Last Remarks

Looking back to my first blog, I sort of laugh upon reading the line, “I hope to learn something more about the environment through this class.” It seems a little bit like an understatement on this side of the looking glass, four and a half months later. If that was the only thing that I wanted to achieve in this course, then it certainly does seem like I accomplished all my goals for this class... and then some.

My actions now regarding the environment won’t ever be the same. While I can’t exactly promise that I’m going to save the world and singlehandedly put a stopper to climate change (that would be pretty cool, though), I know that I’ll be more conscious about my activities. Turning off lights, slimming down shower times, eliminating garbage from my lunches, switching to CFLs, putting an end to idling: there are plenty of ways I can personally contribute to the fight against climate change. No, I can’t solve the issue, but I can certainly try.

I’m glad I had the opportunity to take such a unique course. I think learning–for me, at least–is a lot easier when I’m able to apply the concepts to real life, and Environment and Resource Management definitely gave me that opportunity. Thanks for teaching it, and I know I’ll be able to carry this knowledge and put it to good use for the betterment of the world. As you yourself said in your first blog, Mr. Holmes, we’re all in this together!

Staying Ahead of Lead

Among the things most important to school boards, the health and well-being of their students and staff are paramount. Thus, when it came to their attention that recent tests of demonstrated that nearly one in four London homes failed recent tests, the Thames Valley and Catholic school boards were quick to act. While it is believed that all schools in the Thames Valley region were built without lead piping, the tests are just a safeguard precaution to ensure that there is nothing in the water that might do harm.

Lead, after all, is most dangerous to young people. Because youth are so susceptible to these problems, it’s no wonder that the school boards would be extra quick to jump on a problem that could be especially dangerous to children. Negative effects of lead poisoning are numerous and harmful:

• reduced IQ
• nausea
• abdominal pain
• irritability
• insomnia
• metal taste in the mouth
• lethargy or hyperactivity
• headache
• possible seizure or coma
• constipation
• diarrhea
• vomiting
• poor appetite
• weight loss
• anemia
• kidney problems
• reproductive problems

As you can see, it’s no wonder that the school boards would want to do everything possible to make sure none of these effects can do harm to those who might be drinking the water.

Reasonably, Londoners should be concerned about any issue that might do them harm–not least of all an issue that could deal such extensive harm as the list above. However, it is good to note that tests are being performed that make sure these problems are discovered. As long as the city and institutions are sharp enough to test the water levels, and will do everything within their grasp to solve the problem, everything will hopefully be remedied before any damage can be done.

When Species Invade

The idea that the introduction of a single species can so devastatingly impact an ecosystem is as frightening as it is fascinating. These species are able to disrupt the local florae and faunae of a region over years, causing the local wildlife to either adapt to their presence... or die out. In the case of the emerald ash borer, the fate of numerous ash trees in Michigan and even London, apparently, is the unfortunate “die out” option.

Other species, over time, have been introduced into foreign regions, and their effects are far-reaching. One example of such a species is one variety of the fire ant. Solenopsis invicta, known also as red imported fire ant, is native to South America, though its tenure in that part of the world was apparently not permanent. At a seaport in Alabama, Cargo ships from Brazil in the 1930s unloaded goods that had apparently been infested with the species, allowing them to spread. Though this was the first example of the species introduced elsewhere, it is not the only one. The red invasive fire ant has also been found in Australia, Taiwan, Philippines, China–all from similar methods.

The effects of the ant have been far-reaching, and their negative impact on the environment are much to be despised. They are quite the household pests, damaging flower and vegetable gardens. They also damage agricultural assets, including animals and livestock, which result in an annual five billion dollars spent on treating this damage. They prey on pollinators, which ultimately harms the species these insect pollinate.

