Ecological Entity & Human Endeavors

Reading-

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis

Judeo-Christianity is to blame for attitudes that have resulted in environmental degradation; the idea that nature serves man - paired with modern science developments and technology results in ecological crises as Professor White explains. The statement that "all forms of life modify their contexts,"(*) seems to be fairly underrated in our society; how one species, such as the coral polyp, can alter an entire ecosystem to invite a myriad of others, who all create an integral part of the world. Humankind has given this concept a rather opposite tone, transforming the environment into human artifact ecologies, remodeled ecosystems. The human system has embraced overenthusiastic hunting and exploitation: Neptune and Netherlanders combat which ironically resulted in their own loss in quality of life. White explores the ancestors of nature, though it is limitless he notes a significant 1850's union; that of the theoretical [natural sciences] and empirical [technology], from Western Europe and North America respectively. Followed by the Baconian creed "scientific knowledge means technological power over nature,"(*) a means of conquering. There are however differences between ecology alterations, of past and present human impacts, "with the population explosion, the carcinoma of planless urbanism, the now geological deposits of sewage and garbage, surely no create other than man has ever managed to foul its nest in such short order,"(*). The origins of "modern technology and modern science are distinctively Occidental...Western science is heir to all of sciences past,"(*). Scientific progress started before the stages of the 17th century Scientific Revolution or the 18th Century Industrial Revolution "from simple beginning, but with remarkable consistency of style, the West rapidly expanded its skills in the development of power machinery, labor-saving devices, and automation..."(*). In example of simple scratch-plow fields, from subsistence farming to a pool of oxen forming the capacity of a power machine to till the Earth. "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about nature and destiny--that is religion,"(*) this is the nature of our present impacts as the human species. Greco-Roman mythology didn't believe in a beginning whereas Judeo-Christians beliefs were rooted in a concept of time as nonrepetitive and linear and "no item in the physical creation [of God] has any purpose save to serve man's purposes"(*), establishing a dualism of man and nature. In the Latin West by the early 13th century natural theology ceased to decode the physical symbols of God's communication with man and was becoming the effort to understand God's mind by discovering how his creation operates. As such, scientist like Leibnitz, Newton, and disputably Galileo explained their motivations in religious terms, rather than scientific. If modern science is an extrapolation of natural theology and modern technology is derived from the Christian dogma, Christianity then, bears a huge burden of guilt from human exploitation of nature. "The whole concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and the ethos of the West,"(*) prompting that we are not, in our hearts, part of natural processes, we are superior. Saint Francis of Assisi, is the radical of Christian history whose head did not end on a stake. He believed in the virtue of humility for man as a species, implicitly articulating that Christ served as an incarnation and portrayal of cosmic humility. He also proposed what is known as the "doctrine of the animal soul," or rather explicitly the pan-psychism of all things animate and inanimate. Technology and sciences originated from the Western medieval world deeply grounded in the Christian dogma, any discoveries in both those realms has since further expressed the thought of orthodox Christian arrogance towards nature. "No new set of basic values has been accepted in our society to displace those of Christianity. Hence we shall continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man," (*) White is an advocate of re-establishing renewed roots to our way of life and of thinking; he states that "what we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the man-nature relationship. More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one," (*) that of Christianity, as for it is to blame for our crisis.

What makes Saint Francis an appropriate candidate for the position of patron saint of ecology?

A patron saint of ecology is a protecting and guiding saint for the integrity of nature and its ecosystems. Saint Francis created a democracy of God's creatures, species as brothers and sisters. It was said that Gubbio in the Apennines was being ravaged by a fierce wolf, Saint Francis then talked to the wolf and persuaded him in the error of his ways, the wolf then repented (*), the Saint had the radical thought, which he profoundly believed and advocated for, that nature and everything it beholds has a distinct conscious, just as every other human. "His view of nature and of man rested on a unique sort of pan-psychism of all things animate and inanimate, designed for the glorification of their transcendent Creator, who, in the ultimate gesture of cosmic humility, assumed flesh, lay helpless in manger, and hung dying on a scaffold,"the betrayal of the Creator to his own, not only did he place superiority on one species, humans, he disregarded the magnificence of the others, who have prevailed and shown their own importance, thus the Creator's humility.  Saint Francis was the first to imply that was some sublime disregard in religion, though he was a believer, he was not a follower of the common norm of religion at that time, enabling him to reflect on the Creator. Though he did fail, "he tried to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man's limitless rule of creation,"(*) and this deserves recognition, especially at his time, of a patron saint of ecology. "The profoundly religious, but heretical, sense of the primitive Franciscans for the spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature may point a direction,"(*).

