphasis placed on invasive species as a global threat to species extinction and environmental degradation. Humans are to blame for introducing nonnative species that end up severely impairing their host ecosystems, but what we fail to realize is that in some ways we are currently acting similarly to an invasive species ourselves. Our population has surged and reaches almost every corner of the world, and with that has brought death and destruction to many species and ecosystems. We currently deplete natural capital at an alarming and unsustainable rate, leaving little to no resources for other species whom we share the earth with. The text states, “A problem can occur when an introduced species does not face the natural predators, competitors, parasites, viruses, bacteria, or fungi that controlled its populations in its native habitat. This can allow some nonnative species to outcompete populations of many native species for food, disrupt ecosystem services, transmit new diseases, and lead to economic losses.”10 Although humans are not necessarily a nonnative species, we are currently behaving as such because we have no natural predator containing our populations and maintaining our resource consumption.

Florence Reed, founder of Sustainable Harvest International.11 235

When considering solutions to this global consumption and destruction epidemic, I believe Florence Reed’s efforts to establish sustainable farming practices serves as a perfect example on how to provide a lasting and impactful solution to these environmental problems we have caused. Inspired by her experience working as a Peace Corps volunteer in Panama and witnessing agriculture-motivated deforestation on a large scale, Reed founded Sustainable Harvest International in 1997 to educate farmers in developing nations on sustainable agricultural practices. Unlike some aid programs, this does not create a dependence on wealthier nations for resources, but instead empowers and raises people out of poverty. Once taught these growing techniques, farmers can then share them with others, and also earn extra income by selling the surplus of their crop yields. Establishing these types of sustainable practices that encourage consumption of locally produced goods not only stimulates local economies, but also decreases the dependence on other nations for foods that involve highly unsustainable growing, manufacturing, and shipping measures.

Question: In Chapter 10 of Living in the Environment, the text addressed the problem of overgrazing and its threat to grassland ecosystems, but did not mention the key factor driving this destruction. Is the failure by this text and the general public to confront the meat industry and its role in deforestation and ecological degradation only worsening our current environmental crises?

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 228.

2Miller, 193.

3Beats, Geo. “Global Wildlife Population Declined By 50% In Last 40 Years - Video Dailymotion.” Dailymotion. Dailymotion, September 30, 2014. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x26ybub.

4Miller, 207.

5Miller, 216.

6Miller, 222.

7Miller, 231.

8Miller, 245.

9Miller, 235.

10Miller, 200.

11Miller, 235.

[berniesandersniece]

The Impossible Hamster:  the Unsustainability of Overpopulation and Overconsumption (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

 1”The Impossible Hamster”

Imagine if a hamster maintained a constant rate of growth throughout its entire first year of life. The New Economic Foundation’s “The Impossible Hamster” depicts this situation, which results in a nine billion ton hamster, capable of consuming the world’s entire annual production of corn in a single day.2 Of course, this situation is only hypothetical, as species existing in nature can only grow to a certain size in order to maintain a stable population. The question is, therefore, do these same limits to growth apply to the human population as well? Further, is the concept of constant growth in human economies a realistic and sustainable principle?

Chapter 6 of Living in the Environment considers these questions, examining how many humans the earth can support, factors that influence the human population, and slowing population growth. When studying the current size, growth rate, and distribution of the human population, demographers recognize three key trends: the world’s population is continuing to grow despite a decrease in the rate of population growth in most years since 1965, human population growth is unevenly distributed with 98% of new individuals being added in less-developed countries, and a large movement from rural to urban areas. There is disagreement on whether there are limits to human and economic growth, especially considering constant developments in technology. However, the global economy fails to provide basic necessities of life to over one billion people, which seems like a clear indicator of unequal resource distribution and consumption.

3Population growth in less-developed countries v. more-developed countries.

When looking at the size of the human population, the main influences are current death, birth, and fertility rates, as well as migration and age structure. The text concludes that reducing poverty by means of economic development, elevating the status of women worldwide, and encouraging family planning will slow population growth. Demographers have determined that demographic transitions occur as countries become industrialized and more economically developed, which generates a per capita rise in income, decrease in poverty, and a slow in population growth.

4Woman in Nepal bringing home firewood, which takes 2 hours 2-3 times per week.

Some economists argue that the implementation of a steady-state economy, made up of a constant population size as well as a constant stock of capital, would work to solve the current human population predicament.5 Similarly, a plenitude economy argues that decreasing consumption and working hours will reduce environmental impact and instead build social capital by making a commitment to social interaction and community.6 This type of anti-consumerist ideology is supported by the Degrowth movement, whose advocates believe that overconsumption lies at the root of environmental issues and social inequalities.7 Instead of finding happiness in consumption, they encourage maximizing well-being through non-consumptive means, including devoting more time to the arts and community.

Chapter 22 of Living in the Environment examines the human population in regards to urbanization, the creation and growth of urban areas. More than half the world’s population lives in urban areas, with 244,000 individuals migrating to these areas each day. Three important trends to consider when looking at urbanization include: the percentage of the global population living in urban areas has increased sharply, the sizes of urban areas are increasing, and poverty is becoming increasingly urbanized, especially in less-developed countries. One negative effect of urbanization is urban sprawl, the term given to the growth of low density development on edges of urban areas which destroys local ecosystems and increases air and water pollution. Other negative effects include large ecological footprints, a lack of vegetation, excessive noise, and local climate effects. The one billion urban dwellers who live in poverty are forced to bear the burden of these effects; those residing in slums are faced with severe pollution and a lack of electricity or clean water supplies.

