enst1000blog - Tumblr blog

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

Final Practicum Essay

For my practicum, I worked at the New York Botanical Garden as an intern for the Exhibitions and Interpretations Department. Fordham University has long had a partnership with the NYBG, especially in their efforts to conserve the Bronx River. Ever since Fordham’s founding as St. John’s College in 1841, the school has played a role as a steward of the river. The campus was located on the bank of the Bronx River, and in the early days of the school, a branch of the river called Mill Brook traveled along the west side of campus and formed a trout pond. Mill Brook played an important role as a source of provisioning, regulating, and ecosystem services for the community around it. In the late 19th century, however, Mill Pond was diverted into the storm drain system of New York City. In 1889, part of the campus land that lay by the Bronx River was sold to create Bronx Park, which later became the New York Botanical Garden. Fordham University has a history with the Bronx River, and it continues its stewardship of the river today with partnerships with organizations like the New York Botanical Garden.

I took advantage of the partnership that Fordham has with the NYBG by interning at the New York Botanical Garden in their Exhibitions and Interpretations Department. This Department is responsible for managing both the permanent and temporary exhibits at the NYBG, as well as maintaining the signage throughout the Garden. It is responsible for annual shows like the Holiday Train Show and the Orchid Show, and temporary shows like the recent Georgia O’Keeffe exhibit. The main project I am currently working on is the upcoming temporary exhibit about Roberto Burle Marx, the revolutionary Brazilian landscape architect. For all exhibits, the Exhibitions and Interpretations Department creates a catalog to showcase the works on display and to educate readers about the exhibition. We are in the process of finishing this catalog. In addition, I am working on the science exhibition that accompanies the art show in the Esther T. Mertz Library. This is a process of determining which topics should be explored in the exhibit and what items and research to include in each case. I have also spent time finding and replacing signs as needed around the Garden and performing other odd jobs as needed by the department. I have done some research for the Department on current and possible future exhibitions as well. I am at the NYBG Mondays and Thursdays from 10 AM until 5 PM, and sometimes after class on Wednesdays for a couple of hours. I usually work an average of 11 hours a week, and so far I have worked about 150 hours.

In my internship, I spent a lot of time working within a department of the NYBG that focuses on educating the public. The Exhibitions and Interpretations department exists to teach people about the various plants that live in the Garden. The information on the signage includes the physical traits, history, and importance of each plant. We seek to pique the interest of visitors and make people realize the value of the nature that surrounds them. For example, the Orchid Show is an exhibit that draws in visitors because of the great beauty of the orchids and the bright colors that decorate the Enid A. Haupt Conservatory. The theme this year was Singapore, as a tribute to a city that is known for its beautiful gardens and efforts at sustainability. While visitors may come originally just to appreciate the beauty of the orchids, we hope that they leave having learned more about the importance of sustainability in urban areas and about the value of a flower like the orchid. Our upcoming exhibit is about the landscape architect Roberto Burle Marx. Burle Marx was an outspoken critic of deforestation and was essential to efforts to conserve the Brazilian landscape and unique Brazilian flora and fauna. Therefore, the science exhibit that accompanies the gallery that contains his art will touch on many issues of conservation within the Brazilian ecosystems. Visitors will be able to learn about the threats to ecosystems like the Atlantic coastal forest, the cerrado, and the Amazon rainforest. In this way, the New York York Botanical Garden plays an essential role in promoting environmental education.

Environmental education is a crucial part of the interdisciplinary structure of environmental studies, and one that will play an important role in the sustainability revolution. Through environmental education, we can motivate people to take action and protect the earth we live on. In our upcoming exhibit, we will include many important topics relating to the environment including deforestation, ecosystems, biodiversity, and industrial agriculture. The unique ecosystems of Brazil support many animal and plant species. Ecosystems are made up of both living and nonliving parts. Things like animals, plants, and microbes make up the living parts of the ecosystem, and soil, water, air, and other nonliving resources make up the nonliving parts. Each part of an ecosystem plays an important role, as producers like plants are essential to the life of animal consumers. Three ecosystems found in Brazil are the Amazon rainforest, the Atlantic coastal forest, and the cerrado. Each of these ecosystems is under threat from various human activities. The Amazon rainforest is threatened by extensive deforestation, as the Brazilian government for a long time saw the rainforest as an economic goldmine rather than a unique ecosystem that could be valued for its natural beauty. Roberto Burle Marx worked hard as an advocate to convince the Brazilian government of the value of the Amazon rainforest and denounced deforestation in the area. Deforestation causes the destruction not only of the trees within the Amazon rainforest but also affects the other plants in the ecosystem and leaves behind land incapable of supporting the previous remarkable biodiversity found in the forest. This area is one of the most biodiverse on Earth. Biodiversity refers to the variety of species, ecosystems, ecosystem processes, or genetic makeup within an area. The Amazon rainforest is home to many unique species that are found nowhere else on earth, many of which have yet to even be discovered. The cerrado and the Atlantic coastal forest are also ecosystems that are threatened by human activity, but the main activity that puts these areas at risk is industrial farming. Coffee bean, sugar cane, and cocoa plantations threaten the natural flora and fauna of Brazil. The existing plants are cleared in order to make room for massive industrial farms that boost Brazil’s economy. The cerrado especially is overlooked as an important ecosystem due to its unimpressive appearance. However, much of the life that exists in the cerrado thrives underground, earning it a reputation as an “upside-down forest.” Roberto Burle Marx fought to preserve these ecosystems, and the NYBG hopes to carry on his legacy with this exhibit by educating the public on the importance of the Brazilian ecosystems.

I believe that the work of the New York Botanical Garden is very important and will encourage visitors to play an active role in the sustainability revolution. I hope that our upcoming exhibit will educate visitors on the threats to the Brazilian flora and fauna and shed light on the importance of stopping deforestation and of using more sustainable methods of agriculture like vertical farming. Government policies have proven the most effective in Brazilian conservation efforts, and I hope that more conservation policies are put in place in the future. Environmental education will power the sustainability revolution, and I believe that the New York Botanical Garden is doing its part to ensure that people leave its grounds as more educated environmental citizens and stewards of this earth.

Sources:

"Bronx River Stewardship And Internship Program." Fordham, https://www.fordham.edu/info/20924/internship_and_job_opportunities/1748/bronx_river_stewardship_and_internship_program.

Miller, Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 17th ed. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

Air Pollution as an Externality

The earth’s unique atmosphere is what has allowed life on our planet to come into existence and to survive. This atmosphere consists of 5 layers, including the troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere, and exosphere. The troposphere is the layer of the atmosphere in which we live and contains 75-80% of the earth’s air mass, of which about 99% is nitrogen and oxygen. The troposphere is an essential part of the earths chemical and nutrient cycling processes. The stratosphere is the next layer of the atmosphere, containing the ozone layer. The ozone layer is created when oxygen molecules interact with UV radiation, which prevents 95% of the sun’s harmful UV radiation from reaching the surface of the earth. Without this protection, most forms of life would not be able to survive on earth when faced with large amounts of UV radiation. These layers of the atmosphere are essential to the survival of life, but they have begun to be poisoned by air pollution from natural sources and human activities.

Air pollution occurs when chemicals exist in high enough concentrations to harm life, ecosystems, or human-made materials. Natural air pollutants come from dust, wildfires, volcanoes, and volatile organic chemicals found in some plants. Most natural air pollutants are removed through the earth’s chemical cycles, but if these pollutants are emitted in high concentrations, they can overload the cycle. Human-made air pollutants are even more likely to overload the earth’s chemical cycles, due to the excessive amounts of pollutants created, especially in urban and industrial areas. These pollutants mainly derive from the burning of fossil fuels. The resulting pollutants are carbon oxides, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, ozone, and volatile organic compounds.

Air pollutants, while often less visible and tangible than other pollutants, are very dangerous to the health of human life, animal life, and ecosystem health. Fossil fuels pollute mainly through the forms of industrial smog, photochemical smog, and acid deposition. Industrial smog consists mostly of sulfur dioxide and has caused a great many deaths from air pollution, especially in China. Photochemical smog “is a mixture of ozone, nitric acid, aldehydes, peroxyacyl nitrates (PANs), and other secondary pollutants” that are also very harmful to human, animal, and ecosystem health. Acid deposition is created when too many nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide is added to the atmosphere. This causes acid to fall onto the earth either in wet deposition or dry deposition. Acid deposition can cause human respiratory diseases, decrease visibility, leach toxic metals into water, harm crops and forests, hurt aquatic ecosystems, and more. Indoor air pollution is also a threat to human health and has been at the top of the list of the EPA’s 18 sources of cancer risk since 1990. These are only some of the effects of air pollution, and only some of the ways in which these pollutants manifest.

The costs of the harmful effects of air pollution are nearly immeasurable. The harm caused to the environment, ecosystem services, human health, and animal health likely cost billions of dollars every year. However, this loss of capital is not accounted for in our markets. The small number of large companies responsible for most of the air pollution in the world have not been held financially responsible for those costs, called externalities, which arise “when a good or service creates costs or benefits that are not accrued by the producer.” In the case of air pollution, it is difficult to determine whose activity produced the pollution. The small particles and molecules that make up air pollution are nearly impossible to track or trace back to a specific source.

However, with new and developing technologies, it may become possible to do so. Nanosensors and nanomarkers are near enough in size to some pollutants that they could travel with them and allow tracing of the sources of air pollutants. They could even be engineered so that the properties of the nanomarkers and nanosensors imitate the pollutants they are tracking. Information could be communicated to and from these sensors with “the Internet of Things.” This information could then be used to determine charges applied to companies for air pollution externalities. There is some concern that the nanomarkers and nanosensors could be considered to be pollution as well, but unlike other air pollutants, these markers would be a known quantity. The benefits of determining externalities and receiving compensation for massive amounts of air pollution caused by a few companies could outweigh the costs of the potential pollution of nanomarkers and nanosensors.

If this system was effective, then the billions lost every year due to the harm to ecosystem services, the environment, human health, and animal health could be compensated for through market systems. Health care costs that treat respiratory diseases, cancers, and other complication from air pollution would be funded by the companies that created the pollutants. Farmers that lose crops to acid deposition would be compensated, and deforestation from acid rain could be remedied using funds from externality charges. In addition to the funds that could go towards addressing the effects of air pollution, the increased accountability forced on companies would encourage them to decrease their air pollution. The pressure of the costs of externalities would motivate these companies in a way that they have never been motivated before because they were never held responsible for the cost of pollutants. With new technologies like nanosensors and nanomarkers, we now have the ability to hold the creators of air pollution responsible for their actions and to charge those companies for compensation. It would be a shame to waste this opportunity to protect our earth and the life it supports, as the use of this technology could both provide a way to reduce pollution and to create funds to address the harmful effects of pollution.

Not only should large coorporations be held responsible for externalities, but households should as well. My household emitted about 34,221 pounds of carbon dioxide last year from the energy used in our house alone. This did not even factor in the carbon dioxide emissions from our transportation. The use of cars as transportation is inefficient and unsustainable. If individuals were held responsible for their externalites as well, people may be more likely to switch to more environmentally friendly forms of transportation or heating.

