Blog 2 – Exploitation of Nature, Ethics, Climate Change and Energy Sources

Readings and Summaries

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis

Lynn White Jr. talks about how religion is to blame for our current environmental degradation.  The increase of human population numbers has affected environmental integrity by irrigation, overgrazing and the cutting of the forests.  These practices have profoundly changed the ecology of some systems.  It has been noted that human activities such as the advancement and evolution of technologies have had a direct impact on ecological systems.  Such examples could be as automobiles became more common, the droppings from horses have ceased and the sparrows that fed on these dropping have disappeared.  When the first cannons were shot, it left the people searching for the materials used for these cannons.  Mining for potash, iron ore, sulfur and charcoal have contributed to deforestation and the erosion of soils/rocks.  Also with the burning of coal it was noted in 1285 that London had a smog problem. 

 Back in the day when oxen were used as the power to pull the plows, man had more of a connection with nature, now that machinery is used, that connection has changed profoundly.  Man at that time was considered “a part of nature” but now we consider ourselves the “master” of nature and see no reason as to not exploit the land.  This is the similar view of the Christians, that the land, animals and plants were given to us by God and that we have the right to rule over such objects and use them as we see fit.  It is God’s will for man to exploit nature.

(http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-genesis-1-26-image6913192)

 But in and around the late 18^th century, many scientists deemed the hypothesis of God unnecessary and reasons for exploiting the land became what is culturally acceptable.  All acceptable science and technology these days seem are considered to be “Western” in style and method.  Although many ideas came from the East, the West had the rapidly expanding skills and technologies.

 The approach to remedy our troubles with environmental degradation must be religions due to the fact that our troubles are mainly religious.  Technology and science in this day and age have outgrowth the Christian way of thinking about man and nature.  To fix the problem we need to look upon ourselves and find a new relationship with the land.

 

Critical Thinking – What is the “purpose” of nature?
The purpose of nature largely depends on a person’s point of view and background.  In the Christian sense, nature is to be dominated over and use to further human growth. Where as in aboriginal cultures you are a part of nature and understand that everything has spirit.  The trees, animals and landscapes all hold value, but not in an economical way. 

 I feel the purpose of nature should not be aesthetic or economical.  Sure we do need things like trees, animals and plants to survive, but we need to respect the land and these living organisms like we would for a human.  Nature is a web of interconnecting living organisms and no one should hold dominance over it.

 

 A Sand County Almanac

Wolves have gotten a bad reputation among people.  From a human perspective they decrease deer populations for hunters and remove cows from farmers herds decreasing their profits but people rarely look at the wolves from a landscape perspective, specifically the mountain.  The absence of wolves has a direct link to the mountain.  Increased deer population means the foraging of plants and trees intensifies, leaving the mountains and landscapes barren of these important species.  Wolf predation also ensures healthy populations of species, as in Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

 Ecologic ethics varies quite substantially from social ethics.  Ethics at first evolved from individual relations to individual/society relations, to intergrading individuals into society and finally to integrate social organizations into society. We have yet to deal with the relationships between man and land, plants, or animals.  To have valuable ecological ethics you need to have love, respect and admiration for the land, plants and animals.  Without this the concept of ecological ethics is unrealistic.

 

 

(http://good-wallpapers.com/animals/22834)

 The most serious obstacle in dealing with ecological ethics is the lack of education and to stop thinking of the land as an economical source and problem.  In this view “a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community.  These land ethics are a product of social evolution that needs to continue.

 The idea of conservation has good intentions but yet that do not have the critical understanding of the land or of economic land use.  To ensure environmental integrity and biological diversity, we must have a relationship with the land.

 

Critical Thinking – What is the lesson of Aldo Leopold’s “Thinking Like a Mountain”?

The lesson of Leopold’s Thinking like a Mountain is that our actions as humans have consequences for all other parts of the natural system.  Removing important predators can have an adverse effect on other parts of the system as removing the wolf lead to higher deer populations and the destruction of the mountain by the deer.  Also that if the wolves were to disappear there would be no “natural selection” left so the populations of the prey would become weaker in time as there is nothing to take away the weakest link except for disease.