8Large network of roads in car-dependent cities, such as this one in Los Angeles. 

When looking at the negative results of urbanization, it becomes clear how important sustainable land-planning can be; dividing the best uses of land by zoning allows for growth control and protection of ecosystems. Sustainable community development allows for cities or towns to focus on growing local produce, generating their own carbon-neutral energy, and reducing the use of motor vehicles by establishing effective mass transit systems. Initiatives in many cities worldwide, including New York City’s PlaNYC9 and Transition Towns10, have been made to reduce their ecological impacts as well as address the human population issue.

I believe Mark Albion’s “The Good Life” perfectly encapsulates our current economic and social addiction to consumption and growth.11 In the short film, Albion describes his encounter with a fisherman in a small coastal town as he tries to convince the man to increase his product quantity, develop his own business, and create growth and wealth. At the end of the day, Albion says, the man will be able to retire, enjoy his life, and spend time with his family. What Albion failed to recognize, however, is that in living a simple life and effectively balancing work and social time, the man was already happy. Mainstream culture teaches us that success equates to money, which allows for uncapped consumption which is the only path to fulfillment and happiness. Evidently, this is not true, and this cycle of overconsumption and an unrelentless desire for growth on every level only leads to social inequities, ecological devastation, and ultimately a lack of happiness and an overload of stress, especially for vulnerable communities.

12Depicts 183,000 birds, the estimated amount of birds that die every day in the United States from exposure to agricultural pesticides. 

Reversing this ravenous cycle will not be easy by any means, especially considering the high consumption rates and resource uses of the average US citizen. Part of the problem, contemporary artist Chris Jordan suggests, is that we as a society have a difficult time understanding the raw numbers associated with the current ecological state of our country. Through his work Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait, Jordan hopes to make meaning of numbers, and states, “Employing themes such as the near versus the far, and the one versus the many, I hope to raise some questions about the roles and responsibilities we each play as individuals in a collective that is increasingly enormous, incomprehensible, and overwhelming.”13 I believe it is incredibly important to realize the individual impacts each of us have living in highly developed industrial first-world nations, and refrain from placing the blame our ecological crisis on complex systemic issues like poverty, as the text frequently does. Not only is this objective view of poverty incredibly ignorant, but it also fails to place responsibility on wealthier industrialized nations for creating these systems of poverty in the first place.

Question: Steady-state and plentitude economies are a direct contradiction of the constant and continuous growth principle that rules economics; considering this, how might we facilitate a transition to a more sustainable economy?

1“The Impossible Hamster.” Vimeo. New Economics Foundation, November 14, 2018. https://vimeo.com/8947526.

2“The Impossible Hamster.”, 0.34 min. 

3Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 121.

4Miler, 131.

5“Steady-State Economy.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, March 1, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy.

6“Visualizing a Plentitude Economy.” Youtube. Center for a New American Dream, September 15, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR-YrD_KB0M&t=7s.

7“Degrowth.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 17, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth, 1. 

8Miller, 615.

9“PlaNYC.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, November 1, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlaNYC, 1. 

10“Transition Town.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 14, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_town, 1. 

11Albion, Mark. “More Than Money- What Is ‘The Good Life’ Parable.” Youtube. Berrett Koehler, August 8, 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7JlI959slY.

12Jordan, Chris. “Running the Numbers.” Chris Jordan Photography, 2008. http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/rtn/#about, 1. 

13Jordan, 1. 

[berniesandersniece]

The Complex Relationship between Politics, Economies, and the Environment (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

A thorough comprehension of the relationship between the human constructs of economics, politics, and law and our biosphere is essential to understanding and addressing our current global environmental crisis. Chapter 23 of Living in the Environment provides insight into how our global economy is functioning unsustainability, and what we can do to change that. The term economics refers to how scarce resources are distributed in a society, relying on human capital, manufactured capital, and, most importantly, natural capital.

1Inputs of the economy rely on natural capital in addition to manufactured and human capital.

The earth’s resources and ecosystem services provide the foundation for human economies. While neoclassical economists view natural capital as an unlimited factor of the human economy, ecological economists understand that human economic systems are subsystems of our bisophere. The latter recognize that economic growth becomes unsustainable when it degrades or depletes natural capital. This is the case in many industrialized nations which depend on high-throughput economies, which attempt to boost growth by increasing the flow of resources through an economic system to provide more goods and services. Viewing higher rates of production and consumption as an indicator of economic growth has proven to be unsustainable, as our current human economies have already pushed beyond many ecosystem services’ natural thresholds.

2Body of water polluted by copper mining operation, degrading natural capital.

A steady-state economy model, on the other hand, values sustainable innovation, development, and improvement over growth. In this model, all resources would be recycled and reused to benefit all, much like a natural ecosystem. Although there would be no overall growth, many environmental economists approve of this model as a sustainable alternative to our current destructive patterns of overconsumption and waste. This model may become a reality as many businesses transition to more sustainable practices, incentivised by the positive potential of environmental investments and research.