* citation for The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis by Lynn White, Jr (S 6)

A Sand County Almanac [excerpt]

"Behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf,"(*) Aldo Leopold introduces this perspective within Thinking Like a Mountain. During an outing on a high rimrock he encountered a "welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings"(*), a pack of wolves. With excitement the lead was released from the rifle onto an old wolf, and shortly thereafter she was down. "We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes...something only known to her and to the mountain,"(*) it is this fire that Leopold felt resonate through his body and has since been able to reflect on the true attitude of his society, where it was thought that less wolves would result in a deer hunters paradise. Since that moment the abundance of wolfless mountains has grown, grazing deer have destroyed their own habitat, slowly and ceaselessly, significantly in the whole realm ecosystems. As the deer herd feared the wolves, the mountains live in mortal fear of the buck (*); for the mountains replenishment is no less than the time of several decades. Leopold states the thought that too much immediate safety only seems to yield danger in the long run. "An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct,"(*) an ethic is mergence of both, a "co-operative mechanisms with an ethical content,"(*). It is indeed an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity to extend the lines of ethics to the element of human-environment. A land ethic is a mode of guidance for our ecology endeavors and human-environment kinship, it enlarges the boundaries of the 'community concept' to entail all of the biotic and abiotic.  He says, "it is inconceivable to me that an ethical relation to land can exist without love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value. By value, I of course mean something far broader than mere economic value; I mean value in the philosophical sense,"(*) man has been isolated and continues to be separated from the integrity of the ecological system, it is vital for man to have an understanding ecology and further a comprehension of land, above its economic values. It is quite a simple logical concept that seems to take absurd amount of effort to be acknowledged and followed by the people. "The mechanism of operation is the same for any ethic: social approbation for right actions: social disapproval for wrong actions. By and large, our present problem is one of attitudes and implements,"(*).

What is the basic lesson of Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain"?

"Leopold reflects on his early enthusiasm for killing wolves as indicative of human ignorance about the ecological interdependence that sustains a mountain ecosystem,"(*) this indeed is the departing fierce green fire in the eyes of the nearly departed old wolf which resonated within himself, penetrating his thoughts. "I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view,"(*) far too often is it allowed in our society to let people go about their lives doing things without knowing its history, value, or even its repercussions. We grow into these thoughts presented as the norm of life, and we spent so little time questioning where they come from and if they truly are so important, especially being so neglecting of nature's presence. In our young years, little or no time is devoted to truly appreciating the environment and everything its realm beholds, a grave mistake. "The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf’s job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea,"(*) it is seldom perceived among men that nature has existed long before their introduction, yet we enable ourselves to act superior to it, a great tragedy.

* citation for A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold (S 4)

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis 

The United Nations Environment Programme paired with the World Meteorological Organization to establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information regarding greenhouse gas-induced climate change, a report was released. An anthropogenic increase has been observed in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel and land use, in addition to methane and nitrous oxide as an output from agricultural activities. "The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming,"(*) with positive radiative forcing. Negative radiative forces of aerosols are feeble to its positive counterparts from several sources including solar irradiance and those categorized under greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and tropospheric ozone. Remote sensing and proxy measurements provide evidence that the "warming of the climate system is unequivocal,"(*); eleven of the last twelve years are amongst the twelve warmest years on record, increased water vapour content in the atmosphere, increased ocean temperature, declining glaciers and snow cover, including ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, rising sea levels, and extreme weather patterns in intensity and frequency (droughts, heat waves, cyclones, etc). Changes in the precedent are "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"(*) is is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forces,"(*) discernibly human. Climate models have revealed that "surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C,"(*). "For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES [the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios] emission scenarios,"(*). According to model experiments it is very likely that even if greenhouse gases and aerosols would be held at a low constant, global temperature would rise by 1°C per decade, due to the persistence of these existing infrared absorbing gases. If current trends persist global warming model-based projections observe an exponentially increase, not exclusive of its already damaging consequences. Enhancing ocean acidification, extra-tropical storms, in addition to the slowing down in the meridional overturning circulation of the Atlantic Ocean and virtual complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet, increasing future sea level rise. "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere,"(*); it is with very high confidence that climate change has been anthropogenic, and that its continuing impacts of global warming will further harm all biotic existence and alter the abiotic natural formations.

What consequences can we expect from global warming?
-Increased global average of air and ocean temperatures
-Melting of the cryosphere, including permafrost which releases a powerful dose of methane
-Rising global average sea level (submergence of coastal areas)
-Increased ocean salinity
-Ocean acidification
-Extreme weather patterns including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and intensity of natural disasters (i.e. tropical cyclones, wildfires)
-Increased surface warming
-Reduced land and water intake of greenhouse gases
-The meridional overturning circulation of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down
-Extensive expansion of tropical diseases
-Intensification of current allergies and illnesses
-Ecosystem shifts
-Disappearance of coral reefs
-Loss of biodiversity [massive extinctions]
-Decreased soil fertility and efficiency (crop failures)
-Biotic ecological refugees 