While air pollution may be fairly intangible and invisible, its effects are not. Hundreds of thousands of people die from air pollution every year, not to mention the loss of the irreplaceable ecosystem services that are harmed from an overload of pollutants. The inside an American home is more dangerous than outside, as so many dangerous pollutants are used in everyday household products and in the construction of a house. With the use of new technology like nanomarkers and nanosensors, we could create a way to make air pollution less invisible and therefore hold companies responsible for the pollution they cause. By creating financial consequences for emitted pollutants, we could both fund important efforts to address the harmful effects of air pollution and motivate large companies to reduce their air pollution under financial pressure. We need to start holding companies responsible for their negative environmental effects, or we will no longer have an environment to protect.

Word Count: 1,200

Questions:

Do the benefits of using technology like nanomarkers to end externalities outweigh the risk of the markers becoming pollutants?

How could we go about enforcing a system that made companied pay compensation for their externalities and how would that compensation be distributed?

Sources:

Miller, Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 17th ed. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Patterson, Mark. "The End Of Externalities." Medium, 2 October 2018, https://medium.com/@mpatterson_61092/the-end-of-externalities-770d9fb2a9fa.

"Household Carbon Footprint Calculator." EPA, https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/.

Image sources:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Emulsion-droplets-held-in-the-optical-traps-of-the-JPK-Nanotracker-The-emulsion-droplet_fig4_276857705

https://sciencestruck.com/atmosphere-layers-in-order

https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/10/05/smog-in-developing-country/

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

Are Government Subsidies the Key to Renewable Energy?

When talking about energy, we are essentially talking about the sun. The sun is the source of almost all energy on earth, whether it be solar, wind, biomass, or other forms of energy. Energy can be divided into two categories: renewable and nonrenewable. Nonrenewable energy resources include coal, natural gas, and oil. Renewable energy can be found in wind energy, hydropower, solar energy, and biomass. Nonrenewable resources take centuries to replace, while renewable energy resources can take mere hours to decades to produce. Despite this, about 80% of commercial energy consumption comes from nonrenewable energy resources. All of these resources are derived, directly or indirectly, from the sun. Our use of resources that are created indirectly from the sun’s energy over hundreds of years is incredibly inefficient when we could instead source our energy primarily from the direct energy of the sun. In order to most effectively manage the energy resources of the earth, we must replace our use of nonrenewable energy with renewable energy while reducing our excessive energy consumption.

We have long known about the disastrous effects of the burning of fossil fuels. In 1992, 1,700 of the world’s leading scientists issued a Warning to Humanity that declared that “Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale.” Greenhouse gas emissions are the leading cause of climate change and are causing catastrophic effects globally. These effects including rising sea levels, droughts, fires, acid rain, and many, many more. Climate change threatens the health of our environment, the lives of the animals that live in it, and human health as well. Therefore, the use of fossil fuels to produce energy is dangerous, no matter the perspective. Despite this, we continue to derive the majority of our commercial energy from fossil fuels.

Companies that extract nonrenewable resources for energy use have long been the recipients of government subsidies to encourage the production of local energy. Countries want to have independent energy production so that they do not need to depend on other countries for their energy needs. In order to achieve this, governments have encouraged increased extraction of nonrenewable resources through subsidies and other financial measures. Fossil fuel companies have received government subsidies for about 100 years, and those global subsidies still total about $5 trillion annually today. Renewable energy has begun to receive government subsidies, but not on the same scale as fossil fuels do. If governments are serious about combatting climate change, then they need to reverse the proportion of subsidies, so that renewable energy is a far more financially appealing industry than nonrenewable energy.

Despite the lack of government support, the renewable energy sector is growing quite quickly. Environmentally conscious citizens are putting solar panels on their houses and towns are building wind farms to produce renewable energy. These changes can be expensive, however, and are often only available to affluent communities who have the luxury of switching to more sustainable energy resources. Government subsidies could exponentially increase the growth of renewable energy sources if they encouraged it with environmentally friendly financial policies.

An increase in the use of renewable resources would take advantage of the massive amount of solar energy that is unused. Of the solar energy that reaches the earth’s surface, humans use only a fraction of this. Every hour, 430 quintillion Joules of solar energy hits the Earth. The total amount of energy all humans use in an entire year is 410 quintillion Joules. If we worked to effectively harness the massive amount of solar energy available to us, we should easily be able to sustainably produce enough energy to power human activities.

Though the sun could power even higher energy needs than we currently have, we should work to stem those needs. There is a great deal of energy overconsumption throughout the world, mainly in developed countries. Inefficient infrastructure and affluent lifestyles lead to a great deal of global energy waste. Another source of energy waste is the inefficient production of energy. Net energy refers to the amount of high-quality energy available within a resource. This is determined both by the energy automatically wasted and the energy that is unnecessarily wasted. Some energy is lost from a resource due to the second law of thermodynamics, which we cannot prevent. However, energy is also lost due to inefficient methods of producing useful energy. If waste and inefficiencies in energy production are reduced, then the process could become much more profitable and sustainable. About 84% of commercial energy used in the United States is wasted, of which waste about half is unnecessary.

As Miller and Spoolman note in Living in the Environment, “Any energy resource with a low or negative net energy yield cannot compete in the open marketplace with other energy alternatives with higher net energy yields unless it is subsidized by the government or by some other outside source of funding.” It is due to the massive government subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industry that nonrenewable resources continue to be competitive. As Miller and Spoolman write, “Only 16% of the dollars that Americans pay for their energy actually provides them with high-quality energy.” The amount of waste of both energy and money in the fossil fuel industry is incredibly unsustainable, not to mention the fact that the nonrenewable resources the industry relies on are dwindling and will soon be hard to come by. Renewable resources involve a great deal less unnecessary waste than nonrenewable resources, making renewable energy production both more efficient and more cost-effective. However, due to the fewer government subsidies afforded to the renewable energy industry, it is more difficult to make a profit. If governments instead granted subsidies to sustainable energy production, then it could become possible for renewable resources to become the dominant form of energy production.

Renewable energy is more efficient, more sustainable, and cheaper in the long run. Nonrenewable energy is, on the other hand, inefficient, unsustainable, and not cost-effective. The only reason most of our energy comes from nonrenewable resources is because of the long history of government subsidies granted to the fossil fuel industry. Without these subsidies, as Miller and Spoolman note, energy derived from fossil fuels could not compete in the open market. If governments take the climate initiative seriously and give more subsidies to the more deserving renewable energy sector, then we could begin a global movement towards renewable energy. The effects of this change would be very positive, giving the global population access to cheaper energy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy waste.

Word Count: 1,103

Questions:

How could governments be convinced to give more subsidies to the renewable energy sector?

Are subsidies for renewable energy all it will take to move to renewable instead of nonrenewable energy?

Sources:

"1992 World Scientists' Warning To Humanity." Union of Concerned Scientists, https://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html#.XEVR_M9KjBI.

"This Incredible Fact Should Get You Psyched About Solar Power." Business Insider, 29 September 2015, https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-solar-power-2015-9.

Richardson, Jake. "Renewable Energy Doesn’t Get More In Subsidies Than Fossil & Nuclear Energy Have Gotten, & Continue To Get." CleanTechnica, 26 January 2018, https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/26/renewable-energy-doesnt-get-subsidies-fossil-nuclear-sources-gotten-continue-get/.

Miller, Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 17th ed. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Image sources

http://renewableresourcesdzukesume.blogspot.com/2016/08/

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/11/26/10-facts-about-solar-energy-that-might-surprise-yo.aspx

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwioxLStuo3iAhUPmuAKHSW0CIQQjB16BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2F100percentrenewables.com.au%2Feight-ways-100-renewable-electricity%2F&psig=AOvVaw08Tf02pS5xtDptmK1kPYSC&ust=1557457125839304

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

How Can We Save Water?

https://politicoexplorer.com/tag/great-pacific-garbage-patch/The issues of water supply and water pollution are closely related and crucial to the health of both the environment and human populations. Humans and most other living things rely on water for our survival. Humans are about 60% water, and yet we do not seem to value the resource that makes up most of our body. While water covers 71% of the earth’s surface, only about 0.024% is available as freshwater. This freshwater is recycled and purified through the hydrologic cycle, but it is difficult for the cycle to keep up with interfering human activity. When humans release too many pollutants into the cycle, water cannot be properly purified. We also damage the hydrologic cycle when we take more water from the ground or from the surface than can be replenished. Unfortunately, we are constantly using too much water and polluting our water resources. Therefore, access to safe water sources has become a pressing issue in many places around the world. This issue is one that concerns global health, economy, women and children, national and global security, and the environment.

We obtain water through two main resources: groundwater and surface water. Groundwater is found for the most part in geological layers called aquifers, where water gathers underground. These aquifers are replenished very slowly, especially because paved land makes it more difficult for water to reach underground. Some aquifers replenish so slowly that they are a nonrenewable resource. Surface water is found in bodies of water that lie on the earth’s surface. These resources are essential to the survival of life on earth. Despite the value of these resources, humans irresponsibly use 70% of the water we withdraw to irrigate cropland and raise livestock each year. This use of water is incredibly wasteful and unnecessary, as the methods of industrial farming that require this water are unsustainable and inefficient.

While the overuse of water is a huge global issue, pollution in our water resources is arguably just as big of a problem. Water pollution comes from both point and nonpoint sources. Point sources release pollutants into surface water from specific places, as do factories, sewage treatment plants, underground mines, and oil tankers. Nonpoint sources have broad and diffuse sources, like agricultural activities, industrial facilities, mining, and plastic pollution. These sources of pollution reduce the water quality drastically. Water pollution can cause disastrous effects, including the exposure to infectious diseases, depletion of dissolved oxygen needed by aquatic species, addition of toxins to aquatic systems, excessive growth of algae, disruption of photosynthesis, and more. These can be deadly to humans, aquatic life, and all wildlife. It is necessary that we take action to reduce water pollution in order to protect both humans and animals.

Innovations in agriculture and water collection could help to ensure worldwide access to safe water. In southern Morocco, local communities are suffering from a lack of rainfall, on which they rely for water. However, the area has a great deal of fog that accumulates in the mountains nearby. The communities there have set up giant nets in the mountains to collect water, with pipes that carry the water to them. This practice has brought homes in the area 18 liters of water a day, compared with the 8 liters they were able to harvest without the nets. Another technological innovation is hydroponics, which could help prevent water pollution. Industrial agriculture is very wasteful in its use of water. Hydroponics is a system in which water is cycled through a system of plants and fish, allowing the sustainable use of water and production of food. These practices could help address the issues of access to water and water pollution, but unfortunately they will not solve it.

Through social media, a movement was created to stop the use of plastic straws after a horrific video depicting the removal of a plastic straw from a sea turtle went viral. While this movement is good, it is hardly the main problem when it comes to issues of water pollution. The main sources of water pollution are from industrial facilities, agricultural activities, and sewage. While plastic pollution is a big problem that is threatening aquatic life, the fraction of that pollution that is made up of straws is infinitesimal. It is a great idea to raise awareness about plastic pollution in the oceans, but if people want to make a real difference, it might be better to instead call for corporations that run industrial facilities, agricultural businesses, and sewage treatment plants to have increased accountability for their water pollution.

Efforts to reduce pollution are necessary in order to ensure the health of all forms of life that consume it. However, the quality of water will no longer matter if we no longer have any water available to us. Overconsumption of water has greatly depleted the world’s supply of freshwater, and threatens many countries with water stress. Water footprints roughly measure the volume of water that a person uses directly and indirectly. In developed countries, affluent lifestyles lead to enormous water footprints caused by excessive and unnecessary use of water. My water footprint is 747 m3 per year, which is likely a low estimate. It is lower than the average global footprint, which is boosted by the high use of water in developed countries. When I think about my use of water, even though may be comparably low, I realize how excessive it can be. I notice this especially when I think about my sister’s water use. She is in the Peace Corps in Lesotho, Africa, where she uses as little water as she can. My five minute showers may seem quick here, but her baths using a small tub of water are much more conservative. The infrastructure of our society means that we use a massive amount of water on a daily basis, both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, the production of our food requires the use of much water. Meat production especially is very inefficient in its use of water resources. While we can install as many giant fog nets as we want, if we do not address the issue of overconsumption of water in developed countries, there will be no more unpolluted freshwater left to be caught in those nets.

