Blog 5: Nicole L

Selection 39: Towards Sustainable Development

This article begins with the definition of sustainable development and explains two of its key concepts. That the needs of the poor should be given priority and that limits should be placed on this generations state of technology and social organization to maintain the ability to meet the needs of the future. Sustainability should be present in all countries, even those developing. This development needs a progressive change in economy and society. Even the narrowest definition of sustainability involves concern for social equity between the generations that must come back to equity in our generation.

The article explains that countries that cannot take care of and feed their people will always be susceptible to ecological crisis. Living standards that cover basic needs are sustainable only when consumption is within certain standards that are ecologically possible. Meeting all essential needs will require economic growth where lacking, and growth that does not exploit others. However, growth is not enough. The world may compromise its ability to meet basic needs by over population and the overuse of natural resources. Because of this, sustainable development on earth should not destroy or compromise any of the earth’s natural systems such as the atmosphere, water, soil or living organisms. Special cares needs to be taken when dealing with renewable resources such as forests, making sure we do not over deplete within is limits of regeneration, while also taking into consideration is over effects of the exploitations. We should also take care to make non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels last as long as possible for future generations.

Ordinary develop simplifies natural systems and ecosystems, leading to extinction. As this can limit future generations, sustainable development requires the conservation of living things, as well as reducing impacts on air, water and other natural elements quality.

Individuals can be persuaded to sustainable development through education, institutional development and law enforcement, however many issues of resource depletion come from disparities between economic and political power. Often a forestry company will have much more power than the people living in the forest. Since ecological effects know no boundaries environmental stress affects all around it. Interdependence has increased around technology and because no one trusts that other people will behave in a socially desirable way there is the pursuit of narrow self-interest. T

The existence of common interest often does not exist because political jurisdiction and environmentally affected areas are not always the same places. Common interest can only be achieved through cooperation on an international scale. It would also be less difficult to reach if the solutions to environmental did not have “winners” and “losers”. As the world will approach the very limits of its ecological capacity, these inequities will only become more pronounced. It will always be the poor who suffer more.

The fulfilment of sustainable development will require a re-orientation of technology. It will need to be greatly enhanced in developing nations so they can more readily meet the demands of sustainable development and technology needs to focus its attention on environmental factors. Often environmental risk falls on people and places that had no influence in the decision process. It is imperative their interests are taken into account. Public policies must be in place as to assess the potential impacts of new technologies before they are put into practice.
An important theme in sustainable development is the need to merge economic and ecological considerations in the decision process. These concerns are not always in opposition. Their compatibility is often lost in the pursuit of individual gain. There is also the tendency to deal with things in isolation without considering connections and linkages. These connections are what links ecological and economic concerns, but this is seldom reflected in policies. Sustainability requires the taking of a broader responsibility for the impacts of decisions. However, the law be itself cannot enforce the common interest, and needs community knowledge and support as well. Sustainable development needs the merging of economics and ecology in international relations and policy.

In the widest sense, sustainability strives to promote harmony and balance between humans and nature.

Selection 23: Controversy at Love Canal

The hazardous waste problem is not large just from the number of waste sites, but because of their proximity to people’s homes and work places. The problems that plagued Love Canal will happen over and over again, lessons learned there may help people in the future.

A manufacturing company began to fill an abandoned canal with toxic waste in 1942. By the end of their dumping, more than 21,000 tons of waste had been dumped there. The Niagara Falls school board approached them to buy the land for a school and bought the land for a token dollar. Any elementary school was put up in the center of the site, and 98 homes were built alongside it. In the following 25 years chemicals from the site came up through the soil in the community. Children were suffering chemical burns and residents had various other complaints that were ignored.

Finally, through the efforts of residents and a reporter, the EPA and the New York State Department of Health became involved. They discovered an increased frequency of miscarriages in women living right next to the canal, and a health emergency was declared. Health studies were done and the area outside the immediate proximity to the canal was deemed safe. The community was not convinced and still had complaints of chemical seepage into their basements and illness that were occurring even 4 blocks away from the canal.