3Hidden costs of mining and drilling are not factored into market prices.

Markets often fail to provide environmental protections because they do not assign monetary value to the many benefits provided by earth’s natural capital. Many economists and environmental experts call for full-cost pricing, which would include the typically hidden costs associated with environmental harm in the market price of a good or service. Environmentalist and businessman Paul Hawken states, “If we have doubts about how to value a 500-year-old tree, we need only ask how much it would cost to make a new one from scratch? Or a new river? Or a new atmosphere?” 4 Many ecosystem services are irreplaceable and virtually impossible to replicate artificially, which places them at a high economic value. A 1997 study on the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital estimated its monetary value to be US $33 trillion.5 The researchers determined that this value will only increase as resources continue being depleted and become more scarce. Including ecosystem services in market prices would dramatically increase the prices of goods and services depending on these services. Currently, that value has increased to $125 trillion per year. In addition to full-cost pricing, other economic tools we can use to address environmental problems include phasing out perverse subsidies, implementing green taxes, labeling environmentally beneficial goods and services, and enacting environmental laws and regulations.

6Chart showing environmental policy-making process.

Chapter 24 of Living in the Environment discusses the role of the government in instituting such economic tools and making the transition to a sustainable society. Economic policy is heavily involved in this, which is developed and executed through the democratic process. However, problems arise when powerful corporations and wealthy individuals gain more influence over the political process than the average citizen. This has led to numerous environmental injustices, disproportionately affecting poorer communities of color and sparing the white and wealthy. The EPA lists at least 76 studies which show discrimination in relation to environmental justice; studies have proven that a large share of polluting factories, incinerators, and landfills in the United States are located in communities populated by African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. 7 However, a 2015 study showed that the EPA dismissed 95% of environmental justice claims. This is where environmental law, which aims to protect both ecosystems and individuals from environmental abuses, comes into play. Unfortunately, the judicial system can often work against victims; statutes of limitations can prevent people from suing if the damages, such as negative health effects, occur after a certain time, courts can often take years to reach a decision while damaging effects continue to take place, and some developers even file strategic lawsuits against public participation aimed at intimidating and discouraging individuals and groups who criticize their harmful activities.

8Residents of Detroit protesting for the shutting down of a medical waste incinerator which was polluting the air in their community.

The government’s failure to address these issues and the continued exploitation of natural capital by many corporations have ignited momentum in tens of thousands of nonprofit nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide. Many of these large groups such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International have become influential in lobbying for sustainable policies and supporting political candidates who vow to protect the environment. Grassroots organizations and youth leaders have proven that political change comes from the bottom up; individual actions such as lobbying, campaigning for ecologically literate candidates, voting with your wallet, and running for office all contribute to the growing environmental movement.

9Greenpeace protesters fighting against the Japanese whaling industry.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ernest Partridge and his argument that the United States has become a society dominated by overconsumption, greed, and manipulation, three factors at the root of all environmental injustices. Partridge asks, “Are we Americans regarded by our ‘leaders’ as free and rational citizens of a functioning democracy, or merely as an aggregate of isolated and mindless consumers?”10 We have become addicted to consumption, facing an insatiable desire to accumulate unnecessary things. Partridge argues that there is a distinction between consumers and citizens; Americans have become model consumers, controlled like puppets by the “oligarchy”, the top one percent wealthy individuals who have perfected the art of influence and exploitation. This “standard of living” we are told we must have has proven to be unsustainable in every way imaginable, negatively affecting the most vulnerable human communities and virtually every biome on earth. This is the inevitable result of unchecked capitalism that values profit over lives and blatantly ignores the injustices forced upon humans and the environment. The fact that the world’s wealthiest 62 people possess as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion people is absolutely disgusting.

This dynamic of unbridled overconsumption that benefits a select few while dramatically harming billions of others is no doubt at the root of our current environmental crisis. The environmental movement is gaining momentum, fighting for environmental justice and protections against the corporations and billionaires who wield great economic and political power. As the United States enters a major election year, the opportunity for an environmental revolution opens. Supporting candidates with an ambitious environmental plan and consistent politics, like Bernie Sanders, is crucial to overturning the imbalance of power in the United States and establishing a sustainable future for generations to come.

Living in the Environment proposes full-cost pricing as a means of accounting for environmental harms in the production of a good or service. The burdens of environmental degradation are proven to disproportionately affect the poor and communities of color. Would this “solution” only make access to basic goods like food and shelter even more inaccessible for those communities, while allowing the rich to continue consuming at an unsustainable rate?

Words: 1120

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 632.

2Miller, 665.

3Miller, 638.

4Miller, 639.

5Costanza, Robert, et. al. “The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.” Nature, May 15, 1997, 1. 

6Miller, 660.

7Miller, 658.

8Miller, 658.

9Miller, 668.

10Partridge, Ernest. “Consumer or Citizen?” Online Gadfly. The Gadfly Bytes, April 2002. http://gadfly.igc.org/politics/left/consumer.htm, 1. 