When it comes to water pollution and usage, change can be effected both at the individual and at the corporate levels. We as individuals need to try our best to reduce our water consumption in our day-to-day lives. There is no need to take a 30-minute shower or to leave the water running in between dishes. In addition, if we can make an effort to recycle waste, then we can hope that fewer plastics will end up in water as pollution. While these actions can help, it is undeniable that if we want to make significant, sustainable, long-term change, corporations are going to have to change their ways. Industrial facilities, agricultural businesses, and sewage treatment plants need to take responsibility for their role in creating water pollution and find a way to reduce it. In addition, these companies need to work to reduce their inefficient and unsustainable use of water. It is a precious resource that is essential to the survival of all life on earth, and we must start treating it as such.

Word Count: 1,213

Questions:

Can change to address water pollution or water usage be effective at the individual level? Or does the majority of the blame lie with corporations?

Could technological innovations advance enough that we would not need to change our rate of consumption/pollution?

Sources

Miller, Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 17th ed. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Grillo, Emma. 2018. “These Nets Harness Water From Fog.” New York Magazine. Accessed April 9, 2019. http://nymag.com/developing/2018/11/morocco-mount-boutmezguida-nets-harness-water-from-fog.html

Image sources

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/freshwater-education-resources/water-cycle

http://nymag.com/developing/2018/11/morocco-mount-boutmezguida-nets-harness-water-from-fog.html

https://politicoexplorer.com/tag/great-pacific-garbage-patch/

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

Pollution Prevention and the Precautionary Principle

Humans face hazards every day that threaten our health. These hazards can be chemical, biological, cultural, natural, or lifestyle-related. Biological hazards can exist in the form of infectious diseases, transmissible diseases, and nontransmissible diseases. Chemical hazards are found in the form of toxic chemicals which can be carcinogens, mutagens, or teratogens. Chemical hazards are found throughout the world in both dangerous bombs and everyday household objects. Because of the prevalence of chemicals globally, chemical hazards are a very important area of study when it comes to human health.

Scientists know very little about the majority of chemicals, making it difficult to even determine which chemicals constitute a chemical hazard. The process of determining this is called risk assessment, which is when the potential of a substance to cause harm to an organism is estimated. Risk management occurs after risk assessment, when it is decided whether or not a certain risk should be reduced or not, and at what cost. With chemical hazards, risk assessment is done through toxicology. Toxicology is the study of the harmful effects of chemicals on living organisms. These effects are measured through toxicity. The toxicity of a chemical is governed by many factors, including dose, solubility, persistence, genetic makeup, and biological magnification. Dose refers to the amount of a chemical a human has ingested or come into contact with, and solubility is the ability of a chemical to travel through sources of water or in fatty tissue. The persistence of a chemical in the environment determines how long it remains there, while biological magnification can cause increased concentrations of a chemical as it moves up through the food chain. The genetic makeup of a person can affect their response to a chemical, as certain genetic dispositions are more or less sensitive to different chemicals. A response to a chemical can be either acute, meaning immediate or rapid, or chronic, meaning permanent or long-lasting. These variables affect the toxicity of a chemical on humans.

Scientists study the toxicity of chemicals in different ways. One method is through dose-response curves, which are created by testing different doses of chemicals on either laboratory animals or cell cultures. The effects of these doses are studied and plotted to show the relationship between the size of the dose and the severity of the response. The issue with this method is that animals responses to chemicals are not always the same as human reactions, not to mention the issues of animal welfare involved in this kind of laboratory testing. Cell cultures are providing a more humane alternative, but it is not certain whether these tests will be more reliable. Another way in which scientists study toxicity is through case reports. Case reports are typically physician reports about patients who came into contact with some kind of chemical. These reports can carry information about the adverse effects a patient suffered from as a result of contact with that chemical. While case reports can be helpful, they are not very common and do not provide a large enough test population to make solid conclusions. A final method of the study of chemical toxicity is epidemiological studies. These studies are done by observing a population of people exposed to a certain chemical and comparing their health to a population not exposed to that chemical. The study determines whether the association between the chemical and health effects is strong, moderate, weak, or undetectable. While these studies can be very helpful when available, there are few cases in which epidemiological studies can occur.

While scientists can try their best, it is clear that no matter the method used, it is difficult to determine the toxicity of a chemical. This has been shown again and again in history, as chemicals used in the past have been discovered to be extremely toxic. PCBs, a common chemical used in electronic components, pesticides, hydraulic fluids, liquidizers, and many other common products were banned in 1977 due to findings that the chemicals were carcinogens. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. Army sprayed 20 million gallons of an herbicide called Agent Orange that contained a chemical called dioxin. At least 20 million cubic meters of timber was destroyed by Agent Orange, with estimates ranging as high as 90 million cubic meters. 400,000 people died, and even years after the war, American veterans, Vietnamese veterans, and Vietnamese civilians began reporting cases of cancer, genetic mutations, and birth defects in their children. Though we know now that dioxin and PCBs are known carcinogens, the stability of these chemicals means that they will continue to persist in the environment despite bans, causing more cancer and other adverse health effects. How can we prevent the use of potentially dangerous chemicals when toxicity is so difficult to study?

One possible solution to address this issue is pollution prevention and the precautionary principle. Pollution prevention dictates that we should not allow chemicals to enter the environment if we know or suspect that they cause significant harm. Instead, we should look for harmless or less harmful chemical substitutes, or find a way to recycle harmful chemicals within the production process, preventing them from reaching the environment. The precautionary principle advocates that when there is evidence that a chemical, activity, or technology can harm human or environmental health, then we should prevent or reduce this harm. In order to accomplish this, existing chemicals, activities, or technologies that are believed to cause harm would be stopped or removed from use. In addition, we would assume that all new chemicals and technologies are harmful until proven otherwise. Many companies are not in support of pollution prevention and the precautionary principle, because these place the majority of the responsibility on the companies. They would have to prove that new chemicals or technologies were safe before they could implement them, which could be expensive and time-consuming. However, it could also prevent the release of potentially harmful chemicals into the environment.

While it may not be economically beneficial for companies to follow pollution prevention and the precautionary principle, it could save many lives. At the time a toxic chemical is released into the environment, it is rarely believed to be harmful. It is often only years later when the chemical is distributed throughout the environment, that it is found to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic. When this discovery is made, it is too late to prevent human exposure to the chemical and nearly impossible to remove the chemical from the environment. In order to prevent more incidents like Agent Orange and the prevalence of PCBs, pollution prevention and the precautionary principle need to be implemented. These two concepts could save millions of lives and protect the environment from toxic chemicals. The economic cost that manufacturers and other companies would have to pay in order to incorporate new chemicals and technology is minuscule in comparison with the value of the human lives and the natural capital that could be protected.

Word count: 1,155

Questions:

How can we motivate businesses to follow the precautionary principle?

Sources:

"Agent Orange Record." Agent Orange Record, http://www.agentorangerecord.com/impact_on_vietnam/environment/defoliation/P0/.

"Agent Orange." History, https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/agent-orange-1.

Miller, Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 17th ed. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Image sources:

https://www.thoughtco.com/toxic-chemical-definition-609284

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/18/us-launches-operation-ranch-hand-jan-18-1962-1102346

https://desdaughter.com/2014/11/12/identifying-toxic-chemicals-in-your-home-infographic-saferchemicals/

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

How Can We Save Our Soil?

Without soil, terrestrial life on Earth would not be possible. As the documentary “Symphony of Soil” teaches viewers, plant, animal, and human life rely on the soil in order to survive. Soil is a mixture of rock particles, mineral nutrients, organic matter, water, air, and microorganisms that supplies nutrients for plant growth, purifies and stores water, and plays a part in the carbon cycle. All of these roles are essential to terrestrial life. Without plant growth, drinking water, and an oxygen-rich atmosphere, animals and humans could not survive. Soil is formed when bedrock is broken down through weathering processes, which can take hundreds of years. While soil can take long periods of time to form, it can be depleted very quickly due to human activity. Depleted soil is difficult to replace, and is another part of the Earth’s natural capital that we must use sustainably and protect from threats. One threat to our supply of soil is our current agricultural practices. Industrialized agriculture is unsustainable and threatens the health of our soils. In order to preserve the natural capital of soil, industrial agriculture must be left behind for more sustainable agricultural methods like hydroponics, urban agriculture, agroforestry, and more.

Industrial agriculture is possible due to the availability of energy that is used to power machinery, irrigate, produce pesticides and fertilizers, and process and transport food. This energy comes mostly from nonrenewable sources, causing food production to use about 13% of the fossil fuel energy used in the United States every year. As Miller and Spoolman write, “producing, processing, transporting, and consuming industrialized food is highly dependent on fossil fuels and results in a large net energy loss.” The huge amount of water used in agriculture is also inefficient and can have serious consequences like salinization, the accumulation of salts in upper soil, and waterlogging, the accumulation of water underground. Another effect of industrial agriculture is soil erosion. Agricultural practices can cause soil to be eroded, which leads to a loss of soil fertility and water pollution. Decreased soil fertility can reduce the ability of soil to support plant life, while water pollution can cause the death of marine animals or clog bodies of water. In addition to these effects on the environment, industrial agriculture is the site of a great deal of animal abuse. The raising of livestock has become industrialized, which has led to a decrease in concern about animal health and happiness as farmers focus instead on output. Industrial agriculture causes massive amounts of pollution, disregards animal welfare, and more often than not, produces unhealthy food.

The documentary “Food, Inc.” takes on the subject of industrial agriculture, exposing the consequences of agribusiness. The film seeks to show people that industrial agriculture is not efficient, humane, or economically and environmentally sustainable. It speaks to the issue of McDonaldization, a word coined by sociologist George Ritzer. Ritzer explores the way in which the fast-food chain McDonald’s infiltrated all areas of society, including agriculture. In order to keep up with the massive demand for food products, farms began to adopt some of the practices of McDonald’s, leading to industrialized farming practices. In order to supply the increasing demands of the American people, farms have had to increase outputs. Smaller farmers have been unable to compete with large, industrial farms, and have been for the most part put out of business. Hopefully, with new “Eat Local” movements and a growing desire for locally produced, organically farmed food products, smaller-scale, more sustainable farming can make a comeback. If not, then we may find ourselves unable to produce food when the soil is no longer fertile, our water and air polluted, and our plants and animals sapped of all nutritional value.