The article writer did a study, wanting to discover if the susceptibility to lower level chemical exposure was genetic. Instead he found that clusters of illness were found in areas where the chemicals were allowed to seep out of the dumping site. The chemical seeped in areas that were “historically wet”, such as places that were marshes or bordered steams. This allowed the scientist to compare “wet” and “dry” families and their instances of illness. They discovered that a myriad of illness and miscarriages were far more likely to happen to people living in wet home. With this data, it was still a scientific controversy whether it truly was dangerous to live in Love Canal.

In Love Canal, the two opposing sides of the controversy were the community and the Health department. The community turned on the Health Department rather than the manufacturing company that dumped the toxic waste in the first place because of certain allowances they made for the company. It dumped under regulation many years before toxicity was better understood and it employed many people in the area. Once the controversy was going, there were several factors that blocked a resolution. The first may have been that a failure to resolve the controversy would benefit one opposing side. In this controversy, the state stood only to gain by delaying a resolution. The second may have been that the opposing sides did not agree on the question that needed to be answered. There were disagreements between the two about what was acceptable risk. The third may have been the fact that only one side gathered the information that could influence the outcome. The state was responsible for all the studies. The scientists who disagreed with the official opinion that
Love Canal was safe place to live, were silenced. This silencing is a method often used stifle controversy. A fifth factor was that the data collected was secret and
not peer-reviewed, breaking the norm of scientific behaviour. A sixth factor may have been that the parties involved did not agree on which facts needed resolving, the body chosen to resolve the problem or the procedures used to resolve the problem. All parties have to agree to abide by these decisions. This certainly did not happen at Love Canal.

Many of the issues and controversies at Love Canal were treated as scientific issues; however many of the problems had their roots in ethical questions. Had these questions been addressed the controversy would have been much easier to resolve.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



Photo: Love Canal



Selection 24: Restoring Rivers

The current trend of US bodies of water is that they are getting dirtier and dirtier. Water quality is not the only issue, but water over-depletion as well. There are some American rivers that no longer reach the ocean all year and communities with water shortages are everywhere. All over the United States, water is heavily depleted, taking water quality down with it. There have been flood disasters linked to river and stream degradation that could have been avoided with some ecological restoration.

Restoration is the process of repairing rivers and streams that no longer can perform their ecological function. Restoring bodies of water also increases property values while providing a place for recreational activities. However the way we restore rivers and streams needs some repairing as well.

The United States reached a point of such river degradation by centuries of dumping waste in water, hoping it would be carried away. Cutting down forests has also contributed to this degradation. Dams were also built to the benefit of people, but starved native plants and animals.

Crisis was realized in the 1960’s when it was discovered that 2/3 of US rivers and streams were polluted. A Clean Water Act was passed, and rivers and streams started getting cleaner. However, in 2004 it was reported that the waters were once again polluted. The primary cause of this is human activity and our changes to the landscape. When land is cleared, entire watersheds are affected. Building and the erosion of soil and farmland increase sediment in water. When flat surfaces replace natural land, we get devastating flash floods.

Some policies and efforts have been put in place to lessen the impact of development; however the rivers and streams continue to degrade. The main issue is that there are no polices to support restoration standards, to encourage the employment of proven methods, or to provide basic data needed for planning and putting in motion restoration. The solution is to reform federal, state and local government policies. This article focuses on the federal level because of its role in funding and permitting the restoration projects and gives a list of reforms for this branch of government. First, that federal agencies should employ and follow standards for successful river and stream restoration. Second, that a well coordinated system for tracking restoration projects should be used. Thirdly, that nationwide studies need to be done to determine the effectiveness of the restoration projects. Lastly to use funding for restoration more efficiently and increase funding.

So much may be accomplished by allocating resources properly and giving the right priority to efforts based on solid policies that take care to ensure the best methods are used for restoration

Class Reflection:

In class, we are currently watching the film “Who Killed the Electric Car”. I have watched this film once before, and few since have managed to fill me with the same outrage as this documentary. It’s difficult to watch the plight of the electric car owners who desperately wanted to keep their cars. The injustices of the events that take places are staggering. One scene in the film I found particularly difficult to watch was when the proponents of the electric car were in front of the California board of energy, trying to get them to keep the clear air mandate. It’s particularly frustrating because to me it was obvious that the gentlemen in charge was paid out, or convinced by some outside party to kill the mandate. Talking to someone else who had viewed the film, they felt the same as me, getting the vibe that they had their minds made up before the vote.