[berniesandersniece]

Vitamin G Deficiency: the Modern Disconnect Between Humans and Nature (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

In past chapters of his work Living in the Environment, Miller has touched on numerous current environmental crises, including ocean acidification, the rapid extinction of species, increasing carbon emissions, and the rapidly growing human population accompanied by an insatiable demand for natural capital. Government leaders are being pressured by the public to address these many problems, but often it seems that Congress is not adequately responding. In Chapter 25, Miller goes into depth on the dissent between environmental worldviews, which often prevent much needed change from happening. A person’s environmental worldview, which is essentially how one views their relationship with nature, is determined by their environmental ethics, the distinction between right and wrong behavior in one’s relationship with the environment. A human-centered worldview states that as the planet’s dominant species, humans should manage the earth for our benefit. A life-centered worldview, on the other hand, assumes humanity has an ethical responsibility to prevent the extinction of species through human activities.  Further, an earth-centered worldview takes on an ethical responsibility to preserve not just species, but all ecosystems and the biodiversity within them.

With a variety of environmental worldviews comes the challenge of determining how land should be managed, and who makes that decision. In the United States, the government manages 35% of the country’s land, which technically then belongs to every American citizen. 40% of this land managed by the Bureau of Land Management is utilized for mining, logging, oil and gas extraction, and livestock raising. There is a large division between environmental advocates and developers as to how public lands should be treated. The former believes the lands should be used for protecting biodiversity, whereas the latter pushes for the best economical use of the lands regardless of the damage that may ensue.

1Interacting with nature.

At the heart of the environmental debate, Miller argues, is the modern disconnect between humans and nature. The concept of nature-deficit disorder explains how some psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, and attention-deficit disorders, may result from or be exacerbated by a lack of exposure to nature. Richard Louv’s Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder explains the basis of this concept; we are all still biologically hunters and gatherers, so there remains in us an unexplained need for interaction with nature. In his “Land Ethic”, American ecologist Aldo Leopold presents his vision of a world where relationships between people and nature are intertwined. He states, “When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”2 Leopold’s land ethic depends on the concept of biophilia, which Edward O. Wilson describes as an “innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms” 3 The emotional, psychological, and social benefits of interaction with nature have instigated movements such as No Child Left Behind Act of 2009, which sought to encourage environmental education for children.

4Ways to live sustainably.

Forming a relationship with the earth is just one way we can learn to live more sustainably. Ghandi once stated, “The earth provides enough to satisfy every person’s need but not every person’s greed...When we take more than what we need, we are simply taking from each other, borrowing from the future, or destroying the environment and other species.”4 Other methods of sustainable living include relying more on renewable energy resources, protecting biodiversity, and leaving the earth in a condition better than how we found it for future generations.

The degradation of our ecosystems has not only negatively affected many animal and plant species, but also the most vulnerable human communities. In his Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, J. Baird Callicott explains the history and current predicament of environmental justice. Beginning in the 1980s, the modern environmental justice movement gained momentum with rising concerns from the public in regards to a concentration of environmental-related health issues in lower-class communities and communities of color, which typically were situated close to industrial plants, toxic landfills, and hazardous waste facilities. Research showed that although socioeconomic status did affect where these facilities were located, race was the more significant determining factor. An advocate against environmental racism, Reverend Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. described this as:

“racial discrimination in environmental policy making, and the unequal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations . . . the deliberate targeting of people of color communities for toxic waste facilities . . .the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in people of color communities for toxic waste facilities . . . the history of excluding people of color from the leadership of the environmental movement.”5

According to Callicott, the burdens of climate change are likely to increase the population of environmentally displaced people to 250 million by 2050. Intergenerational justice, a component of environmental justice, refers to the obligations members of one generation have to past or future generations. We have a duty to protect others from injustices; this concept applies not only to all those currently affected by environmental abuses, but also those in the future that may be negatively affected by our current exploitation of the environment.

6Advocating for the environment.

Chapter 25 of Living in the Environment begins with a quote from environmentalist David W. Orr in which he states, “The sustainability revolution is nothing less than a rethinking and remaking of our role in the natural world.”7. This is true, but purely from a Western, Eurocentric point of view. In this case, the word “our” excludes all those cultures who have already been living sustainably, especially indigenous communities throughout the world. The environmental movement has a bleak history of excluding people of color and indigenous peoples, whose leadership and knowledge surrounding sustainability could be vital to the movement. This is an instance of “arrogant ignorance”, the same concept Wendell Berry associates with the phrase “save the earth”.8 Life on earth has been sustained for 3.8 billion years; humanity will never destroy the planet, but we do have the power to destroy ourselves.

Many indigenous cultures possess an environmental wisdom worldview, seeing nature as a great and powerful teacher from which we can learn many lessons. The narcissistic perspective that humans are somehow above all other species is disgusting, and deprives all other life of rights and dignity. Viewing land as merely something to be conquered and ravaged for resources instead of a beautifully diverse haven for life has proven to be destructive for many animal, plant, and human communities. Author Dennis McPherson states, “Just because a certain way of looking at the world is useful does not imply that it is an accurate representation of the way the world actually is...in the long run, the ultimate pragmatic test of a worldview is how well it helps the holders of that view to survive.”9 The current worldviews of the Trump administration, responsible for the largest reduction in protection lands in history, prove how a human-centered worldview may become detrimental to our survival as a human species.10

11The Arctic National Wildlife Refugee in Alaska, US Interior Department is set to auction off land to oil and gas drillers. 