* citation for Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (S 23)

A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 

For the climate leaders meeting in Copenhagen the most effecting step to cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions is a significant shift away from fossil fuels, to clean renewable energy. Unlike Al Gore, Jacobson and Deluchi modeled a plan for all energy to be supplied by wind, water and solar [WWS] resources, by as early as 2030. "Millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations,"(*). The feasibility and deadline of this project depends on the technology chosen, the availability of materials, as well as the much conflicted economic and political factors. Based on clean "technologies that work or are close to working today on a large scale, rather than those that may exist 20 or 30 years from now,"(*) considering only those that have near-zero emissions of pollutants, from its production and usage to its afterlife; no significant waste disposal or terrorism risks. Revamping transportation, heating, and industry systems to renewed electric systems, fuel-cells, and electrolysis. "If, however, the planet were powered entirely by [efficiently allocated] WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur,"(*) electrification seems to generate an ample amount of energy supply as its sources hold an immense amount of untapped potential. 9 percent by water-related methods, 51 percent would come from 3.8 million large turbines, and 40 percent from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants. Using already placed hydroelectric stations, wind bases, and solar operations. They note that these additional sources would only occupy about 1 percent of Earth's land. On its opposite, a larger demand for coal would produce much more harmful effects, and it wouldn't be a long-term solution. It is with the rare materials where we'll encounter hurdles, such as the neodymium used in turbine gearboxes, however a shift towards gear-less turbines is seen in the future. Tellurium, indium, and silver contained in photovoltaic cells will prove to be reused from older cells, and we will shift to cells with high efficiency and minimal rare material content. We encounter a bigger problem with lithium and platinum, for vehicle ion batteries and fuel cells, respectively, as it is estimated that there does not exist enough recoverable amounts of these materials for the extent to which we need them. The WWS system will need reliable and resilient infrastructure; it is known that the energy sources can be highly variable. "Interconnecting geographically dispersed sources backing up one another, installing smart electric meters in homes that automatically recharge electric vehicles when demand is low and building facilities that store power for later use,"(*) paired with efficient infrastructure, including an energy grid, mutes the precedent variability. They state; "the mix of WWS sources in our plan can reliably supply the residential, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors,"(*). As the WWS energy realm will expand and become cost-competitive,  it will become as "cheap as coal,"(*) ridding us of an old, dirty, and inefficient energy system. "In the interim, however, certain forms of WWS power will be significantly more costly than fossil power. Some combination of WWS subsidies and carbon taxes would thus be needed for a time. A feed-in tariff program to cover the difference between generation cost and wholesale electricity prices is especially effective at scaling-up new technologies"(*), these will be phased out as incentives grow. Nationwide investments in a robust, long-distance transmission systems will be crucial. "A large-scale wind, water and solar energy system can reliably supply the world’s needs, significantly benefiting climate, air quality, water quality, ecology and energy security"... only if "clear leadership is [present], or else nations will keep trying technologies promoted by industries rather than vetted by scientists,"(*).

Over the years, society has spent enormous amounts of money to build the current energy system. Why does this make it difficult to change to a new energy system?

As with any investment the news of inefficiency is a very problematic. For the industries that rule our economic system, some would even go as far as plainly saying our society, these problems aren't beneficial when they are dealt with. The WWS is a threat to them, it is the exchange of power and there is absolutely no multinational economic industry out there that is willing to give out power, thus losing their beloved profits no matter how scarce they may become. As with any entity power is always better when it stays within, because today power is livelihood [which to add, is a very unhealthy and addictive one sided relationship]. We hold power most treasured for the belief that it makes us a 'best' individual, or entity, quite a tragic and faulty conjectures.

Convincing a mere few of these industries to completely divest into the WWS system will be enough to quite nearly fund the entire system, so it isn't a problem of money or even of resources. Power is the enemy and it is the driving force of difficulty in changing to a new energy system. "Clear leadership is needed, or else nations will keep trying technologies promoted by industries rather than vetted by scientists,"(*) everything is set, the system just needs the backing of 'brave' divesting fossil fuel industries. Now we wait, and wait some more.

* citation for A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi (S 13)

