Maybe This Isn't A Fool's Errand

Here is a link to The Guardian newspaper and an article that discusses that sometimes facts do convince the skeptics of climate change/global warming. That is good to know, but the real conundrum is how to convince those who seemingly refuse to be convinced. Is it possible? I don't know what the answer is, but I know I will still try and provide some insight into our environmental challenges and triumphs. Even if we can't get others to accept the evidence, we can learn more about our world and the global environment in which we live.

Urbanites

One of the biggest challenges we face as a species is how to deal with increased urbanization. More and more of us are living in what can be termed urban centers. The density of population clusters in and around cities continues to rise on a monumental scale. Yes, some of this can be attributed to a growing human population, but what we are witnessing now is whole scale migration from rural areas to high population centers.

Some have argued that urbanization can actually be good for the environment. It is true that with good city planning, an urban center can bring down emissions with the help of mass transit, LEED standard buildings, and city policy that favors practices that take environmental stewardship into account. In New York City, citizens' average carbon footprint is smaller than the citizens of Vermont due to the availability of mass transit and walkability of the city.

Of course this doesn't hold true for every city. Los Angeles is much more car-oriented and therefore has a higher carbon footprint per capita than other cities. There are also other factors we must consider that increased urbanization is having on the environment. As human population continues to increase, food production must increase. By concentrating our numbers in cities, food production must occur with less hands and greater reliance on mechanical and industrial techniques. While it is hoped that technology and policy will help to steer farming practices to an eco-friendly path, this cannot be guaranteed to happen within every country. Food production also relies heavily on the use of water, and without improved techniques can actually degrade overall water quality. After food is produced, it must be transported to cities and preserved until consumption, contributing to the overall human carbon footprint.

Additionally, urbanization requires the development of infrastructure. Construction can be quite carbon intensive, whether it be the building of residential and commercial complexes, or tunneling underground to develop mass transit or sewage systems. While humans are developing sustainable materials and practices, when it comes down to it construction will always be a huge factor in our impact on the environment/climate.

These are just a couple of examples of the challenges we must address as we become an urban species. I am not against urbanization at all (seeing as I'm a proud resident of NYC), but clearly there are better ways to frame a city within an environmental context than others. For our current urban centers, further planning and adjustment must be undertaken to ensure we are reducing our footprint and impact on local ecosystems. For emerging urban areas, city planners and officials must take into account that they have a chance to show a city can be prosperous and environmentally conscious from the outset. Beyond cities, farmers, ranchers, and those who make agricultural policy must look for ways to drastically cut their impacts on the environment. Urbanization is happening, but we must think of the challenges that are appearing and we must take the right steps now.

Sometimes Moving Pictures Are Better Than Words

I just found an amazing YouTube account. It's called CrashCourse and they do things ranging from history to science. I looked through their ecology videos and found this great little video that explains some of the impacts humans are having on the environment. Take a few minutes to watch this engaging video and then show it to your family and friends who believe that our actions cannot greatly affect the environment. Education beats ignorance any time.

It's Tough

I was thinking of the topics I could write about today, and what came to mind made me step back and think: "This is why lots of people don't read environmental blogs. The subject matter always seems to be depressing." I decided to start blogging again because I felt, as I did previously, that it is important to highlight the environmental issues that exist. Some topics are more uncomfortable than others to deal with, but I have tried to make it a policy in my life to not hide from the dark realities that are out there.

But why does it seem there are more negative environmental topics to write about than positive-feel-good topics that make us feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Unfortunately that is reality. There are great environmental stories to write about that discuss things such as conservation success stories, a species being saved from near extinction, the discovery of a new species, resilience after an environmental disaster, etc. However, for each one of those news items, there are at least two that highlight the sorry state of affairs our global environment is in.

Part of that lies in the fact that nature has always been a very tough "mother". Stephen Fry said it best a few years ago, remarking, "You have to account for the fact that almost all animals in the wild live under stress with not enough to eat and will die violent and bloody deaths. There is not any way that you can just choose the nice bits . . ." (Fry, 2009). Yes, if you reference that quote online, you will find Stephen Fry is talking in terms of atheism/proving the existence of God, but I feel that it fits here. The environment is a rough and tumble place, undergoing constant (though sometimes slow) and chaotic change, punctuated by abrupt, violent episodes of natural disaster. It is amazing and complex, and I am always left in pure amazement by all this planet has. Despite this, it has always dealt biological life some depressing cards.

Beyond the day-to-day reality that the environment is a tough place that taken alone will have plenty of depressing stories, is the fact that we as the human species have been and are the cause of many of the depressing changes in the global environment. Sometimes our activities are indirectly causing these negative changes, such as the disappearance and stress put upon coral reef ecosystems due to sea level rise/increase in carbonic acid in oceans which is linked to climate change. Others are directly linked to our activities such as oil spills, climate change, the near-extinction of many species of plant and animals, etc.