I found learning about the distaster in Bhopal, India a particularly difficult subject. I had never heard of the disaster before, and I find it hard to reconcile with the idea not very much is being done to the help the affected population, who are still very obviously feeling the effects of the diaster, even after all these years. I talked to a friend about it, and they shared my view that the inequity of the world is definitely more visiable after a disater, as if the fact nothing is done for the suffering of the third world highlights how the developed world does not view them equals.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/victims-of-bhopal-gas-tragedy-still-deprived-of-clean-water/520667/

This is an article about how the people of Bhopal are still drinking polluted water and suffering even after 25 years. The fact that the state government is aware and does nothing is extremely sad.


Online Activity:In Praise of Slowness

This talk is very inspirational to me. I always thought the world’s inclination towards speed was from our modernism, urbanism and the increasing amount of technology present in our lives; I never before thought that it was because of our western view of time as linear and finite instead of cyclical. After giving this idea some thought, I realized that I am in possession of this view. Mostly since childhood, life has been a race to get to the next thing. High school was finished, now I have to hurry through university to get a career. I’m sure once my career is obtained it will be “now I must speed toward retirement”. I enjoyed how his son was sort of the catalyst for discovering his slow movement. Children often do approach life with a slow mentality, enjoying what they are doing in the moment rather than racing to the next thing right away. I hope to take away from this talk a reminder to slow down and enjoy what happening now instead of racing toward the future.

Blog 4 Nicole L

Selection 27: The Argicultural Crisis As Crisis of Culture

This article talks about how in the past farms used to be family run and that people not only lived on top of the land they owned, but in and off it. Although this old system was imperfect, it provided building blocks for agriculture such as community that instead of being built upon were forgotten. In the 1950’s farming adopted more and more technology. This technology along with the free market has been ensuring land abandonment and the decrease of farm diversity. With less farming people are having to rely more heavily on what they buy as opposed to what they grow. New laws for sanitation have eliminated smaller farm markets and the article points out that we’ve taken germs out of our food and replaced them with poisons.

The more modern farming techniques became, the more farm families and communities degenerated. Politian’s that were so against the forced removal of people in communist countries have no issue with the free market forcing people out of the rural areas. With the free market it all about getting big or being forced out of farming. This community destroying form of agriculture has been encouraged by bureaucrats and agri-businessmen that value quantity over quality. However, this article point out that you cannot separate the two ideas because with more quantity comes less quality. Food is a product of culture and can’t be made through technology alone. People who believe that food production problems can be solved through technology alone are making the problem too simple. They need to conceive of everything as one body and that you can’t break up issues into little pieces. Like a healthy culture, healthy farming culture will only come of knowledge gained over generations of working with the land. This knowledge can’t be replaced with technology.

The movement from farm to city is simple, but going from city to farm will be difficult and can’t be done in just one generation. Good farming requires a true farmer, and this farmer can only be made of culture. Because the universe is one, good farming can only be similar in unity. Agriculture cannot continue to exist at the price of the natural systems that support it. A culture can’t exist without agriculture. Each system of life exists in another.(1)

Selection 28: Food Scarcity: An Environmental Wake Up Call

The current environmental degradation cannot continue on its path without affecting the world economy. So far, effects of the degradation have only been local to the issue, but as the scale of the damage grows it will threaten the world on the global level. Effects of the damage are also becoming clearer, but will we only stop these trends when the economic power driving it collapses? Food quantity will most likely be the sector in which environmental damage will become economic decline. This is a historical precedent as other civilizations have been destroyed this way.

The article explains that what will begin as environmental damage will soon become political instability because households unable to feed their families will hold their governments responsible, disrupting economic activity as well and making the problems plaguing the poor the problems of the rich as well. Already in the world over 800 million people are hungry and an increase in the price of gain would only throw millions more into starvation.

As populations around the world continue to grow, the ability to expand cropland and irrigate it decreases and threatens to fall below the level needed for food security. For hundreds of years farmers have used many ways to expand farmland, however with the frontiers reached there has been a huge decrease in the area planted for grain, an amount that peaked in the 80’s. With population growth this amount will only fall further.