The northern snakehead is another example of such an invasive species, native to China, Korea, and Russia. This fish species, known also as Channa argus, is a valued species of food fish for its high retail value. Thus, it’s been theorized that its introduction to the United States was not an accident at all, but rather a deliberate attempt to generate an additional source of revenue. However, it can do quite the opposite. The northern snakehead is an adept predator, feeding on other species of fish. It has been known to significantly harm the populations of other species of fish, posing an economical threat to fisheries. The northern snakehead has also indirectly caused environmental harm. When the species was discovered in Crofton, Illinois, locals used a pesticide known as Rotenone to eliminate the fish. Not only did this kill numerous other fish, but other forms of wildlife drinking from the lake were also harmed by the pesticide as well.

One final species that has been introduced to a region only to do it harm is the cotton thistle. This species, though innocuous at first glance, has posed an agricultural threat to North America and Australia. It was introduced to Europe, North America, and Africa as a simple ornamental plant, though its rapid growth and spread was unprecedented and created a lasting issue. This dense weed’s presence can make foraging for agricultural animals difficult, and can also ruin whole crops. Wild animals like deer and elk, too, can have their food sources eliminated when this species grows thick and dense in particular regions.

Canadian SFM... or Canadian BS?

One would think that Canada, given its economical reliance on wood and wood products, would be on the cutting edge of sustainable forestry practices. After all, given our 300 million hectares of forests and 92 million hectares of wooded land, we apparently value our forests greatly, and should reasonably value the way they are managed, too.

Enter sustainable forestry management. Sustainable forestry is the practice of managing forests so that, while logging operations still may take place, conservation and renewal practices are also exercised in order to guarantee that future generations will also have this bounty of a resource we find in our sundry forests in our country. Lumber and timber are part of Canada’s most valuable and heavily exported resources in this $80 billion industry. Therefore, shouldn’t the management of this resource be top priority?

You’d think so. However, according to the policy, only half of all logged forests in Canada are actually subjected to sustainable forestry tactics. The website also uses ambiguous phrasing that fails to verify if anything is being done to remedy some of the problems that have evidently arisen. For example, the website claims, “The government reports and efforts indicate that there may be threats to forest sustainability and some localized areas of non-sustainable management, but overall the situation is positive.” However, there is no mention of what these threats are and whether or not there are any efforts to adapt Canada’s goals and figure these problems out.

The government’s claim that the situation is possible warrants a raised brow. While I can’t personally verify whether or not this claim is biased, there are many skeptics that contend that the situation is far from positive–and, unsurprisingly, these critics are non-governmental. This gives the impression that whether someone thinks that sustainable forestry management in Canada is meetings the goals differs on the actuality of whether or not that individual’s paycheck is paid by the government itself.

These critics include Global Forest Watch, which is especially critical of Canada’s role in sustainable forestry management. One line sticks out far past any others for me: “Current harvesting rates surpass regeneration.” How can the government possibly claim that sustainable forestry management is well on its way if forests are dying faster than they’re being replaced? If sustainable forestry management is designed to make sure forests don’t die out faster than they can regenerate, Canada’s progress is light-years away from the generic rubber stamp of approval the government has apparently and thoughtlessly given it. Other NGO’s, according to the policy, have given Canada a failing grade, which is anything but surprising.

In conclusion, it seems very apparent that Canada’s current stance towards sustainable forestry management is not up to scratch. However, all hope is not lost. While the current SFM practices might not be sufficient, there is consensus provided that Canada is moving towards meeting the goals. The independent panel of the NFSC claims that, though Canada has not yet reached its goals, there is some measurable progress. The GFW even makes the point that evidence points to the fact that Canada is moving towards harvesting timber with the environment in mind–not just profits. With hope, this trend can continue, as the potential consequences of not doing so are ones I wouldn’t soon like to imagine.

The Many Sides of a Very Inconvenient Truth

An Inconvenient Truth was, more than anything else, a real eye-opener. Before watching the film, I did already have some degree of awareness about the negative impacts humans have traditionally had on the environment, including carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. What I really didn’t know, however, were the consequences of environmental damage, and how humans could (and do) anthropogenically harm the planet in such a drastic and deadly manner. I had always thought that a lot of the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions were exaggerated; Al Gore’s use of graphs and statistics, however, provided a more concrete and vindicated approach to explaining the results of humankind’s effects on the planet. It has been quite some time now since seeing the movie, but a great amount of information has stuck with me, perhaps justifying it as an excellent and informative film.