 Having an ecocentric point of view I completely agree with this way of thinking.  Ecosystems need a balance and once that balance has been compromised there are adverse effects.  Nature ultimately regulates the ecosystem itself but once human influence begins we can alter the ecosystem substantially. 

 

 

 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

Global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increase due to human activities.  These greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO²), methane (CH⁴),  and nitrous oxide (NO).

Greenhouse Gases	Pre-Industrial Level	2005 Level
CO2	280 ppm	379 ppm
CH4	715 ppb	1774 ppb
NO	270 ppb	319 ppb

As you can see, all three greenhouse gases have increased.  CO² have averaged an increase of 1.9 ppm in the last 10 years where between 1960 and 2005 it averaged 1.4.  There is year to year variability to keep in mind as well as estimate uncertainty.  The uses of fossil fuels have accelerated the increasing levels also.  CH⁴ levels have begun to decrease since the early 1990’s but the increase in levels is likely due to agriculture and fossil fuel use as well.  One third of all NO emissions are said to be primarily from agriculture.

 

There are many examples of direct observations of climate change: 

• 11 of 12 warmest years (1995-2006) ever recorded
• lower and mid-tropospheric temperatures increasing
• average atmospheric water vapour content has increased
• global ocean temperatures have increased
• loss of mass from ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctic
• sea levels rising
• Arctic temperatures increasing
• Arctic sea ice decreasing
• permafrost layers decreasing

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254862/All-sea--polar-bear-cub-drift-shrinking-ice-12-miles-land-expert-says-survived.html)

 There are also many projections of the future changes to climate.  These include:

• increasing acidification of the ocean
• snow cover to contract
• sea ice to shrink
• hot extremes will continue
• tropical cyclones will become more intense
• amounts of precipitation will increase in high latitudes and decrease in subtropical land regions
• contraction of Greenland ice sheet will continue
• sea levels will continue to rise

Critical Thinking – Given that projections of global climate change are not certain, should we act now?  If not, how long should we wait?

I feel that the precautionary principal plays well into the idea of climate change.  It has been shown that these greenhouse gases are increasing and it is very likely due to human influence.  Why not start to act now?  The precautionary principal implies that we need have strategies in place for situations with scientific uncertainty.  We do not know how severe the climate change will be but why not use cost-effective measure to prevent these greenhouse gases to keep increasing.  We could wait but then we are just thrusting the same situation on our children and grandchildren but the outcomes could be more severe for them.  I feel the whole concept of “not in my backyard” is being used as a reason to delay the actions for global warming whereas we could start taking preventative measures.

 

 

A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030

A sustainable, clean energy world is in our reach and can be obtained by 2030 if the world is willing to work together.  There any alternatives to using fossil fuels that are renewable and sustainable.  Those being solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, hydroelectric and battery powered. 

 At any point in time the globe is using approximately 12.5 trillion watts (TW) of energy, this is projected to increase to 16.9TW.  If the globe was to use only wind, water and solar energy technologies the energy demand would decrease to 11.5.  The use of wind energy technology could provide 40-85 TW and solar energy technology could provide 580 TW.  Currently the globe is only using 0.002 TW and 0.008 TW for wind and solar energies respectively.

(http://www.greentechforum.net/?s=&currentPage=2)

To ensure this sustainable energy plan for 2030 would work, the globe would only use 9% of all energy from water technologies which would mean there would be 900 hydroelectric stations, 70% of which already exist.  51% of energies would come from wind technologies and would need 3.8 million large turbines which would only occupy less than 1% of the earth’s surface.  Finally solar technologies would generate the last 40% of the energy needed.  This energy would come from 89,000 photovoltaic solar plants, occupying about 0.33% of the earth’s surface.  It may seem like a lot of new development but if we were to depend on coal, with the increasing demand we would need at least 13,000 more coal plants not to mention all the land needed for mining.

