Learning from the Past

Day 3: Anthropocentric Drivers of Ecosystem Goods and Services Change

Scientists know that there have been six major mass species extinctions on the planet to date. In one of these mass extinctions, the dinosaurs were wiped out. Each phase, or era, experienced replenishings of  fauna and flaura, which take on average tens of millions of years to biologically bounce back. They have been given names like Triassic and Jurassic, to name a few of the more popular ones. It is widely accepted that what caused the end of the dinosaurs was an asteroid, an extraterrestrial factor that could not have been prevented. Due to all the changes that our species has directly dealt onto the planet, there is the notion that we should call this era of time in which we currently inhabit the “Anthropocene.”

We’re the only species that has the ability to destroy such copious amounts of life. It took 3 billion years of evolution to create the diversity of life that brought us into existence, and 350 million years to assemble the rain forests in which half of all living things inhabit. We’ve only been around for 100,000 years, and in less time than that, we’ve managed to start the onset of events that will, if gone unstopped, bring the whole intricate system to a crashing halt. But we’re also the only species who can save everything. Let this era be called the Anthropocene; and let’s wear that title as an embarrassing reminder of what we’ve done, but also as an encouragement to clean up our messes.

There are movements that develop an attitude toward our treatment of nature, conservation and preservation. The conservation movement has scientific roots and emphasized wise management of recourses over long periods of time under the principle that nature is here to be used by people, spawning from a society of worried industrialism. It is anthropocentric in belief and has had leaders like Gifford Pinchot and Teddy Roosevelt. When Pinchot became head of the U.S. Forest Service under Roosevelt, he said “The object of our forest policy is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful…or because they are refuges for the wild creatures of the wilderness…but…the making of prosperous homes,” and that “land is to be subdued and controlled for the service of the people, its rightful masters, owned by the many and not by the few.” The other movement was preservationism. This was heralded by John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, Aldo Leopold, and J. Baird Callicott. This idea is born from the New England romantics with help from the paintings and writings of Thoreau and Emmerson who saw newfound beauty in natural landscapes, and is all the reason why we should preserve nature. The aesthetic and spiritual component of nature was tied into the sublime, the complex idea that when seeing a natural beauty like a mountain range or gazing out at the sea, one is filled with such incomprehensible fear of the imminent power of nature that one’s fear is replaced by intense respect for it; thus sanctioning the holiness that Muir found in nature. But in order to understand the importance of environmental concern as a nation, it is necessary to know how our country has perceived its relationship to the environment throughout the years.

North America first witnessed the human species in the form of the indigenous peoples who inhabited the continent before settlers from Europe came over. They were sustainable societies for the most part. Once the Europeans came over, the westward expansion known as “Manifest Destiny” caused much upheaval both socially and terrestrially. With more land acquired by the U.S. government, political decisions were made to organize treatment and distribution of the land, mostly for the preservation of the potential for resource development, as well as acts like the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 and the National Park Service Act of 1916, which established the first traces of responsibility of the federal government for protecting public lands from resource exploitation. But with constant reaping of the ecosystem goods and services of the land, the North American continent witnessed one of the greatest environmental catastrophes of our time: The Dustbowl. Conservation policies were enacted to make sure we don’t tip the balance of over-plowing the land, and the Department of Agriculture tacked on Soil Erosion Service, now called the National Resources Conservation Service, to correct the efforts to feed a swiftly growing nation. During the 1960’s the beginnings of awareness about the environment and what we’re doing to damage it began with Rachel Carson’s monumental work Silent Spring. Carson is regarded as the spark that woke up (at least those with clear insight) many people to start the modern environmental movement. Pollution and pesticides became buzzwords, ecology became a growing field of study, and on April 20, 1970 the first Earth Day was celebrated. This was called the environmental decade. The EPA was established, and it passed the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Superfund Act. Then during the 1980’s, political backlash from corporations (farmers, automobile, coal, oil, mining, and timber industries) who’s thirst for constant growth felt threatened by the new laws that restricted their need to pollute, and so influenced the government to stand down for a while. Their persistence is still felt today. The culturally deceiving idea that the economy and the environment are on either sides of the scales was plotted here. Between 1981 and 1983, Congress slashed by 90% government subsidies for renewable energy research and for energy efficiency research, and eliminated tax incentives for the residential solar energy and energy conservation programs enacted in the late 1970’s. Such technology had been looked into as far back as 40 years ago, and today many people think that renewable technology is a breakthrough development. This removed our participation in what became a hugely profitable market for renewable technologies now dominated by Asian and European markets, from whom we now import. Since the 1990’s, it has been mostly grassroots movements popping up here and there to deal with environmental degradation gone unhelped by the corporate-fed government. But things are looking up with President Obama’s new term.