Many legislators faced with making important decisions regarding our current climate crisis are backed by developers, big-business owners, and wealthy conservative individuals who want nothing more than a total abandonment of environmental regulations and protections. How do citizens demanding climate action stop these selfish few individuals from preventing change?

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 691.

2“The Land Ethic.” The Aldo Leopold Foundation. Accessed February 12, 2020. https://www.aldoleopold.org/about/the-land-ethic/, 1.

3Callicott, J. Baird., and Robert Frodeman. Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2009, 109.

4Miller, 693.

5Callicott, 343.

6Miller, 692.

7Miller, 681.

8Miller, 683.

9MacPherson, Dennis H., and John Douglas. Rabb. Indian from the inside: a Study in Ethno-Metaphysics. Thunder Bay, Ont.: Lakehead Univ., 1993, 26.

10Robbins, Jim. “Open for Business: The Trump Revolution on America's Public Lands.” Yale E360. Accessed October 8, 2019. https://e360.yale.edu/features/open-for-business-the-trump-revolution-on-public-lands, 1.

11Robbins, 1. 

[berniesandersniece]

The Collapse of Modern Society (Revised)

           The word “history” is most often associated with past civilizations, wars, leaders, and other great milestones and achievements of humanity. The traditional subject of history typically begins around 5000 BCE with the development of agriculture and the establishment of major civilizations; while it centers on humankind as the focus of study, conventional history fails to view humanity in the larger context of the history of the universe. Big History, a term coined by historian David Christian in the 1990s, involves the interdisciplinary, big picture study of science and humanities to examine human existence. According to Christian, the very little time our planet and species has existed for is only understandable when viewing it from the context of the universe’s fourteen billion-year-old history. His study of Big History consists of nine “threshold moments”: the Big Bang and the creation of the universe (13 billion years ago), the creation of stars as the first complex objects (12 billion ya), the creation of chemical elements inside dying stars required for chemically-complex objects, the formation of planets more chemically complex than stars, the creation and evolution of life (3.8 billion ya), the development of our speciesHomo sapiens(250,000 ya), the appearance of agriculture which allowed for more complex societies (11,000 ya), the “modern revolution” which brought the world into the modern era, and finally whatever will happen in the future and predicting the next threshold of history.1 

2 Natural Timeline of Universe.

Each of these thresholds represents a level of increasing complexity brought on by “Goldilocks conditions”, a set of very exact circumstances required for complex forms to exist. When looking at Christian’s final few thresholds, it is evident that Goldilocks conditions along with increasingly advanced human civilizations have allowed the human population to flourish in large numbers.

3 Goldilocks Conditions of Planet Earth, Neither too Close or Too Far from the Sun.

           Throughout the past century, the amount of humans on Earth has exploded at an exponential rate. In 4 BCE, just 250 million Homo sapiens sapiensexisted. By 1850 CE, that number had quadrupled, and the human population reached one billion over the course of three to five million years. Another billion humans were added to that number over only 80 years, and the human population reached three billion in 1958, four billion in 1975, five billion in 1988, and six billion in 2000. Currently, there are almost nine billion humans on Earth, and that number is expected to reach twelve billion by 2060. Humans account for 36% of all mammals, and another 60% consists of mammals we raise for food, with wild mammals consisting of only 4%. It is evident humanity has come to dominate the planet. 4 We are currently living in what scientists refer to as the Anthropocene, the geological epoch beginning with the significant human impact on Earth’s ecosystems and geology. 

5 The Anthropocene.

           Through carbon emissions, the construction of roads and dams, soil degradation, deforestation, and other destructive activities, humans have brought on anthropogenic climate change, along with a severe negative impact on Earth’s ecosystems and biodiversity. Proposed starting dates of the Anthropocene range from the Agricultural Revolution 12,000 years ago to the arrival of Europeans in the Americas all the way to the 1960s, but it is agreed that the Industrial Revolution was the time that significantly accelerated humanity’s damages to Earth. 6

           According to historian Jared Diamond, author of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, the damages humans are currently inflicting upon our environment on a large scale are not entirely unique to our modern era. Diamond determines instances of past societal collapse have come down to five main factors: climate change, hostile neighbors, collapse of essential trading partners, environmental problems, and society’s response to the foregoing four factors.7 He states, “In fact, one of the main lessons to be learned from the collapses of the Maya, Anasazi, Easter Islanders, and those other past societies…is that a society’s steep decline may begin only a decade or two after society reaches its peak numbers, wealth, and power.” 8. This evidence is particularly alarming as the human population nears its potential carrying capacity; Earth’s sixth major extinction may be imminent.

9Easter Island, the Best Example of Societal Collapse According to Diamond.