As a high-profile film, An Inconvenient Truth has been subject to a great deal of attention, becoming the target of both positive and negative feedback. Different representatives from the scientific community argue about details of the information presented, and others yet contest the way the facts were presented, labeling it as a “docuganda.”

One website that supports AIT is Stopglobalwarming.org, an environmental site dedicated to making sure a lot of the possible ramifications argued by Al Gore do not happen. As a result, the site heavily pushes the film, calling it, among other things, “a rallying cry for action” that “eloquently weaves the science of global warming with Al Gore’s personal story and lifelong commitment to stop global warming.” It names the film as the best hope of garnering attention about the issue of global warming; considering the media surrounding the film, they certainly aren’t wrong.

National Geographic News also praises the film, using a scientific authority to back the information given. The authority, scientist Eric Steig at University of Washington in Seattle, even claimed that he was looking for factual errors, but found that Al Gore’s presentation coincided greatly with his own knowledge of global warming. The website goes through the movie claim-by-claim. For example, Steig supports Gore’s claim that deaths from global warming will double in the next twenty-five years, citing it as a likely extrapolation of deaths from other global warming-related happenings.

However, as with all provocative films, there is a great deal of criticism dished its way. One article by Iain Murray uses the puns “Gorey Truths” to undermine AIT. One claim the author makes is that fossilized remains provide evidence claiming that, 11,000 years ago, there was just as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is today. Another claim is that glaciers have been disappearing over the past 100 years, which, perhaps, means that it is not necessarily an anthropogenic cause. He even cites research showing a previous glacier that already had vanished as many as thousands of years ago.

One final source that counters An Inconvenient Truth is another article by Tom Harris, which goes so far as to lampoon Al Gore’s claims, rebuking them more heatedly and personally than Ian Murray’s article. A variety of terms are used to describe Gore and the film: “weak,” “pathetic,” “an embarrassment to US science,” and “a propaganda crusade” based mostly on “junk science.” The authority in this case is Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, the source of many of these derogatory claims. It’s clear that this writer believes that An Inconvenient Truth is nothing but cinematic garbage.

One way or another, it’s up to the individual whether he or she believes that there’s any truth in global warming. Many pundits will call An Inconvenient Truth a docuganda, and perhaps there is some truth to that. After all, as all effective propaganda does, it does not effectively show both sides of the story. However, isn’t that the point? If Al Gore is looking to create support for anti-global warming movements, why throw in theories that argue the contrary? People who wish to build their own personal opinion should check out a variety of books and movies, not just An Inconvenient Truth, to gather a conclusive understanding of the issue. Al Gore’s film only shows his perspective–and it’s one with which I agree.

Label Your GMO's!

With as many issues of poverty and food scarcity plaguing the world today, it seems sometimes silly that so many people oppose the concept of genetically modified food. While there are many arguments against bioengineering agricultural products, I strongly feel that the pros outweigh the cons. However, at the same time, no matter how beneficial genetically altered foodstuffs might be, I think it’s common sense that any and all products containing genetic alterations should be labeled such. After all, if it’s required that consumers be educated as to whether their dinner contains anything from carbohydrates to tomato paste, it stands to reason that genetic modifications be included as well.

Now, clearly, labelling every single form of genetic modification would be excessive. For example, cross-pollination of flowers is a form of modification, as are species that have been around for centuries that once were the result of deliberate "tampering." To label these products as GMO’s (genetically modified organisms) would be ludicrous. However, products in which deliberate, anthropological modifications have occurred for the purpose of increasing the size, yield, colour, taste, nutrition, or any such element of a product should be inobtrusively mentioned on its packaging.