Our economic system perpetuates archaic forms of racism and injustice towards people of low socioeconomic status. A relatively new and equally as important sector of environmentalism comes into play – environmental justice. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states: “Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.” Encompassed within environmental justice is also intergenerational injustice, relating to the ways in which our behavior in the here and now is damaging to the world that future biotic generations will come to be born into.

Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic carries a noble statement: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” A large and warm embrace to this idea is central to our history’s continuation. Based on our short time we’ve been studying the planet, we know this. Major environmental worldviews differ on which is more important – human needs and wants, or the overall health of ecosystems and the biosphere. The first step to living more sustainably is to become environmentally literate, primarily by learning from nature (biomimicry), by living more simply and lightly upon the earth, and by becoming active environmental citizens. The human activities that have the greatest harmful impacts on the environment are food production, transportation, home energy use, and overall resource use. Most people can do simple things, if consistant, to live lighter; like reduce meat consumption, use mass-transit, use energy efficient forms of heating and cooling, recycle (not just plastic, paper, and metal, but most items). The idea that we humans can manage the entire planet, and control ecosystem processes and events through advances in technology is not only unrealistic but highly arrogant. Those who whine about all the doom-and-gloom fear mongering are ignorant to the data and in effect actually monger in themselves a sense of fear of truth. Through optimistic realism and swift change in cultural values, education, and media communications, we can bring the world’s governments back up and running to apply already-known technology and methods toward making our societies more sustainable.

Everything Is Connected

Day 2: How ecosystems and their goods and services work

The main idea in the whole study of ecology is that everything is connected. This is the most important rule, both in practice and in theory, that those who study the world around them must keep in mind always. The earth is merely a giant ball of bound, self-contained matter receiving constant energy from the sun. Somewhere along the way, energy became able to move on its own accord through matter, and life began.

There are four major components of the earth’s life-support system: the atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere, and biosphere. Life is sustained by the flow of energy from the sun traveling through these “spheres” on the planet, the the cycling of nutrients within the biosphere, and by gravity to keep it all together. Within the biosphere, some organisms produce the nutrients they need (producers) while others eat other organisms for these nutrients (consumers), and some recycle these nutrients by decomposition (decomposers). Within the chain of biotic and abiotic relationships, matter in the form of nutrients cycles within and among ecosystems and the biosphere. The coolest thing about this means that the same molecules of carbon, nitrogen, and every element that our bodies are made up of were also something else before they cycled into creating my hand, or your eyes, or this computer. The problem is that recent human activities are altering these biogeochemical chemical cycles.

These foundations also frame Barry Commoner’s Four Laws of Ecology: 1) “Everything is connected to everything else,” meaning exactly what it means; 2) “Everything must go somewhere,” meaning that matter/energy cannot be destroyed and that when something gets thrown away it never “goes away;” 3) “Nature knows best,” in which he said that human technology to improve upon nature is “likely to be detrimental to that system;” and 4) “There is no free lunch,” meaning that energy/matter cannot be created, and that the exploitation of nature (ecosystem goods and services) will inevitably involve the conversion of useful, higher energy resources to useless, lower energy forms.