Instead, we must turn to sustainable agriculture practices. One that will be essential in creating a sustainable future is vertical farming. Vertical farming is a more sustainable form of farming that uses less water, space, and soil than traditional and industrial farming practices. There are many different innovations in this field that could provide the solution to protecting the earth’s soil resources. Hydroponics and aquaponics are two of these. Hydroponics allows plants to grow in nutrient solutions, while aquaponics is a method of farming that involves the growing of plants without soil in water filled with nutrients from fish waste. The water can then be reused by the fish, raising marine animals and growing crops sustainably. Aeroponics is another innovation that supports plant growth in an air or mist environment and can use 90% less water than hydroponic systems. While these are in the beginning stages of development, they could prove revolutionary. AeroFarms is a company that has created a system that allows the user to grow plants with no sun or soil. This allows for much more predictable and sustainable plant growth. Other companies like VertiCrop are seeking to promote urban agriculture with their high-tech systems. Transporting food from rural areas in which farming occurs to urban centers is extremely wasteful. Instead, farming could be done in these urban centers, through integrating different methods of sustainable agriculture. Vertical farming is an efficient use of space, and very practical for use in urban areas. The innovations in vertical farming could be incorporated into urban areas to create an environmentally friendly method of producing both seafood and produce locally and efficiently. In this way, we could avoid the wasteful transportation of food, as well as reduce the pollution and overuse of land from industrial farming in rural areas.

While urban agriculture could make a big difference in reducing the negative environmental impact of agriculture, the root of the problem is not fixed. The main reason for industrial agriculture is the exorbitant demand for food from human populations. In developed nations, far more food is being produced than is needed to support a population. The average American in 2011 ate about 1,500 more calories than the recommended daily intake. Wasteful food production could be combatted if we learned to consume smarter. Overconsumption comes up again and again as the cause of Earth’s most pressing environmental problems. Though we may be able to implement more sustainable agricultural practices, it will soon become impossible to supply food to an overconsuming, exponentially increasing world population. While the populations of developed nations are overconsuming, there are people in undeveloped countries eating dirt just to survive. The task before us seems to be to reduce overconsumption of food products in developed nations and to work to increase food production in undeveloped countries, implementing sustainable agricultural practices across the world in the process.

While it seems clear enough what we must do in order to address the problems of consumption across the world, it is much less clear how these goals can be accomplished. It seems a nearly impossible task to reduce the food consumption of populations in developed nations across the world. These populations value comfort above almost anything else, and comfort is found in food. However, the population will certainly be less comfortable when we can no longer produce enough food to feed increasing populations. The first step to protecting the natural capital of soil is clearly to implement sustainable agricultural practices worldwide. This is a concrete change that can be made to live more sustainably The next step is to look to reduce overconsumption globally, as this task is much more difficult. These changes can work together to make the global human population both produce and consume food more sustainably.

Word count: 1,243

Questions:

Is implementing vertical farming in urban areas feasible?

How best could vertical farming be incorporated into cities? In residential buildings? Or in designated vertical greenhouses?

Sources:

"What The World Eats." National Geographic, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/.

Vyas, Kashyap et al. "13 Vertical Farming Innovations That Could Revolutionize Agriculture." Interesting Engineering, July 4 2018, https://interestingengineering.com/13-vertical-farming-innovations-that-could-revolutionize-agriculture.

Image sources

https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture

http://www.takepart.com/foodinc/index.html

https://civileats.com/2018/07/02/can-vertical-farms-reap-their-harvest-its-anyones-bet/

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

How Do We Combat The Loss Of Marine Biodiversity?

Though almost 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered in water, we have only explored about 5% of the oceans. We know very little about the incredible biodiversity living beneath the water’s surface. However, we do know that it is being threatened by human activity and that we must act soon in order to preserve marine biodiversity.

The causes of this loss of ocean biodiversity are similar to the causes of the loss of terrestrial biodiversity. These include habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, population growth, pollution, climate change, and overfishing. Habitat loss and degradation is making it difficult for marine organisms to survive in the places they once called home. Coral reefs, coastal wetlands and marshes, mangrove forests, and rivers provide the habitat for 90% of fish to spawn. Unfortunately, all of these crucial areas are threatened by human activities. Miller and Spoolman note that “scientists reported in 2006 that these coastal habitats are disappearing at rates 2-10 times higher than the rate of tropical forest loss.” This environmental degradation poses a serious threat to the many species that rely on coastal areas to survive. In 2008, it was found that over 1/5 of global coral reefs had been destroyed. It is possible that if we do not take action, all of the world’s coral reefs could be gone by 2100. Coral reefs are known to contain some of the most diverse ecosystems, and so the loss of these and other coastal habitats would deal a serious blow to marine biodiversity.

Another way in which biodiversity is lost is through the effects of invasive species. When nonnative species are introduced into a new habitat, they can have unforeseen consequences that will have lasting impacts on their new ecosystem. When humans bring new species into a foreign area, they rarely know what the results of their action will be. Oftentimes, it is disastrous. Species like the Nile perch and the lionfish have threatened local species and altered the makeup of the original ecosystem. This can affect not only fish populations but also the flora and nutrient cycles of the ecosystem.

Population growth leads to increased development and larger populations near the coasts. Coastal areas are essential to ensuring the preservation of marine biodiversity. Due to off-shore construction, recreation, and drilling, these habitats are being destroyed. In addition, the increase in human activities in the ocean has led to a great deal of noise pollution in the water. For species like whales that use sound to communicate and find food, it makes it harder to survive. Another way in which we are affecting the ocean is through pollution, both chemical and plastic. The massive amount of chemicals that run off into the ocean can have significant effects on marine life. Nitrogen can cause algal blooms and fish die-offs, and other pollutants can be so toxic they poison some marine life. Plastic pollution is a huge problem for larger marine animals especially, as they often try to eat plastic trash or get caught in other plastic products found in the ocean. This can cause severe injuries, or prevent animals from being able to perform the tasks they need to to survive. Population growth and pollution are two factors that also contribute to climate change, as well as the loss of marine biodiversity.

Climate change has affected ecosystems the world over, but it has actually altered the amount of ecosystem that the ocean contains. Climate change is responsible for raising sea levels 4-8 inches over the past 100 years. Sea levels are only expected to increase with the worsening climate, which could prove even more harmful to marine ecosystems. Coastal areas will not survive that increase in sea level. Many coral reefs, low-lying islands, and mangrove forests will be destroyed or flooded if sea levels continue to rise as projected. This threatens the many species that rely on those habitats, including some whale species. As early as 2006, scientists reported that coastal habitats are disappearing at a rate 2-10 times faster than tropical forests are disappearing.

One of the biggest causes of the loss of marine biodiversity is overfishing. Miller and Spoolman write that “modern industrial fishing has caused as much as 80% depletion of some wild fish species in only 10-15 years.” The demand for seafood is fulfilled through a fishery, which is an area that contains enough of a wild species for commercial harvesting. A fishprint refers to the size of the area needed to provide for the seafood needs of a person, population, or the world. The demand for seafood is fulfilled through industrial fish harvesting methods. These include trawler fishing, purse-seine fishing, long-lining, and drift-net fishing. Trawler fishing is the process of dragging a net along the ocean floor, weighted with chains and metal. While the process is effective, it also effectively destroys the ecosystem on the ocean bottom. It pulls up not only seafood but also other flora and fauna. Purse-seine fishing is used on the surface of the ocean instead, but it is no less dangerous. This kind of fishing involves using a net on the surface of the sea to catch surface-dwelling fish, but it also can catch any other kind of species that swims on the surface, like dolphins. Long-lining is another method, in which massively long fishing lines are put out with thousands of hooks. These lines do not only hook the species fishers want to harvest, however, and often hook endangered species as well. Finally, drift-net fishing is when drifting nets are used to catch fish. These nets can easily overfish both the desired population and other species, called bycatch. Each of these fishing methods poses significant danger to the marine ecosystem and the many species within it.

In order to preserve the marine biodiversity that is so essential to the health of the oceans, it is important to address the issue of overfishing and unsustainable fishing methods. This could be done through fish farming and aquaculture. These more sustainable practices are already in use, and are effective at creating sustainable yields of fish without causing irreversible harm on the environment. In 2014, farmed fish exceeded wild fish in the global food supply. However, many of these fish came from water-based fish farms, which can still cause damage to marine ecosystems. While the existing fish farms prove that fish farming can be an effective way in which to supply seafood to the global population, it is important that we move to a system of land-based fish farms to reduce the potential harm on marine habitats. Companies like Nordic Aquafarms are proposing new projects for large, highly mechanized systems that bring fish farming on land. In these systems, water currents encourage fish exercise and create the ideal meat texture while vertical mesh screens “optimize fish densities and tank volume.” It’s possible that indoor aquaculture systems could supply fish to the population without pollution or posing a threat to marine wildlife. Soon, aquaculture could be used so that all kinds of seafood are provided primarily through aquafarming, rather than through environmentally degrading industrial seafood harvesting practices.

By turning towards fish farming and aquaculture and moving away from unsustainable, dangerous industrial fishing methods, marine biodiversity could be protected. It would only be the first step in preserving marine ecosystems, but it is still an important change to make and perhaps the most manageable. The effect of changing the way in which we consume seafood could have incredibly beneficial effects for the environment, and little effect on the life of the consumer. Therefore, it seems only practical that we undertake an effort to make the fishing industry a part of the sustainability revolution.

Word count: 1,277

Questions:

Could aquaculture provide a sustainable alternative to industrial fishing practices?

How can we ensure that fish farming is as environmentally-friendly as possible?

Is it humane to raise fish in a farming setting?

Sources

Miller, Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 17th ed. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Poppick, Laura. 2019. "The Future Of Fish Farming May Be Indoors". Scientific American. Accessed March 14, 2019. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-future-of-fish-farming-may-be-indoors/.

Image sources

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-90-percent-coral-reefs-die-2050-climate-change-bleaching-pollution-a7626911.html

https://www.wwf.org.au/get-involved/plastics#gs.0t24kk

https://aquaculturemag.com/2017/10/24/fish-farming-done-responsibly/

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

Practicum

For my practicum, I am interning at the New York Botanical Garden in their Exhibitions and Interpretations Department. This Department is responsible for managing both the permanent and temporary exhibits at the NYBG, as well as maintaining the signage throughout the Garden. It is responsible for annual shows like the Holiday Train Show and the Orchid Show, and temporary shows like the recent Georgia O’Keeffe exhibit. The main project I am currently working on is the upcoming temporary exhibit about Roberto Burle Marx, the revolutionary Brazilian landscape architect. For all exhibits, the Exhibitions and Interpretations Department creates a catalog to showcase the works on display and to educate readers about the exhibition. The catalog for the Roberto Burle Marx show is our focus right now. We are working on getting image permissions for all the art pieces and pictures we are using in both the exhibit and the catalog. This past week I have been compiling a spreadsheet with the images and the information we have for each image. In addition to this, I have spent time finding and replacing signs as needed around the Garden. I occasionally do research for the Department on current and possible future exhibitions as well. I am at the NYBG Mondays and Thursdays from 10 AM until 5 PM, and sometimes after class on Wednesdays for a couple of hours. I usually work an average of 11 hours a week, and so far I have worked 45 hours.

So far I have really enjoyed my time at the NYBG and I think it's a really wonderful place to work. I have already learned a lot about the history of the Garden and I really appreciate its importance as a site dedicated to the work of conservation. I love that the practicum requirement for this class encouraged me to apply for this position, and I’m really happy I was given the opportunity. I believe that my internship has already and will continue to enrich my experience as an Environmental Studies major.

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

Avengers: Infinity War: an Oversimplification of Overpopulation

Every second, the world population increases by about 2.5 people. That means every minute, the world population increases by about 150 people, every hour by 9,000 people, and every day by 220,000 people. This exponential growth is troubling for many reasons, economic, social, and environmental. 10,000 years ago, there were only 5 million humans on earth, and now there are over 7 billion. These numbers exemplify the power of exponential growth, which has occurred in the human population due to several factors. Humans learned how to live in diverse habitats and climate zones, and agricultural practices meant that more people could be fed than ever before. Probably most significantly, humans developed sanitation systems, antibiotics, and vaccines which lowered death rates below birth rates, allowing exponential population growth. As the world population is of great significance to the health of the environment, it is important that we think about the issue critically.