           The four major eras of US environmental history depict how the country’s relationship with the diverse ecosystems of the Americas over the past several hundred years. They consist of the Tribal Era (13,000 years ago-1600s), the Frontier Era (1607-1890), the Early Conservationist Era (1832-1870), and 1870- present times.10 The case study of the American bison examined by the text reflects the changes that occurred throughout these four eras. In 1500 CE, 30-60 million bison roamed the plains of North America, and were the center of life for many American Indian tribes. The arrival of European colonists and their frontier environmental world-view saw the Americas, American Indian tribes, and the bison as wilderness to be conquered by the white man. Bison were slaughtered by the millions for meat and entertainment by Europeans moving west, and even the US Army took part in this killing to drive tribes from their land. By 1892, only 85 bison remained; the endangerment of this species also brought on the endangerment of many Plains Indian tribes.

11Portrait of Plenty Coups.

           Plenty Coups, leader of the Crow Nation in the early 1900s, said, “…when the buffalo went away the hearts of my people fell to the ground, and they could not life them up again. After this nothing happened.”12 The bison was relied on not only for its physical contributions to many tribes, but also as a prominent spiritual figure. After the bison was driven to near extinction, many tribes were traumatized and stripped of their identities. In his work An American Urphilosophie, author Robert Bunge states, “Would you [want to] know how an area is faring ecologically speaking, look then at the Indian population, for they reflect the ecological balance or lack of it in an exact manner.”13 Although the bison became protected and its population slowly grew, the effects the loss in numbers on many American Indian tribes have only worsened. Many tribes today are burdened with addiction, mental illness, poverty, and continuing attacks on their land and culture from the US government who continues to neglect and abuse them. With the critical climate conditions we are currently facing, the intimate bond between many American Indians and their land may hold the answers of how to address our environmental crisis; however, they are rarely included in the conversation despite having a deep knowledge of sustainable practices. As Diamond states in his book, the most vulnerable populations will be forced to bear the brunt of environmental degradation, and the many American Indian tribes living in the United States are no exception to this. As Americans, we are living on stolen land and are continuing to abuse it in the most profane matter; if major changes are not made in philosophy, lifestyle, and industry, our society will collapse.

How could looking to other environmental philosophies be beneficial in addressing our current climate crisis?

1“Big History.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 20, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_History, 3.

2 ”Big History”, 3.

3“Big History”, 3.

4 Stoll, Steven. U.S. Environmentalism since 1945: a Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007.

5 Bliss, Sam. “The Anthropocene Is Here, Whether Geologists Make It Official or Not.” Grist. Grist, October 20, 2014. https://grist.org/climate-energy/the-anthropocene-is-here-whether-geologists-make-it-official-or-not/, 1.

6 “Anthropocene.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, February 6, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene.

7“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, January 19, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed, 2.

8Diamond, Jared M. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin, 2011, 509.

9“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”, 1.

10Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 20.

11“Plenty Coups.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, November 19, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenty_Coups, 1.

12Lear, Jonathan. Radical Hope Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation. Londres (Inglaterra): Harvard University Press, 2008, 4.

13Bunge, Robert. An American Urphilosophie: an American Philosophy, BP (before Pragmatism). Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984, 84.

[berniesandersniece]

The Interconnectedness of Life on Earth (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

By taking a look at the phylogenetic tree, one can observe the evolutionary path that has resulted in Homo sapiens sapiens, the human species equipped with opposable thumbs, the ability to stand upright, and a complex brain. These adaptations have allowed humans to become the dominant species on earth, capable of manipulating the planet’s natural capital on a large scale. However, we often forget that humans are in fact animals who share the earth with millions of other species. In his work Earth’s Mind: Essays in Native Literature Professor Roger Dunsmore explores the American Indian philosophy humanity’s place in nature, stating, “When we deny significance to other life forms, we deny significance to those parts of ourselves that were formed in our journey through them.”1 This interconnectedness of life is found not only in the phylogenetic tree, but also in the variety of ecosystems and the diversity of species within them. Currently, humanity’s insatiable desire for natural capital and the major side effects of those processes are altering natural systems, degrading biomes, and threatening the biodiversity on earth. By negatively impacting these, we are threatening the vitality of millions of species, including our own.

According to the text Living in the Environment, the three factors that sustain life on earth include solar energy, the cycling of nutrients, and gravity2. Unlike fossil fuels which are contained in earth’s crust in limited supply, solar energy is a renewable resource, indefinitely warming the earth and providing energy for plant growth. Solar energy is essential to photosynthesis, originally catalyzed by cyanobacteria which first released oxygen into our atmosphere. Phytoplankton and ultraplankton are two microorganisms responsible for producing about half of the earth’s oxygen supply, and therefore are vital to sustaining life on our planet. In addition to adding oxygen to our atmosphere, they also play a role in the carbon cycle by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. However, humans have also been interfering in this cycle, and unsurprisingly in a detrimental way.

Since the 1960s, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been consistently rising as a result of human activity. Burning fossil fuels, deforestation, forest fires, and transportation have all contributed to rising carbon dioxide levels, which have resulted in ocean acidification and rising temperatures. As one of several greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide plays a role in the greenhouse effect, which when functioning normally determines the earth's temperature and climate. Without this process, earth would be extremely cold and void of life; however, very large quantities of greenhouse gases can be detrimental to life. Humans are currently emitting carbon dioxide faster than it can be removed by the earth’s natural processes. Over the last 50 years, emissions have warmed the earth and significantly changed the climate.