Population ecology studies the biotic and abiotic interactions of individual species, or how one type of species (a population) functions with others of the same species and within its non-living environment. The biodiversity found in genes, species, ecosystems, and ecosystem processes is vital to sustaining life on earth. We accept the theory of evolution to explain how life on earth changes over time through changes in the genes of populations and how populations evolve when genes mutate and give some individuals genetic traits that enhane their abilities to survive and to produce offspring with such traits (natural selection). This means a lot of trial and error has occurred – tectonic plate movements, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and climate change have shifted wildlife habitats, wiped out large numbers of species, and created opportunities for the evolution of new species. What’s important to keep in mind is that as environmental conditions change, the balance between the formation of new species and the extinction of existing species determines the earth’s biodiversity. That said, human activities are decreasing biodiversity by causing the extinction of many species and by destroying or degrading habitats needed for the development of new species. But species diversity is a major component in the sustainability of ecosystems, as each species plays its own ecological roll (or niche) and can be either a native, nonnative, indicator, keystone, or foundational species to its ecosystem. Basically, ecosystems are highly complex and always working at full capacity.

Community ecology studies the interactions between different species within an ecosystem. The types of species interaction are predation, competition, parasitism, mutualism, and commensalism. This and limitations on resources puts natural boundaries on the growth of any species, so no one can overpopulate. The structure and species composition of communities and ecosystems change in response to changing environmental conditions through a  process called ecological succession. In other words, function follows form.

As for the abiotic components of ecosystems, the key factors that determine a terrestrial area’s climate are incoming solar energy, the earth’s rotation, global patterns of air and water movements, gases in the atmosphere, and the earth’s surface features. Differences in long-term average annual precipitation and temperature lead to the formation of tropical, temperate, and cold deserts, grasslands, and forests, and largely determine their locations. As for aquatic environments, saltwater and freshwater aquatic life zones cover almost 3/4 of the earth’s surface. Oceans dominate the planet. The key factors for determining biodiversity in aquatic systems are temperature, dissolved oxygen content, availability of food, and availability of light and nutrients necessary for photosynthesis. Saltwater ecosystems are irreplaceable reservoirs of biodiversity and provide major ecological and economic services, however; human activities threaten their biodiversity and disrupt ecological and economic services provided by saltwater and freshwater systems.

The holy grail of ecology is of course the ecosystem pyramid. It shows the flows of energy and chemical nutrient cycling upwards (starting from the initial energy given by the sun and going through the ecosystem to the tertiary consumers) and downwards through the decomposition and recycling processes. An interesting note here is to say that each time energy is transferred (eaten) through the trophic levels, the amount of metabolically useful energy actually decreases by 10%, which is good news for vegetarians.

Each year we consume 50% of what the earth has produced using photosynthesis; global warming could doom 50 million different species by the year 2050; 70% of the earth’s surface has been transformed for human use. We create plastic, a substance that had never existed before, at an alarming rate and we don’t have a way of getting rid of it (except for this amazing discovery of plastic-eating bacteria – earth fights back?) After learning this I took a closer look at my commute from school to home and it was eye-opening to notice that the only signs of foliage, life other than the human footprint, something other than concrete, was a park I passed by on the train and the lawns in front of mine and my neighbor’s houses. The very ground beneath your feet right now is most likely artificial or man-made. This begs the very current question: does wilderness exist anymore, and is there anything we can do to save what remains? The working definition of “wilderness” (one of those obscure words like “nature”) is “an area of the earth substantially untrammeled or unmodified by human beings.” What’s upsetting is that people will vouch to save the “wilderness/nature” they think is “pretty” or “nice,” but if beauty is in the eye of the (human) beholder, the solution for preserving natural entities shouldn’t be based on aesthetics. Telling this to a society that derives happiness from consumption/thinks food comes from the supermarket is an uphill battle, but one worth every drip of sweat to fight.

Overall, there are three principles of sustainability in the massive economy of life systems on this planet. They are solar energy, chemical cycling/nutrient recycling, and biodiversity. Given the self-destructive position our species finds itself in now, it is encouraged by many of those who study ecology that we adopt a way of continuing human existence called biomimicry. This is conducting our actions in a way that mimics natural processes that occur in nature. Perhaps biomimicry is the breakthrough we need to finally use our greater intelligence to fit into our true ecological niche on this planet. After all, the earth doesn’t care about “our purpose” in life. In the grand scheme of ecology, our species is worth just as much as any other keystone species. Without the ways that ecosystems function properly and healthily, not only does the thing that makes this planet so special starts to die, but so do the prospects of our goods and services that come from the ecosystems. Everything we have came from their prosperity, health, and functioning at full capacity. As a race of people who continually question the “purpose of life,” we should probably focus more on sustaining it if we are ever to find out.