Population studies are regulated by many different factors. The two main variables are the crude birth rate and the crude death rate. These are calculated by determining the number of deaths and live births per a population of 1,000 people in a year. The world population can be determined by subtracting the global deaths from global births. The population of a country also must take into account immigration and emigration rates. A specific population can be calculated by subtracting the deaths and emigrants from the births and immigrants in an area. The birth rate is determined by the number of children born to women in a population during their reproductive years. This is called the total fertility rate, which has gradually been declining. However, despite this decline, the total fertility rate is still far above the replacement level fertility rate, which is the average number of children that must be born in order to replace the dead members of a population. This means that it will take a long time before the population can be stabilized.

While it would be beneficial for the total fertility rate to decrease, if it moved below the replacement level fertility rate then there would be complications in caring for the older members of the population. This issue relates to age structure, which is concerned with the age distribution across a population. If there is a larger number of younger people in a population, then there will be increased population growth. If there is a larger number of older people in a population than younger people, then it can become difficult for younger people to support the elderly, as the working population is not proportional to the retired population. Perhaps the most important governing factor of our population is the carrying capacity of the earth. The carrying capacity refers to the ability of the earth systems and resources to support our existence. It has become clear in recent years that we have exceeded that capacity, and we will continue to do so as the global population grows.

This pattern of exponential growth is concerning, as it indicates that the burden on the environment is only going to increase. Currently, we would need almost 2 Earths to support our population indefinitely. As time goes on, this number will only increase, especially due to increasing populations in developed countries. The populations of developed nations have the largest ecological footprints. This is because these populations are part of a capitalist, consumer culture that promotes over-consumption and other wasteful practices. Developed countries, while they have the highest levels of education, are the most wasteful. Therefore, when the population of a developed nation increases, the ecological footprint of that nation increases much more than would the ecological footprint of a developing nation with the same population increase. However, developing nations’ populations are increasing at such a dramatic rate that the ecological footprints of those nations are also growing to a concerning size. 85% of population growth occurs in developing countries, which are ill-equipped to handle the increasing burden on their societies, economies, and ecosystems.

While the exponential growth of the world population may seem like an insurmountable obstacle to environmental health, there are options to address it. One proposed solution involves converting to a plentitude economy, which focuses on changing how we spend our time. If we reduce work time and instead hire more people, then we can reduce unemployment and also encourage DIY culture through increased time off. The DIY culture promotes self-sufficiency through gardening, bee-keeping, and other eco-friendly practices. The plentitude economy also involves the growth of a sharing culture, in which members of a population share products like bikes and books in order to reduce consumption and increase sustainability. A plentitude economy plays off the ideas of degrowth, which proposes that we “maximize happiness and well-being through non-consumptive means—sharing work, consuming less, while devoting more time to art, music, family, nature, culture, and community.” This proposal would also involve the incorporation of urban and suburban planning, which is the sustainable structuring of urban and suburban areas. Another less practical and more revolutionary proposal is the steady-state economy, which advocates against economic growth. A steady-state economy “is an economy made up of a constant stock of physical wealth (capital) and a constant population size. In effect, such an economy does not grow in the course of time.” This proposal advocates entirely against economic growth, which is one of the guiding principles of our world. As we approach the limits of the earth’s carrying capacity, the environment will no longer be able to support the growth of our economy or of our population. A steady-state economy solution advocates for political action to cease population and environmental growth, rather than waiting for the disastrous destruction of both population and economy due to environmental degradation. These solutions could both be effective in combatting the issue of overpopulation and overconsumption, but a plentitude economy may be easier to institute, as a steady-state economy, while it could be beneficial, would threaten one of the guiding principles of our global societies.

A crucial feature of any proposal to address population growth and environmental degradation is reducing the birth rate. This can be done effectively by creating birth control and family planning resources for women. In addition, creating education and job opportunities for women has been proven to be a very effective way to reduce fertility rates. In developing countries, children are needed to support the family through labor. Greater development in these countries could reduce parents’ need to have many children. While the exponential global birth rate is intimidating, there are many small-scale solutions that could be implemented to address it.

Any practical solutions to population growth involve both reducing the birth rate and living more sustainably. These solutions could be very effective, but it will take a long and arduous effort to put them into practice. Avengers: Infinity War presents a far less practical, but much quicker movement towards population control. In this movie, the villain, Thanos, seeks to gain control of the five Infinity Stones in order to gain the power to wipe out half the world’s population. He does this in order to control overpopulation, which threatens the survival of the universe. When Thanos follows through with his plan, called either the Snap or the Decimation, half the world’s humanoid population is removed from existence, regardless of wealth, race, or any other dividing factor.

While Thanos is depicted as the villain in this movie, I found it difficult to dismiss entirely his worldview of a no-longer-overpopulated utopia. While the heroes of the film were understandably in opposition to him, they seemed to completely disregard Thanos’s valuable point, which is that the Earth can no longer support our overpopulated communities. While his plan is inhumane and horrible, I felt the film was an opportunity to open a dialogue about population growth and the way in which it can be controlled. Some members of the Avengers are supposed to be incredibly intelligent and well-educated, but they did not seem interested in engaging with the issue that Thanos presented to them. Instead, the movie depicts environmentalism as a threat to the very lives of human populations, putting the movement in a negative light in the eyes of popular audiences. My hope is that Marvel takes the opportunity in the sequel, Avengers: End Game, to present a resolution that involves more practical and more effective methods of population control. The film would be a great way in which to inform large, popular audiences about overpopulation, and encourage them to learn more about the issue. It could be very effective to remind audiences that it is crucial to the survival of the environment that we reduce our consumption and birth rate. While this seems like a tall order, this change can be very effectively jumpstarted at the individual level. We can reduce our consumption by not purchasing unnecessary and wasteful products, recycling, and reusing. We can help to reduce the birth rate by using methods of birth control and participating in family planning.

Avengers: Infinity War vilifies population control through Thanos’s terrifying plan, and oversimplifies the issue. If the population was cut in half, the same issues that underly population growth would still remain, and the global population would just continue to increase exponentially. It is important to look past this false portrayal of population control and work towards practical solutions to overpopulation and the environmental harm it causes, like birth control, education, reduced consumption, and urban planning.

Word Count: 1,578

Questions:

Does Avengers: Infinity War present a harmful narrative about environmentalism, or is the film an effort to bring these issues into the spotlight?

Do you think that reducing consumption or reducing the birth rate is more important when addressing the effects of overpopulation?

Sources

"Frequently Asked Questions". 2009. World Population Balance. Accessed March 6, 2019. https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/faq.

"Visualizing A Plenitude Economy". Youtube. Accessed February 27, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp=&v=HR-YrD_KB0M.

"Degrowth". 2013. Wikipedia. Accessed February 27, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth.

"Steady-State Economy". 2019. En.Wikipedia.Org. Accessed February 27, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_economy.

Miller, Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Image sources:

https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment/news/international-news/article/the-real-villain-of-avenger-endgame-revealed-and-its-not-the-mad-titan-thanos-read-the-fan-theory/371395

https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

https://slideplayer.com/slide/12821807/

https://www.capsweb.org/caps-issues/carrying-capacity-populations-and-people

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

Bringing Value Back to Nature on an Individual and Corporate Level

While it is difficult to put a price on the environment, it actually functions as an essential part of our economic system. Our economic system has three resources that we use to create goods and services, including natural capital, human capital, and manufactured capital. Natural capital comes from nature and the goods and services it provides, including nutrient cycling and energy resources. Human capital is derived from people’s talents and abilities. Manufactured capital comes from the machines and technology created through a combination of human and natural capital. While human capital and manufactured capital are often highly valued in our economic system, natural capital is undervalued and often ignored. This becomes more and more of a threat as our economic development increases, which decreases the natural capital available to us.

There is a great deal of conflict as to whether or not economic growth is sustainable. There are different schools of thought as to what type of economic growth and development is best. Neoclassical economists see natural capital as important, but believe that we can always replace resources with new ones. They think of economic growth as unlimited, and view natural capital as a supporting system for the human economy. Ecological economists, in contrast, see that many forms of natural capital are irreplaceable and that current economic growth patterns are not sustainable. They view the human economy as a subsystem of the entire biosphere, and entirely dependant on natural capital. Ecological economists work off of three major assumptions: resources are limited and often irreplaceable, economic development needs to be sustainable, and full-cost pricing is essential.

Full-cost pricing is the concept of including the harmful environmental and health costs of goods and services in a market price. For example, a hamburger costs the consumer only a few dollars. However, the market price of that burger does not include the cost of land destruction, water consumption, and pollution that goes towards creating that burger. Our economy is based around ignorance of the value of natural capital. It is very difficult to estimate the costs of the natural goods and services the earth provides to us, but as we degrade natural capital more and more it is crucial that we attempt to do so. In 1997, a group of researchers estimated the annual global value of ecosystem services to be worth an average of $33 trillion, 1.8 the amount of global GNP at that time. Instead, we have valued natural capital at next to nothing.

We rely on natural capital in order to survive, and yet we ignore that it has any monetary value whatsoever. This could prove disastrous as we face the harmful effects of our economic and population growth on the environment. Without having accounted for the value of the environment in our economy, we are ill-equipped to finance the significant work that needs to be done in order to restore the environment to its former health.

Businesses are rarely required to calculate the damage they inflict on the environment and are often able to exploit it for profit. Governments can interfere to protect the environment, through environmental policy. Environmental policy should be governed by seven principles, including the humility principle, the reversibility principle, the net energy principle, the precautionary principle, the prevention principle, the polluter-pays principle, and the environmental justice principle. The humility principle is the understanding that there are many things about nature and our relationship to it that we do not understand. Reversibility refers to the possibility of reversing a decision made at a later date if needed. The net energy principle encourages the use of energy alternatives with high net-energy yields rather than low net-energy yields. The precautionary principle advocates precautionary measures against unsustainable activities. Prevention refers to preventing issues from becoming worse, and the polluter-pays principle encourages assigning responsibility to polluters to address the costs of their pollution. Finally, the environmental justice principle advocates for environmental policy that ensures that no part of society bears a disproportionate load of environmental degradation. These principles are essential in ensuring that environmental policy is effective and successful.

Environmental policy plays an essential role in protecting natural capital is through environmental business regulations, protecting public lands, and hunting and farming regulations. Environmental law is the way in which these regulations and protections become real. The Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Endangered Species Act would not be possible without environmental law. These laws, though they are essential to human health, are some of the environmental regulations under attack by some groups, often powerful business coalitions that want to work unregulated. However, even the existing laws that are being attacked are hardly sufficient to protect us against the onslaught of climate change. In order to address the monumental problem of climate change, even more drastic measures must be taken.