Greenpeace Canada supports the labeling of any and all GMO’s. They claim that, in spite of numerous political promises on behalf of many elected politicians, genetically modified foods do not yet bear the appropriate labels. However, Greenpeace Canada differs from my point of view on a technicality–while we both feel that labels should be required, Greenpeace does not support the use of genetic modification in food products.

This website makes the accurate observation that a label is not necessarily the same thing as a warning. Labels are not necessarily bad things, and are often intended merely to educate the consumer about what is included in the product. Therefore, consumers should not necessarily assume that a product telling of its use of GMO’s is necessarily a bad thing. In many situations, the genetic modification can be beneficial.

Europe’s decision to label GMO’s, despite contention from the likes of the United States, have not yet had a noticeable effect on the economy and agricultural sector. Furthermore, the individual price of genetically modified foods has not yet risen. These factors influentially contribute to the concept of labeling GMO’s, with Europe standing to be seen as a pioneer in the concept of GMO labeling.

This website outlines the potential pros and cons of labeling genetically modified organisms. Put simply, while it cannot be feasibly argued that GMO’s are harmful, people do have the right to know what’s in their food–harmful or not. Those who wish to eliminate animal byproducts from their diet, even including animal DNA in their vegetables, should be informed that what they’re eating might potentially have been produced with the aid of animal genes. A specific example of a GMO that falls under this category is a tomato imbued with a fish gene to improve its resistance to frost. While this is ultimately harmless to the human body, those who exclude animals from their diet have a right to know that part of an animal–even if it is only their DNA–is part of what they’re eating.

Ultimately, GMO labeling respects the consumer’s right to know what they’re purchasing. While I personally believe that GMO’s are harmless and highly beneficial to society, labels on these products is might help raise society’s awareness to them, and help reduce the social stigma associated with them.

Fighting Back Against Climate Change

When considering the issue of climate change, it’s easy to shirk the blame toward the corporate industries. The iconic image of factory smokestacks funneling black, ozone-depleting chemicals into the atmosphere has been branded only too clearly into our minds. Nonetheless, while it’s true that the industrial and commercial sectors are responsible for a sizeable chunk of our country’s GHG emissions, the onus cannot fall solely on them. There are plenty of methods that the average person can adopt in order to succeed in reducing their personal contribution to global warming.

Incorporating sustainable products and practices into one’s life can go a long way to reducing GHG emissions. Light fixtures are a prime example of this. Incandescent bulbs that show the Energy Star label are far more "eco-friendly" than those that don’t. Better yet, fluorescent bulbs in not only the most commonly-used fixtures, but all of them, can help greatly toward reducing unnecessary emissions. Turning off lights when leaving rooms and using limited lighting are two additional ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On that note, consumers need not limit themselves to Energy Star lights; there are a variety of Energy Star products available for purchase that are beneficial to the environment.

Consumers can help reduce their personal emissions by conserving energy and using it efficiently. One way to do this is to insulate homes. Insulation precludes heat from escaping, thereby reducing one’s heating bill. Furthermore, alternate heating methods can also improve sustainability. These green varieties of power comes from renewable sources such as wind and sun, and can even have economic benefits as well as environmental ones.

One major and important way of reducing carbon emissions is to conserve the amount of fossil fuels consumed. There are a variety of fuel-efficient vehicles on the market, and even ones that employ alternate methods of fuel. Carpooling, public transit, and more environmentally efficient transportation methods (ie. walking, biking, etc.) all help to reduce the amount of time a car spends on the road, and therefore the amount of carbon emitted. Traditional push mowers, unlike gas or electric mowers, consume no fossil fuels and emit no greenhouse gases. Similarly, raking is much more environmentally-friendly than leaf-blowing, as rakes (obviously) do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

There are many methods that successfully reduce GHG emissions. Many of these, such as recycling or tree-planting, are common sense. It takes less energy to recycle a product than it does to produce one, and trees naturally absorb carbon and serve as a carbon sink. By employing as many of these techniques as possible into our daily lives, we can successfully fight back in the battle against climate change.