As water is pulled away from agriculture the production drops and countries will be forced to import grain. The way land scarcity has shaped international grain trade, similarly water scarcity will do the same. As crop and irrigation become scarcer, both prices are going to rise raising grain prices with them.
All the important food-security indicators are calling for a shift from food surplus to food scarcity. It is this shortage that may provide the much needed wakeup call that we need to reverse our trends of environmental degradation before the emerging political instability obtains a level where economic progress is a thing of the past. Making sure future peoples have enough food is no longer solely an agricultural issue.

The two most difficult changes to make in the effort to secure future food supplies and build an environmentally stable economy will be balancing the population and stabilizing the climate. The first will rely on a revolution in human reproduction habits, and the second will rely on a revolution in energy efficiency.

The change from food surplus to shortage will mould land-use policy to better protect farm-land from non-farm uses. Food security also depends on decreasing soil erosion. Overall, future food security relies on making an environmentally sustainable economy.(2)

Selection 29: Environment, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems

Our modern heavy reliance on artificial chemicals for farming is having serious health and environmental impacts. Pesticides are being found in ground water and farm run-off is connected with the collapse of fisheries and water dead-zones. This excess of fertilizers and chemical pesticides is costing economies billions of dollars per year.

Organic farming can reduce dependence of chemicals for farming. The aim of organic farming is enhancing plant nutrition while conserving soil and water resources. The organic food is coded so consumers have systems on which to base their food choices on how their food was made or produced. Organic agriculture is expanding, and the products are becoming widely available to the public.

There was a farming system trial conducted in which conventional, organic animal-based cropping and organic legume-based cropping were tested. Numerous aspects were measured such as, crop biomass, weed biomass, grain yields, chemical leaching, and water volumes.

The results of the crop yields and economics in regards to organic systems compared with conventional seemed to vary under different conditions; however the benefits of organic farming were clear as organic farming had less soil erosion, better water conservation, and biodiversity consistently over conventional methods.

There are challenges in organic agriculture such as a lack of nitrogen and weed competition. Weed competition is a problem for many farmers as they are limited in their options for pest control. However the benefits of organic production are clear. Soil carbon present in organic soil was high and due to these elevated levels, soil and water resources were conserved. The needs for fossil fuel energy in organic corps were also lower than in conventional corn corps. Labour inputs are higher for organic farming but they are more evenly spread out than in conventional farming. Corp rotations reduce soil erosion, while manure use reduces pollution.(3)

Selection 41: Women's Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity COnservation

This article explains how gender and diversity are connected. The same way women are suppressed, biodiversity is as well. Both are victims of the goal of uniformity and homogeneity. The article claims that diversity, in essence the basis of women’s politics as well as the politics of ecology. These two politics meet when women and biodiversity meet in the field.

Diversity is linked to women’s work, which is why it has been so far discounted. Many developing countries depend on diversity for production and in these areas biodiversity is synonymous with productivity. However, this view is seen as primitive as it does not employ the use of technology. The new misconception is that diversity-based systems aren’t productive, however the productivity of uniform systems only take into account production in one-dimension. This system undermines the natural systems which support it. Women’s efforts and knowledge are often looked over and often invisible, found in between the spaces of “sectors”. This invisibly is due to gender bias which creates an area of blindness.

The article explains that women are the custodians of biodiversity. When women conserve seed, they are conserving diversity and therefore balance as well.
There are numerous ways that developing countries women’s relationships with diversity differ from the corporate man. Women produce through diversity, will in the first world corporate men produce through uniformity. For women, seeds represent the continuation of life, while corporations manufacture seeds which can only be used once to make farmers keep coming back to buy more. This is a disruption in the flow of life. These modern claims on seeds are a 21st century version of piracy.
There are many risks to genetically engineered food, and as these risks are being realized corporations will try and redefine themselves as “green”.

Food and Environment:

In the past 48 hours I've eaten fruit like kiwi and grapes, oatmeal, beef, vegetables like carrots and cucumbers, chicken, soy milk and Halloween candy. All these are foods I eat regularly, except for the Halloween candy.