Fortunately, some businesses are not attacking environmental law and policy, and instead embracing it. They are looking to sustainable business practices in order to create sustainable economic growth. I think that all businesses need to follow this model, or there will be no more natural capital left for them to exploit. While some change can be effected at the individual level, efforts by citizens cannot be effective without a contemporaneous effort by corporations. According to a report, only 100 companies are the source of 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. Therefore, sustainable business must play a key role in combatting the issue of global warming. In terms of how many businesses exist in the world, 100 is a very small number. If these companies could adopt sustainable business strategies, they could make a revolutionary difference in our world. The four criteria of a green business are: “incorporat[ing] principles of sustainability into each of its business decisions, suppl[ying] environmentally friendly products or services that replaces demand for nongreen products and/or services, [being] greener than traditional competition, [and having] made an enduring commitment to environmental principles in its business operations” (“Sustainable Business”). These criteria may seem like a large commitment for sprawling corporations, but these corporations are some of the richest and most powerful organizations in the world. They certainly have the resources to undertake this effort, and due to their immense negative impact on the environment, it is necessary that they do.

The large global corporations responsible for the majority of global greenhouse emissions must revolutionize the way in which they do business to become more environmentally friendly. However, despite the resources available to these corporations, they are unlikely to be enthusiastic about adopting green business standards due to the time and money it will cost them. It is possible that citizens can create a movement to encourage businesses to become more sustainable by using their status as consumers to influence corporate decisions. In this way, grassroots movements can be effective not just on an individual level, but on an international, corporate level. If these two groups can work together effectively, it may be possible to preserve the natural capital of our environment and bring value back to nature.

Word count: 1,174

Questions:

Do you think that sustainable change is more important on the individual or corporate level?

Is it possible for consumers to influence corporations to adopt green business strategies?

Sources:

Miller, Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Costanza, Robert et al. "The Value Of The World's Ecosystem Services And Natural Capital." Nature 387.6630 (1997): 253-260.

Riley, Tess. "Just 100 Companies Responsible For 71% Of Global Emissions, Study Says." The Guardian. Accessed March 6, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.

"Sustainable Business". 2014. Wikipedia. Accessed March 6, 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_business.

Images sources:

https://www.forumforthefuture.org/the-five-capitals

https://www.grida.no/resources/6203

https://www.simmonsfirm.com/blog/healthy-lung-month-get-the-facts-about-the-clean-air-act/

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

Sustainability as King: Can it Take Convenience’s Crown?

In order to address the onslaught of environmental problems we are facing, it is necessary that we first explore the issue of environmental ethics and worldviews that will govern the way in which we approach these issues. A person’s environmental ethics, or what someone believes is right or wrong in relation to environmental issues, is affected by their environmental worldview. Environmental worldviews can vary from anthropocentric, like the planetary management and stewardship worldview, to biocentric, like the environmental wisdom worldview. A person’s environmental worldview can affect the way in which they look at concepts like the land ethic, intergenerational justice, environmental justice, environmental citizenship, and nature deficit disorder.

There are three major environmental worldviews: the planetary management worldview, the stewardship worldview, and the environmental wisdom worldview. The planetary management worldview maintains that humans are separate from the rest of the environment and this environment should be managed exclusively for our use. Planetary management also argues that economic growth is unlimited, as we will not run out of resources due to our technological genius. This worldview is anthropocentric, as is the stewardship worldview, which is based in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim traditions. The stewardship worldview draws on the biblical concept of stewardship as the responsibility of humans to care for all of God’s creations. Environmental stewardship argues that humans have an ethical obligation to care for the earth, as our success as a species depends on the health of the earth. This obligation involves engaging in more environmentally friendly economic growth and not wasting the resources we have. Both of these worldviews focus on how the earth should be treated for the benefit of humankind, making them anthropocentric, opposing the biocentric environmental wisdom worldview.

The environmental wisdom worldview holds that we are not separate from the environment, but a part of it and completely dependent on it. This dependence requires that we preserve the earth’s limited resources and encourage environmentally friendly economic growth. This can be done by studying nature’s processes and integrating those processes into our own way of life. The environmental wisdom worldview is biophilic, meaning it focuses on life at large, and not merely on the single species of humans. It encourages the protection of the earth for the benefit of all life.

Environmental education is one of the keys to protecting the earth, as it can make people more environmentally literate. Environmental literacy would help people understand how the earth works and how we can ensure that it continues to work in that way. Three important ideas that are essential to this understanding is that “natural capital matters,” “our threats to natural capital are immense and growing,” and “ecological and climate change tipping points are irreversible and should never be crossed” (Miller, 2007). Developing environmental literacy can help us to become good environmental citizens, a title that means that “each of us is an integral part of a larger ecosystem and that our future depends on each of us embracing the challenge and acting responsibly and positively toward our environment” (Callicott, 2009). This touches on Aldo Leopold’s concept of the “land ethic,” which teaches us that the land is not something that we own and have dominion over, but a thing that we are a part of and rely on, and it must be treated with respect. The land ethic reminds us that as environmental citizens, we are not the only species that rely on the earth, and so we cannot claim ownership over it. Environmental citizenship relies on environmental literacy, as well as a connection to nature, in order to be most effective, as these create citizens willing and able to effect positive environmental change.

In Western society, a connection to nature has become rare. Many people work in offices all week with little time spent outside. Children increasingly stay inside and watch TV when they have free time, rather than explore the outdoors. This is concerning, as issues related to biophilia and nature deficit disorder have arisen. Biophilia is an ‘‘innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms’’ (Callicott, 2009). Humans have a connection to nature, but we are increasingly isolating ourselves from it. This has led to cases of nature deficit disorder, a concept created to describe the behavioral problems caused by a lack of time spent outdoors. Spending time in nature has been tied to many health benefits, both physical and mental. Office workers who have views of the outside or living plants in their indoor spaces have been shown to have better concentration. People healing from surgery and illness can recover more quickly in hospitals with access to the outdoors. Children who spend time learning outdoors become more environmentally literate and are less likely to have behavioral issues. In light of this, efforts like the No Child Left Inside movement have been created to try to encourage young people to spend more time outside. Research has shown again and again that a connection to nature is important to the physical and mental health of humans.

However, in order to have this connection at all, we must preserve nature. This can be done by living more sustainably. The concept of intergenerational justice argues that each generation has the obligation to preserve the health of the earth for the following generations. This can be achieved by making sustainable personal choices in life and encouraging sustainable economic growth. This is the responsibility we have to future generations. However, the focus of economic growth is not on increased sustainability, but on an increase in goods and services. Consumerism has led to a culture of people focused on acquiring more and more things, increasing their consumption. Success is measured by how many things we own, not by how sustainably we live.

The availability of goods and services has led to extreme convenience in everyday life. This means that people have to exert less effort than ever before in order to get what they want. However, this comes at a cost. Consumerism relies on unsustainable manufacturing that consumes non-renewable resources and emits greenhouse gases. Is it possible that consumers would be willing to sacrifice the convenience that makes their lives so easy in order to protect the environment? Or is it necessary for more sustainable options to become just as convenient before consumers are willing to consider them? Consumers are willing to pay more for greater convenience every time, but will they ever be willing to pay more for greater sustainability? If yes, how can we make that a reality?

If a sustainability revolution indeed comes to fruition, the culture of consumerism will need to be sacrificed. Consumerism is fundamentally unsustainable. Even if sustainability becomes the primary goal of the public, this sacrifice will not be easy. It will most likely be a slow transition from a consumer economy to an environmentally friendly one. It is of the utmost importance that we find a way to transform consumerism while not compromising the convenience that is a crucial factor in consumer choices. Is there a way to reconcile convenience and sustainability in the consumer’s eyes? Or must we instead work to replace convenience with sustainability as king instead?

Word count: 1,191

Questions:

Would people in developed countries be willing to sacrifice convenience for a more eco-friendly choice, or will better eco-friendly choices have to adapt to become just as convenient in order to be chosen?

Can we reconcile convenience and sustainability? How?

How might be the best way to promote a sustainable transformation of consumerism? Through the media? Through government regulation? Through a grassroots movement?

Sources:

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

Miller, Tyler, and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. 17th ed. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Image sources:

https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/turning-landfill-energy.html

https://krobinsonphil4302.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/environmental-worldviews-and-ethics-blog-3/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/506584658054818528

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

What Does the Future of Environmentalism Look Like?

Environmentalism is a fairly young concept, but the concerns that drive it have been around for centuries. People have always realized the value of nature, but it wasn’t until the 1850s, at the beginnings of industrial production, that this value was articulated in a new way. In response to industrial production, people began to see nature as more than just a source of endless resources for human exploitation. In this way, environmentalism began to take form.

Romanticism was the first movement, born in the 1850s, that saw nature as a beautiful counterbalance to the industrialized, polluted urban areas of Europe. Romantics consisted of a group of intellectuals and artists who glorified nature as a refuge from industrial production. They found a supreme power within nature, as they sensed a feeling of awe and wonderment when they were faced with a completely natural environment. As Steven Stoll writes in U.S. Environmentalism since 1945, romantics believed that “human progress did not lie in supremacy over nature, but in submission or concord with it” (Stoll, 2007). As romanticism began to develop into the preservationist school, the movement came up against the conservationists.

Conservation arose as a response to the romantics and promoted “the most efficient possible use of landscapes to regulate...the natural wealth of the United States…” (Stoll, 2007). Conservationists wanted to preserve nature in order to ensure that there would continue to be resources for humans to exploit so that economic growth could continue. While romantics were interested in protecting the environment because they saw it as something that should be cared for in itself, conservationists wished to protect the environment to serve their own interests of economic growth. Despite this self-interested perspective, conservationists have contributed a great deal to the preservation of United States land. For example, President Theodore Roosevelt, a prominent conservationist, designated vast amounts of public land as federal wildlife and forest reserves during his term from 1901 to 1909. In this way, conservationists have left their mark in our environmental history.

In the early 20th century, the conservation movement was split over how public lands should be used, between the wise-use or conservation school and the preservationist school. The conservation school believed that “all public lands should be managed wisely and scientifically to provide needed resources,” while the preservationist school “wanted wilderness areas on public lands to be left untouched” (Miller, 2012). However, the conflict between these groups was drowned out as the public’s attention turned to World War I, followed by the Great Depression and World War II. After World War II, a new group of intellectuals became concerned with land preservation, advocating for the value of the land in itself, regardless of the resources it may provide. This group came into conflict with conservationist government agencies and even won a victory when they prevented the flooding by dam of Dinosaur National Monument in1954. As Stoll notes, this was the first time that preservationists were able to challenge “an American article of faith…: the faith that human progress and economic progress are the same” (Stoll, 2007).

In the 1960s, a movement of protest among students at universities took up the cause of environmentalism. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson took a position in favor of environmental protection, and the American public began to realize that economic growth of industrial society was beginning to threaten both the environment and their way of life. Congress felt this shift in public opinion and began passing more ambitious legislation to protect the environment. In 1970, the first Earth Day occurred, a day when citizens raised awareness of environmental issues and celebrated the earth.

In the 1980s, the agricultural and industrial industries began to push back against environmentalism and the laws and regulations it had led to. These groups created the wise-use movement, with the goal of repealing environmental legislature. Ronald Reagan supported this movement and allowed a great deal of anti-environmental action during his terms. Through much of the 20th century, anti-environmental sentiment remained fairly strong due to fierce support from corporate leaders, who had a great deal of political and economic power.

In order to combat these powerful players, environmentalists need data to data to support them, which was found in the science of ecology. Ecology has provided us with compelling evidence that climate change is indeed real. In 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists warned the world of the changes that need to be made in order to protect our environment. As the issue of environmentalism began to be more about human survival than the preservation of nature, more and more of the public supported the environmental movement. Environmental legislation has become an important political topic, but there has been little success in creating new environmental legislature. In 2004, a bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 was rejected in the Senate. The once prominent and powerful environmental movement seems to be overpowered by other issues.