Activity-

Ted Talk: Transition to a World Without Oil by Rob Hopkins
*{watch here}

Basing our idea of economic growth and success, our whole life around oil. "Our degree of oil dependency is our degree of vulnerability,"(*) we will not be able to depend on it forever. This creates scrambling extractions of oil, from Alberta tar sands, or the depths of the ocean. We have to design a creative way back down the other, sustainable, side; an important transition. IPCC models have been more than reached and we are in need of "deep and urgent decarbonization." Our story will become of a "generation that lived at the top of the mountain, partied so hard, and abused its inheritance. Three continuum ideas exist; first business as usual, second hitting a wall, and last impossible dream; technology can solve everything "invent our way out,"(*). Energy and technology is not the same thing. The Hopkins places grand significance on his program of "The Transition Response" as self-reflecting concept that creative humans can take part of, finding envious resilience more than sustainability. Transition projects emerge from several group of people, each unique to their own locations; local food projects, community owned [renewable] energy companies, education, garden-share, local value money etc. An energy decent plan, embracing the loss of energy and finding a way to sustain ourselves without it. Engaging with the local government to create transitional authorities, further expanding to organization funding and support. "So the question I'd like to leave you with, really, is - for all aspects of the things that your community needs in order to thrive, how can it be done it such a way that drastically reduces its carbon emission, while also building resilience?"(*).
We claim to be innovative, constantly evolving ways of thought and improving ourselves, thus the significant question of why are still so dependent on oil [and other fossil fuels] shouldn't really be a question in the first place, given the precedent. For some ideal our consumption society keeps effortlessly trying to pin us back; our worth is that of the oil we consume. And it has me pondering, it is the multinational industries keeping up locked in the realm, or are we there by free will? Are we scared to say our goodbyes to our first innovative sources of energy, those that have, quite literally, driven us to be the economic success we personally are today in the Westernised world? "And by loving and leaving all that oil has done for us, and that the Oil Age has done for us, we are able to then begin the creation of a world which is more resilient, more nourishing, and in which, we find ourselves fitter, more skilled and more connected to each other,"(*); the idea that all oil innovations should be shamed is a misconception that I've been guilty of. It is acceptable to feel lucky, even happy about our early oil ventures. Though it still remains inappropriate to support the oil exploitation of today. It is time to move away from fossil fuels, and if the mass industries won't help, it has to start locally, as Hopkins previously proposed. And as the small eco-friendly communities expand, so will their sustainable way of being, which will eventually reach these industries, if for no other motivation than profit, will realise fossil fuel isn't even their own solution anymore.

In-Class Blog Questions-

Parks and Protected Areas:

Can parks meet its dual mandate of access and protection? How can this be achieved in Wapusk?

It is highly proclaimed that a symbiosis between access and protection of a park exists, and candidly, this is wrong. The term pareto efficiency comes to mind—where you cannot make one better without leaving the other impaired—it is immaculately suited to the issue of access and protection. I envision the graph of a production possibility curve of some sorts; moving along the y-axis protection increases, and along the x-axis access, keeping in mind that a movement along the x-axis bears a higher opportunity cost [decrease in protection]. It is most certainly plausible to have intermediate access paired with less than adequate protection, today's parks epitomize—case and point. If protection is not the main emphasis of a park's plan, it is surely a guarantee that significant protection of the parks ecological systems will not be adequately preserved; especially at a time when the consequences of climate change are proven to be quite significantly damaging. Therefore, as these consequences increase in intensity and frequency the point along the curve must, respective to the increase of the precedent, move along the y-axis. For any proper dual mandate to exist, it must follow that path; there is no perfect "half-half" middle point. In any case, minimal human disturbance—such as tourism—is irrefutably best to preserve the integrity of the ecological systems the park beholds. It seems that the Wapusk National Park of Manitoba has been progressive towards protection when it comes to its management, but perhaps the will for access has been expressed. Considering what has been said, rightfully they shouldn't change much of the practices however, if access need be granted it should remain remote. The park is known to have a variety of remote research and observing locations and as long as those stay as such—remote—visitations may perhaps increase. Wapusk is a grand and pristine area of wilderness that shall no succumb to the exploitation of man.

Tar Sands Investigated:

What future would you like to see for the Alberta Tar Sand project? Continue current path? Stop development entirely? Some modified continuation?

It would be a fantasy to think that this development could be halted entirely, for future plans it is important to be realistic, environmental remediation no different. I am most surely against the extreme of continuing down our current path, explicitly thinking, it has absolutely no benefits, to the environment, economy, or even us—save for some immediate short-term effects, such as employment, even that is a fairly large stretch to call it a "benefit". When it comes to energy use, I've observed that it is most important to focus on renewables—it is necessary to state that dams are not included—as such progress will eventually promote the phasing out of fossil fuels. The development of renewables will in fact provide the claims fossil fuel production seem to erroneously state for themselves; long-term national economic benefit, safe production, employment... Above that renewable projects certainly will not run the environmental risks its opposite does, in fact it will work to promote minimal disturbance of ecosystems, which is far from remodeling and shifting entire ecological systems.  Meanwhile on its opposite it is crucial to demand minimal continuation in projects such as the Alberta Tar Sands, industries like these end their development simply because it is demanded by the majority of the public, as it is obvious today. However, we can rally the support of higher chains of command that will be able to limit their projects and set stricter laws and regulations on its degrading advance. In the future, I do hope that any further exploitation of the planet's resources for fossil fuels will be prohibited by all industries, even those with purely economic agendas.