Carbon Cycle, Red Arrows Showing Human Contributions to Levels of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere.3

This climate change has raised ocean levels, threatened biomes, and put many species at risk of extinction. In addition to change in climate, ecosystems also face direct threats from humans as we ravage them for natural capital. Many areas have been degraded to their ecological tipping point at which positive feedback loops are locked in place and the natural system can no longer self-correct. Deserts are just one type of biome that is especially vulnerable to human activity because of slow nutrient cycling and low species diversity. Tropical rain forests, which contain just 2% of earth’s land surface but at least 50% of all known species, have already been significantly destroyed at rates that are only increasing.4 At least half of all tropical rain forests on earth have been affected by humans, along with them their vastly diverse species which reside in highly specialized niches. Mountains, which contain water sources vital to over four billion people, are also at risk from the timber and agricultural industries. Overall, at least 60% of the world’s major terrestrial ecosystems are being degraded or used unsustainably, as shown by the figure below.

Natural Capital Degradation from Human Activities.5

Our destructive ways of living have also significantly affected the world’s water supply; ocean acidification, rising sea levels, overfishing, and harmful pollutants have degraded ocean and freshwater ecosystems. The oceans are vital to maintaining the earth’s biodiversity, and in turn its natural capital. Ocean researcher Sylvia Earle states, “The bottom line answer to the question about why biodiversity matters is fairly simple. The rest of the living world can get along without us but we can’t get along without them.”6 In fact, it is arguable that the world would be much better off without humans; we are negatively affecting life on earth much more than we are contributing to its vitality. Throughout the history of the earth, there have been five major natural extinctions– some scientists believe human activity is bringing on the 6th. We are currently experiencing a high extinction rate, and many species are expected to become extinct within the next 50 to 100 years.

Chart of Five Mass Extinctions, Predicting Human Activity Causing the 6th.7

Despite the overwhelming evidence that climate change is a direct result of human activity, some self-seeking individuals and proponents of “fake news” have used their authority to convince others that it is simply a natural process. While an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence suggests this could not be further from the truth, refusing to acknowledge humanity’s contribution to the warming of our planet and the ecological destruction that accompanies it is very dangerous. Just last year, an area of the Amazon the size of New Jersey was engulfed in flames, destroying habitats and forcing many indigenous communities from their homes.8 There was a global outcry, and #prayfortheamazon was trending on all social media platforms. Many people were under the assumption that, similarly to the fires in California and Australia, this was a natural disaster. However, a majority of the burning was caused directly by humans as a part of deforestation to clear land for agriculture and cattle. Politics plays a major role in this crisis; Brazil’s newly elected president Jair Bolsonaro was responsible for cutting environmental protections in the Amazon in favor of loggers. Those who sought to protect the rain forest are also put at risk. Paulo “Lobo” Paulino Guajajara (shown below), a leader of the “Forest Guardians” of the Guajajara tribe in the Amazon, was ambushed and shot dead by loggers. In a statement from the Guajajara Guardians of Arariboia Indigenous Territory, leaders state, “The protection of our land and its biodiversity has always been our struggle and always will be. It does not depend on politics or money. It is simply a matter of life and death for us, our relatives and future generations.”9 The violence of ecological degradation has proven to be deadly not only for many plant and animal species, but also for indigenous communities and other vulnerable populations whose way of life is closely tied to the earth.

In this day and age, reliable science is more important than ever when educating the public on the effects of climate change and humanity’s role in the process. How do we convince those, especially people in positions of authority, who refuse to acknowledge that climate change and ecological degradation is in fact a real and pressing issue that it must be addressed?

Words: 1175

1​Dunsmore, Roger. 1997. ​Earth's Mind: Essays in Native Literature​. (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press), 42.

2Miller, G. Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. 2018. ​Living in the Environment.​ (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning), 51. 3​Miller, 65. 4Miller, 158.

5Miller, 161. 6Miller, 81. 7Miller, 93. 8Borunda, Alejandra. 2019. “See How Much of the Amazon Is Burning, How It Compares to Other Years.” National Geographic. August 29, 2019. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/amazon-fires-cause-deforestation-graphic-map/#close, 3.

9Guajajara Guardians of Arariboia Indigenous Territory, Brazil. “Amazon Guardians Respond to Killing of Paulo Paulino Guajajara.” Survival International, November 18, 2019. https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/12268, 1.

[berniesandersniece]

The Fluid Mosaic of Planet Earth (Revised)

Olivia Johnson

The biological term fluid mosaic is most commonly used to describe the phospholipid bilayer of plasma membranes encasing most cells, and refers how molecules move fluidly within the membrane, which is embedded with various kinds of proteins. Just as the fluid mosaic provides structure and variety on a cellular level, the term can also be applied on a much larger scale to illustrate the diversity and interconnectedness of the environment on earth. Various ecosystems, each containing numerous species, interact with each other in a careful balance, and small disruptions can pose large threats. The fluid mosaic of life on earth is currently under direct threat from human activity, which has resulted in the increasingly severe degradation of the earth’s natural capital, the ecosystem services and natural resources which sustain not only humans but all species on earth. The subject of environmental studies seeks to address the ecological challenges brought on by the reckless pillaging of natural capital. According to the text Living in the Environment, the integrating theme of all environmental issues is sustainability: the capacity of the earth to support all species and adapt to changing environmental conditions.