In the past, environmental justice movements have had some success. Environmental justice “argues that a clean environment is… a human right” (Stoll, 2007). Historically, ethnic minorities and the impoverished have had to bear the burden of environmental damage in their communities, as they have less of a voice to fight against this injustice. Fortunately, some efforts to protect these communities from falling victim to toxic pollution have been effective. This is perhaps because cases of environmental justice put a human face to the issue of environmentalism. Showing the public and the government that chemical pollution has severe detrimental effects on citizens can effect change. While we are aware that the effects of human actions on the environment will threaten our way of life one day, it is much more powerful to see the immediate effects of those actions, and the burden it places on the less fortunate in our societies.

In addition, while environmentalism has lost momentum as a movement, the movement for social justice has become extremely prominent. By creating an intersectional movement, both environmentalism and social justice could gain more strength and effect even more change. Currently, Americans seem focused on creating social change, as can be seen with the power of the #MeToo movement. Environmental change seems to have taken a backseat in many ways, especially as the Information Age has created a new movement of online consumerism. While climate change is more widely recognized than ever, less action is being taken now than in the Golden Age of Conservation during President Theodore Roosevelt’s terms and during the 1960s and 70s grassroots movements.

Though it seems dangerous to move towards an anthropocentric view of the earth, it seems that in this era, it may be the most effective method. As shown by the proposition of a new era called the Anthropocene, the effect of humans on the earth may be so significant it warrants creating a new time period. I hope that the takeaway of this new era is not that this era should revolve around humans, but that humans are the only species to create such dramatic change that we have completely altered the nature of the environment during our short time on earth. In this way, we can both appreciate the important roles that humans can play in preserving the health of the environment by combatting the negative effects of our activities but also remain focused on the importance of the environment at large.

While I believe that the focus of environmentalism should be on the environment, its ecosystems, and the life it supports, it seems that the best way to effect change is to attach environmentalism to an anthropocentric movement in order to bring it once again to the forefront and ensure that our environment will be protected.

Word count: 1,288

Questions:

Would environmentalism be more effective if it was made more closely intertwined with social movements?

Why has environmentalism not gained political success in recent years?

Do the risks of allowing environmentalism to become anthropocentric outweigh the benefits?

Is it more dangerous to think of ourselves as separate from the environment or as the most important part of it?

Sources:

Miller, Tyler, and Spoolman, Scott. Living in the Environment. 17th ed. Belmont: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Stoll, Stephen. U.S. Environmentalism since 1945. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007.

Image sources:

https://slideplayer.com/slide/14102113/

https://www.wpr.org/historian-explains-making-earth-day

https://www.thenation.com/article/race-best-predicts-whether-you-live-near-pollution/

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

Globalization: Is it Both the Cause of and Cure for Biodiversity Loss?

Chemical cycling, reliance on solar energy, and biodiversity play a central role in environmental studies as the three principles of sustainability. Chemical cycling is the movement of chemicals and nutrients in the environment through the earth’s natural processes. Reliance on solar energy refers to the importance of the sun in powering photosynthesis, renewable energy, and many more of earth’s processes that are necessary for the existence of life. Biodiversity refers to the variation of species, genetics, and ecosystems in the environment. This concept is crucial in supporting sustainability because it ensures the survival of life on earth despite environmental changes.

As the principle of reliance on solar energy tells us, all energy on earth has come from the sun’s heat, without which life would not be possible. All energy resources, including solar power, wind power, hydropower, fossil fuels, and more are either directly or indirectly derived from the sun. In addition, the sun is responsible for keeping the earth warm enough to support life and provides the energy needed by plants and algae to produce oxygen and glucose.

These organisms that produce the molecules essential for the survival of other organisms are called producers. The organisms that consume these producers in order to survive are called consumers. Consumers can be divided into primary and secondary consumers. Primary consumers are herbivores, who exclusively survive through the consumption of plants. Secondary consumers are omnivores, who will consume both plants and primary consumers to gain energy. At the end of the food chain are decomposers, organisms that will consume organism waste or dead organisms, assisting with the decomposition process and returning nutrients to the earth. The unique role played by each level of organisms in the food chain is emblematic of the importance of biodiversity in the environment.

The variation among species allows them each to fulfill an individual and essential role in their ecosystem. These roles support life on earth through the production of useable energy and oxygen, the control of other species’ populations, the return of nutrients to the earth, and more. Species can find a niche within the environment in which they can serve their ecosystem and succeed as a species based on their unique characteristics and skills as an organism.

Another way in which organisms ensure their survival is through genetic diversity within a species. A variation of genetics makes a species more resilient to environmental changes. Different traits available to an organism allows it to survive among the fierce competition for resources between species. This concept is central to the idea of evolution and the survival of the fittest. A genetic variation that increases the odds of survival of a species can take over the population of that species through the reproductive success of the genetically varied individual. This is the way in which organisms adapt to new environmental changes, and one of the methods through which biodiversity ensures the survival of life and supports sustainability.

Biodiversity is based not only on the variation between and within species but also on the variation between the ecosystems found within the environment. Deserts, forests, grasslands, freshwater, and saltwater all provide unique habitats that can support different kinds of life. The wide array of ecosystems found throughout the earth are all affected differently by environmental change. For example, the icy environment of Antarctica has begun to melt with the global increase in temperature, threatening the very existence of the habitat necessary for the survival of organisms like penguins and polar bears. In contrast, the desert ecosystem, already dry and warm, can still support organisms that live there, despite an increasing global temperature. In this way, a variety of systems of support for life on earth are crucial.

In recent years, a decrease in diversity among the species, genetics, and ecosystems on earth is beginning to threaten the biodiversity that makes our environment stronger. In a similar fashion, globalization is beginning to threaten the diversity of human cultures across the globe as cultural homogenization occurs. While many people are talking about the issue of globalization in terms of the loss of diversity it causes among unique human cultures, its role in causing a loss of biodiversity is arguably of even greater importance.

Globalization refers to the process of increasing interconnectedness across different global areas and cultures. This process has had significant effects on the environment through the contributing factors and subprocesses of globalization that can disrupt the earth’s natural systems.

With the increasing connections and access between different areas, the introduction, accidental or intended, of new species into foreign ecosystems is possible. These invasive species can take over the new ecosystem if they find an unexploited niche or have no natural predators in their new ecosystem. This invasion can threaten native species with extinction and upset the natural order of that ecosystem.

Another characteristic of globalization is overpopulation, which both causes and is increased by urbanization. The overpopulation of humans throughout the globe, but especially in urban areas, has led to an overharvest of species used by humans for both survival and comfort. For example, animals, like rhinos and alligators, hunted for their use in luxury goods such as leather bags and jewelry can become endangered very easily. In addition, urbanization leads to the destruction of natural habitat through the leveling of ecosystems to make room for new buildings and the industry that comes with urbanization.

Another effect of industry and urbanization on the environment is chemical pollution. The burning of huge amounts of fossil fuels has released large quantities of greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. This has led to acid rain, an increased greenhouse gas effect, and a decreased ozone layer. This increase in environmentally harmful gases in the atmosphere has caused a disruption of the global cycles that control the movement and storage of gases, like the carbon cycle. The disruption of global cycles is not exclusively caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The overuse and deforestation of land have eroded the ability of the land to engage in the natural processes of nutrient cycling, causing either a deficit or a surplus of necessary nutrients. The harm caused to the global cycles and nutrient cycling of the environment through human activity threatens the sustainability principle of chemical cycling. The disturbance of chemical cycling can have disastrous consequences, as has been most dramatically shown with greenhouse gases.

Through the destruction of diverse ecosystems that play an important role in global cycles, the endangerment of unique species, and the increased production of destructive chemicals, globalization and its processes have contributed significantly to the loss of biodiversity. As Thomas Lovejoy writes in his article Biodiversity and Globalization, “biological diversity provides the best measure of human impact on ecosystems” (Lovejoy, 2009). If globalization is harming this indicator, then it is certainly impacting ecosystems.

Is it possible to rework the process that has caused so much harm into something that can improve biodiversity globally? Even before we ask if it's possible, we must consider: should we? This is an issue that has plagued social scientists when they consider the negative effects of cultural homogenization. Some advocate interfering in foreign cultures to prevent their westernization and preserve their local traditions and customs. Others, however, argue that the benefits of globalization outweigh the costs, and believe that we should let the process run its course. There are similar tradeoffs when it comes to globalization and the loss of biodiversity. The process of globalization can improve the standard of living in underdeveloped countries but it also puts local ecosystems and species at risk.

It is because of these complicated tradeoffs that little concrete action has been taken to counteract the negative environmental impact of globalization. However, we don’t necessarily need to sacrifice the benefits of globalization in order to combat the harm caused by its processes. Through global interconnection, we can spread the sustainability movement across international borders with great ease. Developed nations that have the means to make changes, but face greater challenges in doing so, can help developing nations that perhaps lack the means to create sustainable infrastructure. It is in these countries that globalization could be turned into a force to preserve biodiversity rather than destroy it. It becomes extremely difficult to rebuild unsustainable and inefficient infrastructure once it is already built. However, developing nations could serve as blank templates on which revolutionary sustainable infrastructure could be created. Developed countries could also benefit from helping developing countries in this way, as they could observe the results of the implementation of cutting-edge sustainable infrastructure, learn from this process, and determine a way in which to adapt it to their existing infrastructure. The global connections that globalization has created can be used to coordinate a collaborative international sustainability revolution so that the process that has caused harm can be reworked to bring about positive, sustainable change instead.

Globalization could provide a way to promote a sustainability revolution the world over through its global nature. However, if we allow globalization to continue spreading in its present form, it will become more and more difficult to reduce and combat its negative effects on the environment. Instead, we must reinvent the processes of globalization, incorporating the sustainability principles into the infrastructure of both developing and developed countries. In this way, we may be able to preserve global biodiversity and combat climate change effectively.

Word count: 1,557

Questions:

How can globalization be used as a force to counteract the loss of biodiversity?

Do the benefits of globalization outweigh the costs? Or the other way around?

In what ways do the globalization effects of cultural homogenization and loss of biodiversity parallel each other?

Sources:

Miller, Tyler, and Spoolman, Scott. Living in the Environment. 17th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

Lovejoy, Thomas E. "Biodiversity and Globalization." In The Multiple Faces of Globalization. Madrid: BBVA, 2009.

Image sources:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/02/january-hits-new-record-low-in-the-arctic/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_pyramid

https://www.askiitians.com/biology/biodiversity-and-conservation

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

What Will it Take to Live Sustainably?

One of the central concepts in environmental studies is sustainability. Sustainability is the ability of the earth’s systems and human systems to maintain their health in the long-term, even in the face of a changing environment. This concept has come to the forefront of scientific, political, and social conversations in recent years due to its essential role in climate change issues. If we wish to effect real change for good within the environment, then we must look to sustainability, its principles, and its key components.

Sustainability has three principles, including reliance on solar energy, biodiversity, and chemical or nutrient cycling. Reliance on solar energy refers to the power of the sun to support photosynthesis, renewable energy, and the earth at large. The sun provides warmth for the planet and sunlight for plants to photosynthesize. Recently, the sun’s energy has been harnessed in various forms of renewable energy including solar panels, wind power, and hydropower. The second principle of biodiversity signifies the vast array of different species, systems, and services that exist on the earth. Without this diversity, life would not have been able to survive the various environmental changes that have occurred. Lastly, chemical or nutrient cycling is the movement of chemicals and nutrients throughout the environment. These chemicals and nutrients are not replenished, and so they move through the ecosystem in a cycle so they can be reused for essential processes within organisms and the earth itself.