There are a few hurdles with upgrading the world energy supply.  Those being the materials needed to construct such technologies as wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.  Rare earth elements for the turbines and batteries are the most problematic.  Also the occurrence of intermittency problems but the could be solved with various strategies such as grid storage and combining and interconnecting geographically disperse areas to back up one another.

The issue with renewable energy isn’t the technologies, because we do have them.  It is more of a political issue.  Fossil fuel companies give large amounts of their profits back to the governments as well as the time and money put forth already by the governments in the coal industry.

 

Critical Thinking – Over the years, society has spent enormous amounts of money to building the current energy system.  Why does this make it difficult to change to a new energy system?
The current energy system that we here have established in Canada would make it extremely difficult to upgrade to a new system.  As we speak the Canadian and Alberta governments are trying to strike deals to install new pipelines that would carry oil to be refined in the States.  Economically speaking it would significantly damage our economy here in Canada.  Oil companies pay the government millions of dollars and with renewable energy Canada would proceed into an economic slump.  There are variables as how these production sites would be remediated and how much would that cost?  It would be parallel to building a new home from group up only to live it in for a year or two and then abandon it.

 

Activity

Consider your reliance on fossil fuels. Are you comfortable with your level of dependence? Do you feel that this is sustainable for the next 10 years? Are there steps you would like to take to reduce this reliance?

The majority of the time I do rely heavily on fossil fuels.  With the exception of walking to school, I use my car to drive myself where I need to be.  I would like to say that I am not comfortable with my level of dependence but being brought up in the country, it is unrealistic to become independent of fossil fuels.  In the city I can see how it may be a lot more feasible with the options of carpooling and public transportation. 

I feel that it is sustainable for the next 10 years but it’s the time after that.  How dependent are my children and grandchildren going to be?  Will there be better more sustainable energy resources available?  Are we going to have to force ourselves to become unattached to fossil fuel because I know we cannot keep up the rate of consumption forever.  When will we run out of fossil fuels?  It’s only a matter of when it’s going to happen.

When living in the city I find it much easier not to rely on my car so much.  I walk to school, car pool with my roommate when going shopping, and carpool with my sister when driving back home.  Eventually when I get settled where ever in life it would be nice to live close enough to work to walk daily, but at the moment my future plans are like next week’s lottery, who knows where or what I will be.

 

 

Blog Reflections

1. Can parks meet its dual mandate of access and protection?

I think this is a very difficult question to answer.   Yes parks need to be protected but also the tourism industry brings in a lot of money into the governments.  I don’t think it is possible to meet this dual mandate because of human nature.  I worked as a park patrol officer for three seasons and I know that people don’t like to follow rules.  They are going to do as they want until they get caught.  Take for example hiking trails; if you see a sign that says “Do not go off trail”, you are going to have those rebellious people who are going to do exactly the opposite.  The only way to ensure compliance is to have enforcement and yet that costs money that the government does not want to fund.  If society can change their nature as a whole society it may be possible but until then, you are going to have someone that wants to break the rules.

 

2. How can this be achieved in Wapusk?

The dual mandate of access and protection could be achieved in Wapusk with enforcement and compliance.  Interpreters could give guided walks only or impose very strict regulations to those visiting the park.  Again, the way society has evolved it is hard say exactly what will work.  You can impose regulations on the time period of the day you can visit, the amount of people allowed in the park, or control what activities take place within the park.

 

3. What future would you like to see for the Alberta Tar Sands project?

I would like to see the Alberta Tar Sand project modified to become more environmentally friendly.  There has to be technologies that can be used to clean it up.  It would be great if we did not need the oil anymore and then we would not need to tap into the tar sands but realistically our society has become too dependent on oil for this to ever happen.  If we could modify the practices so it becomes more environmentally sustainable, I think that would be good enough.  I do not believe than my generation will stop using oil.