Some concerns related to fruit would be, are they local? When a food item isn't from the region in which you purchased it, that food must have gone on a long trip to reach you. Perhaps it was flown, trucked or shipped to the destination. Every step of this long trip contributes to the ecological foot print of the food. By eating a fruit like kiwi, which wasn't growth in Manitoba, I contributed largely to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The same concern relates to the vegetables and meat I ate. Fortunately, the vegetables were at least purchased from Peek of the Market, insuring they are from growers in Manitoba. By purchasing more local vegetables I supported the farmers in my region and their business. Buying local isn't only about decreasing the eco foot print, but making sure local farmers will be able to supply us with food for years to come. The ideal would be purchasing from a farmers market or directly from the farmers themselves allowing for all the profit to go to them instead of the supermarket or Peek of the Market. The meat purchased was also Manitoba grown.

The concerns facing the oatmeal and Halloween candy I ate had to do with the packaging. With both the instant oatmeal and the Halloween candy, non-recyclable garbage was made. Unfortunately, nothing about the Halloween candy was recyclable. The candy came in a plastic bag and each small bar was individually wrapped in plastic. If the candy had been wrapped in paper, it could have eliminated much waste from going to land-fills. Next year I think I'll buy the candy to give out and make sure it has more ecologically responsible packaging.

An environmental concern that has to do with the chicken I ate could be how the animal was treated prior to slaughter. In class, we watched a short film called "The Meatrix" about how animals are actually treated when bought up on an industrially large scale. They cut off the beaks of chickens and animals like pigs don't have enough room to even turn around. I'm not sure where the chicken came from, since I did not buy it myself, but when I shop it's important to me that the meat I buy was raised in the free-range environment. The film reminded me of these values and how I believe that I should treat an animal I rely on for nourishment and survival with respect.

Affluenza Around Me:

In class we saw a film titled "The Story of Stuff", which was strange, because I watched it for the first time almost exactly a year ago. I remember that the first time I watched that film; it had a huge impact on me. It finally explained in simple terms how when I buy something at a low price, I wasn't paying for the object, someone else was. Since viewing that film a year ago, I've made huge changes in my buying and realized that every day I vote with my dollar. I no longer shop at places like Wal-Mart, I try to avoid buying from stores that employ the use of sweatshops and I like to buy from Canadian businesses whenever possible. This film has really awakened me to my Affluenza, and over time I'm trying to heal it.

I see evidence of Affluenza everywhere. I live in an area with large houses that nobody owns because they keep getting them remortgaged to afford pools, new cars and etc. People seem to work all the time just to get more stuff. My mom is definitely guilty of this, she works all the time and we have a lot of stuff. However this past few years working has been less to afford new things, and more to afford vacations of a life time. My mom and I value travel and this summer she worked hard to go to on a Mediterranean cruise to visit places in Europe she'd always wanted to see. Trips are different from material goods in that they're memories and experiences that shape you as a person and that stay with you forever. I'm glad my mom values travelling over things like new cars.

A few of my friends definitely show symptoms of Affluenza. One in particular never seems to ever have enough clothes. I asked her about her shopping for this blog, and she told me it’s just something she enjoys doing and that at the time of purchase she always feels like she needs the item. I found this response very interesting in regards to the film about Affluenza we viewed in class, about how we are made to inadequate if we don’t consume. Maybe she is a classic sufferer, or maybe it really does make her happy.

Online Activity: Ted Talk: One Seed at a Time

Before this talk, I had never given much thought to the extinction of corps. I don’t think I even knew that it ever really happened. I think Ted’s argument that the preservation of all crop varieties is necessary to survival made sense and was fairly logical. I watched the film with a friend, and they had a hard time believing that keeping the seeds of a plant that can’t survive was useful. Ted’s argument for starting to breed climate change resistant corps also struck a chord with me. I have been learning about climate change or years, exploring the possible effects on temperature, natural disasters, the ocean and animals, but never gave much thought to what would happen to our food. I agree that researchers should definitely be creating corps that grow in much warmer temperatures to ensure that in a few decades people aren’t starving to death. This talk has really interested me in the topic.

(1) Wendell Berry, from the Unsettling of American: Culture and Agriculture (Sierra Club Book, 1977)
(2)Lester Brown, from "Food Scarcity: An Enviromental Wakeup Call," The Futurist (Jan/Feb 1998)
(3) David Pimental Et al., from "Enviromental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems," BioScience (July 2005)
(4)Vandana Shiva, from "Women's Indigenous Knowledge and Biodivesity Conservation," in Maria Mies and Vanada Shiva, Ecofeminism (Zed Books, 1993)