Figure 1, Natural Capital, Miller, 7.

Currently, humanity is operating unsustainably, depleting resources and producing pollution at above the earth’s natural ability to regulate. Several main causes of our current environmental crisis include exponential population growth, wasteful and unsustainable resource use, poverty, the omission of harmful environmental and health costs of goods and services in market prices, increasing isolation from nature, and competing environmental world views.

Figure 2, Natural Capital Degradation, Miller, 11.

Perhaps the most concerning of these causes is the final one; when people in positions of power refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence of the damning effects of environmental degradation, entire populations can be put at risk. Living in the Environment incorporates ethics into the issue, asking, “Should every person be entitled to equal protection from environmental hazards regardless of race, gender, age, national origin, income, social class, or any other factor?”1. The answer expressed by many business leaders, politicians, and other individuals holding a human-centered environmental worldview is a resounding no. This is especially evident when looking at the disparity between more-developed countries and less-developed countries in terms of natural capital consumption. More-developed countries which consist of 17% of the global population consume 70% of the world’s resources, while less-developed countries which consist of 83% of the global population consume only 30%2. 

Figure 3, Ecological Footprints, Miller, 13.

If everyone in the world consumed resources at the level of the United States in 2012, we would need five planet earths to sustain that demand. Even as a vegetarian who solely uses public transportation and attempts to live sustainably, we would still need 3.2 earths to sustain my own personal resource demands if everyone lived as such3.

Currently, our atmosphere, water resources, oceans, soil, forests, and living species are being degraded as a result of unsustainable human activity. However, this is by no means new information, and these concerns were outlined in the World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, a formal address represented by the Union of Concerned Scientists almost 30 years ago. The origin of environmental degradation on a large scale dates back long before the 1990s, and can be seen in the entitled and exploitative nature of Western colonialism which began in the 1500s. The “discovery” of the Americas was accompanied with the attitude that the earth was full of inexhaustible resources which were to be “conquered” by the white man and used in whatever way and extent he might please. This mindset is clearly still at play, even with 500 years of scientific research and undeniable evidence of ecological destruction. During the past century, rapid global industrialization has exacerbated existing environmental issues and introduced additional concerns. Public demands against harmful pollution resulted in the establishment of the United States’s Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, whose regulations were met with backlash from business leaders and the onset of disinformation campaigns in order to protect economic interests.

Scientific, unbiased reports are issued in order to combat “fake news” and other misinformation that might hinder efforts to control and heal our environment. Published in 2005, the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provided a comprehensive summary of the current environmental concerns of the time, as well as outlined their own findings and specific problems that must be addressed so that life on earth can be sustained. The report, which involved 1,360 experts from 95 counties, stated, “Humans are fundamentally, and to a significant extent irreversibly, changing the diversity of life on Earth, and most of these changes represent a loss of biodiversity”4. What I found particularly alarming in this report is how these changes disproportionately affect certain groups of people, increase inequities among vulnerable populations, and exacerbate poverty on a large scale. Developing countries, indigenous populations, and those living in poverty are forced to suffer the extreme consequences brought on by the unsustainable living standards demanded by first world countries such as the United States.

Something I had never before considered is how the worsening environmental crises affect women differently, and put them at an even greater risk. Environmental disasters such as floods, droughts, and fires force communities to move from their homes, often resulting in unstable and unsafe temporary living conditions that put women at increased risk of sexual assault and human trafficking. Adequate reproductive resources and sanitary products may become unavailable; these effects are detrimental, especially in cultures where women act as the backbone of their households. 

Figure 4, Women Carrying Water, Urevig, Andrew, “When It Comes to Addressing Climate Change, Gender Matters.” Ensia. Accessed January 21, 2020. https://ensia.com/notable/gender-climate-change/.

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, “The pattern of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ associated with ecosystem changes– and in particular the impact of ecosystem changes on poor people, women, and indigenous peoples– has not been adequately taken into account in management decisions”5. There is an evident and complete lack of respect or even acknowledgement of these groups and the battles they must face as a result of environmental degradation. This is equally as frustrating as it is depressing, but reading over these materials also brought me a sense of empowerment. I am aware that I live in a country that depletes natural capital at an alarming and unsustainable rate, but also has the resources available to combat environmental injustices and repair damages that we have made. The vast amount of opportunities offered by Fordham, as well as outside internships, research positions, and organizations available in New York City excites me, as I am deeply passionate about the environmental issues we face in this critical time. As an empowered individual, I want to empower others to take responsibility and face the reality of what is needed to be done to save the beautiful diversity of the fluid mosaic that is life on earth.

Q: The text mentioned multiple times that we have seen some developments in environmental crises during the past few decades, but failed to include what exactly those changes are. Is this merely part of the construction of a positive narrative about environmental progress, or have we as a society actually made some substantial change in the right direction?

Word Count: 1204

__________________________

1Miller, G. Tyler. Living in the Environment. S.I.: Cengage Learning, 2020, 20.

2Miller, 9.

3“How Many Planets Does It Take to Sustain Your Lifestyle?” Ecological Footprint Calculator. Accessed January 20, 2020. https://www.footprintcalculator.org/.

4Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, 4.

5Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 13.