In addition to these principles, an understanding of the concept of sustainability requires an understanding of its key components. These include natural capital, natural resources, and natural services. Natural capital entails both natural resources and natural services in their capacities to support human life. Many human activities reduce the natural capital that the earth provides, in turn reducing the capacity of the earth to support future human activities. As Miller and Spoolman write in Living in the Environment, we must “protect [our] capital and live on the income it provides” (Miller and Spoolman, 2012). The natural capital provided by the earth provides a natural income through renewable resources and natural services. In order to live sustainably, we must preserve the natural capital or there will be no natural income with which to support human activities.

Natural capital and income are derived from the earth’s natural resources and services. Both of these have become increasingly threatened in recent decades due to human activity. Natural resources entail anything that can be acquired from the environment to provide for our life. This includes energy resources, mineral resources, and organic resources. Energy and mineral resources are nonrenewable resources, which means that they only exist in a certain amount and are only renewed after millions to billions of years. Due to overuse of nonrenewable resources like oil, coal, and aluminum we have had to look for new ways to preserve or replace these resources. Reusing and recycling are two ways we can preserve some nonrenewable inorganic resources. We can replace nonrenewable energy resources by creating new ways to harness renewable energy resources like solar energy and hydropower. By working to both preserve and replace nonrenewable resources with renewable ones, humans can live more sustainably.

Natural services is another element of the environment that has become threatened by human activities. Natural services refer to the natural processes of the earth that allow organic life to exist. These services include the cleaning of air and water as well as the renewal of topsoil. While these processes are supposed to counteract pollution and the depletion of minerals, the overuse of agricultural land and the creation of excess pollution by humans has made it impossible for the earth to keep up. Industrial activity, mining, overuse of agricultural land, and deforestation stemming from overpopulation and economic development threaten the earth’s natural resources and services, and therefore its natural capital.

In order to protect the natural capital of the earth, change much occur. This change can start at the individual level. An ecological footprint signifies the amount of land and water necessary to support a person, country, or area. As Miller and Spoolman note, “In 2003, the U.S. per capita ecological footprint was 4.5 times the average global footprint per person” (Miller and Spoolman, 2012). The ecological footprints of developed nations are far above what the earth can support. As the rest of the world begins to develop as well, the global ecological footprint will only increase, adding to the depletion of natural resources, services, and capital. If people work within their own homes and communities to reduce their ecological footprints, change can be effected. As shown by the success of grassroots movements, even change on a home and community level can make a difference.

My own ecological footprint is estimated to require 1.4 earths, meaning that if everyone lived like me 1.4 earths would be required to support the needs and wants of the world’s population. While this is apparently a fairly low ecological footprint compared to the footprint of the average American, I am still troubled to see that my lifestyle is not very sustainable. However, within a developed nation, it is not uncommon to have a large ecological footprint. Within a culture of consumerism and convenience, it is unsurprising that we live wasteful lives. It is nearly impossible to live sustainably in a developed nation, despite the affluence found throughout these countries. We call it modernization when traditional countries change to become more like Western countries. We promote modernization as something beneficial and revolutionary, but the “modernized” nations are creating the most harmful effects on our earth. Does “modern” mean wasteful and destructive? If so, we can no longer promote modernization, but must instead move towards a new revolution, what Miller and Spoolman refer to as the sustainability revolution.

While sustainability and environmental science have come to the forefront in recent years, there are many different perspectives on the issues involved. These differing perspectives come from conflicting worldviews: the planetary management worldview, the stewardship worldview, and the environmental wisdom worldview. The planetary management worldview views humans as separate from nature and places us in charge of the earth, which we can use for our benefit. The stewardship worldview sees humans as ethical caretakers of the earth, who should work to preserve the health of the earth while using it for our benefit. The environmental wisdom worldview, which I subscribe to, holds that humans are only one of many species that depend on the earth and that we must live sustainably in order to succeed.

Personally, I subscribe to this worldview because I do not believe that humans are superior to any other species. In fact, humans have created the most destruction ever caused by a single species. Many believe that humans are superior due to our brain capacity and technological advances. However, as Miller and Spoolman write, “many argue that a species in the process of degrading its own life-support system could not be considered wise” (Miller and Spoolman, 2012). We have been given clear warnings from over 1,700 of the world’s leading scientists beginning as early as 1992 when they wrote: “We must recognize the earth's limited capacity to provide for us. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged” (UCS). The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment found that about 60% of the ecosystems observed were being used unsustainably and that the degradation occurring to these ecosystems could be creating changes that could have serious consequences for human life and the planet. I believe that our lack of action in the face of these warnings is unforgivable, and shows that we as a species are in no way superior. Who will care about the marvels humans have created if we destroy the planet that allows us to exist, and every sign of life along with it?

Unfortunately, due to our lack of action in the face of powerful evidence, I think it will take environmental destruction on a catastrophic scale in order to mobilize us into creating any real movement towards a seriously sustainable future. It is expected in the next several decades that rising sea levels could flood low-lying lands and population growth will threaten our ability to provide for all of society. Despite the evidence that countries with large populations are struggling to provide for their citizens and that global flooding is increasing, little has been done. It seems to me that the only way in which corporate and political leaders will be motivated to take serious action towards a sustainability revolution is if they are faced with environmental destruction the likes of which have never been seen before.

Word count: 1,441

Questions:

Do you think that humans have greater or lesser moral significance than animals? If yes, is this conditional? Does it depend on the animal under consideration?

Do you think it would be possible to return to a more natural, less developed lifestyle in the face of the push for development and modernization?

Do you think the sustainability problems created by developed nations are greater or lesser than the human rights issues found within undeveloped nations?

Sources:

Miller, G., and Scott Spoolman. Living in the Environment. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning, 2012.

“Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.” 2005. UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. United Nations. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzKbjVLpnX0RdjJJVzQ3Ymszczg/view

"1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity." Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed January 17, 2019. https://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html#.XECOzy2ZPOQ.

Image sources:

https://environmentalpolicylizbethsanchez.wordpress.com/page/2/

https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/footprint-calculator/

https://krobinsonphil4302.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/environmental-worldviews-and-ethics-blog-3/

0 notes

enst1000blog · 6 years ago

Text

How Do We Create a Sustainability Revolution?

Environmental studies is a multi-disciplinary area, in which many other fields of study and research play crucial roles. These disciplines include social sciences, environmental sciences, humanities, and applied arts and sciences. The environmental humanities discipline includes environmental history, geography, aesthetics, literature, philosophy and ethics, and theology. Environmental psychology, sociology, economics, politics and law, and anthropology fall under the social sciences discipline. Environmental sciences include studies like environmental physics, environmental chemistry, and ecology. The applied arts and sciences of environmental studies include subjects like conservation biology, public health, urban and suburban planning, environmental engineering, environmental architecture, sustainable business, environmental communications and media, and environmental education. While all of these disciplines are important, and their subjects play a very important role in environmental studies, I believe that the discipline of applied arts and sciences will play a central role in a sustainability revolution.

The environmental sciences have been vital from the beginning in producing research and studies on the environment that have brought climate change into the spotlight. Environmental sciences are responsible for informing the world about the facts of climate change and what needs to occur in order to combat it. This discipline is one of the main reasons that the college major of environmental studies even exists. Environmental humanities and social sciences have been important in studying the implications of historical environmental change and future environmental reform. However, in order to effect a real sustainability revolution, real-world action needs to be taken. The applied arts and sciences is the discipline which can create the most real-world change through its combination of the most practical aspects of all the environmental disciplines and studies.

Each subject within the discipline will play an integral role in the new revolution. Conservation biology focuses on protecting and improving the biological diversity of the environment. Through the extinction of species due to climate change, there has been a loss of diversity that threatens the health of ecosystems, which makes conservation biology vital to combatting environmental harm. Public health is concerned with ensuring the health of people worldwide, through education, vaccines, and research. Public health workers often help developing countries to improve resource availability, give vaccinations, improve sex education, and more. Sex education can help with issues of overpopulation, which exacerbates climate change, and better resource availability can help control the negative impact of human activity on the environment. Environmental communications and media and environmental education are very important in raising awareness of climate change and educating the public as to what needs to be done to combat climate change and how to minimize ecological footprints. One of the ways to effect these changes is through environmental architecture, which focuses on designing structures in the most environmentally friendly ways. These areas of study and work are and will continue to be of the utmost importance in the sustainability revolution.

I believe that the areas of study that may play an even more essential role in this revolution are environmental engineering, sustainable business, and urban and suburban planning. I think that these areas are going to be most effective in creating significant real-world change. Environmental engineering is concerned with creating new ways to reduce waste and pollution through crucial new innovations in renewable energy and pollution management. The field of sustainable business works to find ways in which businesses can function sustainably in an increasingly developed world. Urban and suburban planning deals with the process of developing land for use in both urban and suburban areas. This process involves many things, including planning the infrastructure of that land and resource management.

While each area of study within the applied arts and sciences can be powerful sources of change, I think that change needs to begin with business and infrastructure reform. Cities and businesses are huge sources of environmental damage through pollution, mismanagement of resources, and more. The developed world is responsible for climate change, and I hope that the exponentially increasing harm caused by these areas can be lessened through sustainable business practices and good urban and suburban planning. These things are not possible without the innovations created through environmental engineering. Environmental engineering draws on the brilliant research from environmental physics, environmental chemistry, and ecology to design world-changing technologies. Urban and suburban planning can be most effective when it works together with environmental engineering and architecture to design sustainable urban and suburban areas. Sustainable business practices can be effected through the fields of environmental engineering and environmental architecture. The fields of study and work within the discipline of applied arts and sciences work together seamlessly to create new solutions to the issue of climate change.

While each discipline is a key part of environmental studies, I believe that the applied arts and sciences will be integral to the sustainability revolution in a way that the humanities, social sciences, and environmental sciences won’t be. The humanities are too theoretical and abstract to effect any real-world change. Environmental politics and law is the one subject within the social sciences that I think will play a part in the sustainability movement. However, the policy work that could come to fruition through this study will often be effected through the applied arts and sciences, be it through public health, urban and suburban planning, or sustainable business. Environmental sciences have been necessary to the beginning of the sustainability movement and will continue to be important throughout it. However, the sciences have played out their most important role in warning the public about the effects of the historical and future changes that have occurred in the environment. Now that we know about these effects, it is time for us to work to prevent any more harm. The applied arts and sciences manage to take the most practical features of each area of study within the other disciplines and use these to create a discipline capable of powering the sustainability revolution.

As a student majoring in environmental studies who wants to find a way to make a difference in the future of the environment, I would look to the applied arts and sciences in order to do so. I think that each discipline is important in its own way, and I cannot deny the absolutely vital role of the environmental sciences in leading the way for a sustainability revolution. Today, however, much of the public is well aware of the effects of climate change and is more concerned with how to combat it. The applied arts and sciences will take the helm in the sustainability revolution, as these fields of work and study will prove to be the most important in creating real change and driving the revolution.

Word count: 1,103

Questions:

Image sources:

https://environmentalethicsblogeisenhardt.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/what-is-the-interdisciplinary-structure-of-environmental-studies/

http://terra.oregonstate.edu/2018/02/charged-long-haul/wind-turbines-on-the-west-texas-plains/

https://ecophiles.com/2017/07/31/singapore-travel-supertree-grove/

1 note · View note