Introduction

This blog contains the submissions of reflections of course readings for the Intro to Environmental Policy class.

Being that Environmental Policy is an extremely interdisciplinary major, a multitude of other disciplines combine to form its curriculum. Particularly, the disciplines of economics and ecology serve as the basic pillars of the studies. As a matter of fact, the etymologies of both stem from the ancient greek word “oikos” (home, household), so we get eco-nomics and eco-logy. What integrates all the disciplines of the curriculum and glues them all together is the “real world” application of their combined academic backgrounds.

The study of Environmental Policy focuses on “addressing environmental problems mainly from the perspective of their societal causes, effects, and solutions in the realms of government, law, economics, business, education, design, environmental organizations, media, ethics, religion, literature and the arts, and individual citizens. While it uses data from the natural sciences about environmental problems, its main focus is not on the production of this scientific data; rather, it uses this data, and especially the methods of the social sciences, humanities, and applied arts, to analyze, evaluate, and inform environmental policy.” This is where it differs from the more common Environmental Science.

In 1992, some 1,700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel Laureates in the sciences, issued an appeal called the “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity.” Their powerful introduction states:

“Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on the environment and on critical resources. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know. Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.”

In this class we touched on something called a “worldview.” In my Environment, Technology, & Society class, we talked about the three world views, or paradigms, that interact in the social sphere over environmental concerns and the stakes and values that each makes in the shared ecosystem goods and services. This warning given by leading western scientists is what we would call the “green” paradigm’s plead to address the issue of climate change and environmental degradation. Another paradigm is the indigenous people’s worldview, which tends to be more spiritual, but yearns for the same end as the “green” western environmentalists. Such an example of their pleads is the Haudenosee Thanksgiving Address, which gives thanks to various natural entities and ecosystems components (like the sun, the plants, the moon, the rivers, etc.) for not only their sustenance for human beings, but for added spiritual wealth as well.

We also took an Ecological Footprint quiz, which tells you how many planet Earth’s it would take to sustain the planet if everyone lived the same lifestyle as you, based on a breakdown of your ecosystem goods and services consumption. For me, it would take 4.3 extra planets if everyone lived the way I do. I was kind of surprised because I had taken this quiz last semester for Environmental Ethics and got around the same score. I thought that my reduced meat consumption would make a more noticeable difference. But our textbook says that the ecological footprint per capita per person in the United States is 9.8, so I suppose I’m well below the average mindless consumer. So here’s my first question to pose: What kind of changes can anyone make in their every day lives to reduce their planetary degradation?

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment assessed the consequences of ecosystem change for human well-being. From 2001 to 2005, the MA involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide. Their findings provide a state-of-the-art scientific appraisal of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide, as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve and use them sustainably.The MA planed to use valuation as a tool that enhances the ability of decison-makers to evaluate trade-offs between alternative ecosystem management regimes and courses of social actions that alter the use of ecosystems and the services they provide. This usually requires assessing the change in the mix of services provided by an ecosystem resulting from a given change in its management.

The importance or “value” of ecosystems is viewed and expressed differently by different disciplines, cultural conceptions, philosophical views, and schools of thought. Perhaps this can form the second question: how important a cultural value of nature/ecosystemic stability to the realization that we need to act? I’d say it’s immensely important. The Millennium Assessment focuses heavily on the economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services, and probably because we inhabit a world where that’s the paradigm we’re in. It claims the purpose of economic valuation is to make the disparate services provided by ecosystems comparable to each other, using a common metric. But this is very difficult both conceptually and empirically. In the end, it’s great that considerable thought is going into the protection of ecosystem goods and services, for whatever justification, and if we can bring about a better looking planet from all of this thought and regulation, then perhaps we’ll realize which justification reigns supreme.