We will always have an impact on the environment. That is how biological life works. Plus, we don't always know when we are having a direct or indirect negative impact on the environment. Thankfully, science exists to help us determine what is influenced by our impacts on the environment. When it comes down to it, I often write more about these alarming topics because only when we become informed of an event and what it is we are (not) doing, can we begin the path of changing. I believe strongly in the ability of humans to move away from destructive habits when they are educated about what it is we are doing wrong. I believe in our ability to address the issues we face through innovation and corrective action. That is why I always urge some sort of action on our part at the end of each post.

Writing about and caring about the environment is tough. At every turn there is another disheartening story of a species going extinct, a major industrial accident that has significantly impacted a local ecosystem, or climate change deniers preventing meaningful change in how humans consume energy. I remain dedicated to the environment not just because it is the only thing we've got, but because it is something unique and special. The type of life and the varied ecosystems it thrives in on this planet is spectacular. What's more, we are a part of it and because of our intellect we have the ability to correct our course of action before things go horribly wrong. It may be depressing to read all the bad news, but the bigger picture I see is that we can stop more depressing news from reaching us by acting now on the knowledge we are acquiring. The truth, in this case, can indeed set us free on the path to conserving all our planet has to offer.

Nature Found a Way

Yesterday's post showed that we humans can actually redeem ecosystems from our environmental sins. Along that same vein, The New York Times published an article today about how biological life is adapting to the extreme conditions that the region around Chernobyl was exposed to. The 1986 nuclear power plant disaster spewed very high amounts of radiation into the local atmosphere that spread globally. However, much of that radiation fell back to the ground, contaminating the surrounding region. This had serious impacts on the flora and fauna in the area, including the death of forests. For reasons of public safety, an exclusion zone extending out 18.6 miles in all directions from the power plant was set up, preventing people from living in the 1,000 square mile area for at least 50 years.

Ongoing scientific research on the mass radiation event's effect on the surrounding environment has yielded interesting results. As the article and various other studies have pointed out, while biological life did suffer in the immediate aftermath of the explosion, it has done extremely well since. It has even provided unique insight into adaptation and selective events which put pressure on different species. The article in the Times is well worth the read and provides a unique glimpse into the resiliency of nature. It may suffer horrendous blows, but somehow life finds a way to survive, though not always the same as it was before. It will be very interesting to see how nature has "reclaimed" and progressed throughout the exclusion zone since humans don't have a chance to incorporate land management plans here.

What's In Your Bottle?

Firstly, I apologize for not writing anything in the past two weeks. I won't provide a lame excuse, but for those of you who actually look forward to reading this I am sorry for the big gap. Today I hope to more than make up for it.

One of my first post's on this blog looked into the looming water crisis. While it focused on the water shortage in Libya and how mismanagement is exacerbating the problem, the topic was just a sliver in the larger water crisis we face. Here is another example: a few days ago, I was grabbing some lunch and chose to go with water instead of one of my regular (and favorite) sugary drinks. My choices were Fiji and Aquafina brands of bottled water. I was going to treat myself to some of the nice Fiji Water, but as my hand reached for the square bottle I vaguely remembered hearing or reading something about how Fiji bottled water production is harmful to the environment. Since I know that Aquafina is just re-purposed tap water, I decided to go for that instead.

So was that vague memory accurate? Yes, and, as it turns out, in more ways than one. Firstly, the water source - a large, underground aquifer - has been given almost exclusively to the Fiji Water company. This aquifer is being depleted at an accelerated rate due to the popularity of Fiji-brand water amongst celebrities and the elite, making it one of the go-to brands for the rest of us. The implications for the future water supply of this collection of small islands is grim, as sea-level rise threatens other aquifers and sources of freshwater for the citizens of Fiji. The other environmental problems caused by Fiji bottled water come from the poverty and military conflict imposed on the citizens by the military dictatorship governing Fiji. The military benefits from promoting and protecting the Fijian company, while crumbling infrastructure and government indifference force people to live in conditions that are many generations behind our own society (put another way, people cannot live in an environmentally conscious way because they are just struggling to survive). The company does all it can to exploit the resource and maximize profits, but does not go out of its way to give back to the community or the environment.

Fiji Water is just one of many bottled-water companies out there vying for our dollars. Its actions, which are indeed horrendous, are indicative of a much larger problem driven by us - the consumer. All bottled-water companies such as Nestle, Coca-Cola, Evian, etc. have created a product that we don't really need in the developed world, while exploiting a dwindling supply of clean and replenishable water. Despite the great advertising tricks which have made us seek bottled water in record amounts, most of us don't need it. We get clean, safe water from the taps, why do we need to buy the same thing that is in a bottle? Just because it is from a spring or reverse-osmosified doesn't make it any better or more essential for us.

I admit to drinking the occasional bottle of water. It's handy on the go or if you want water but the place you are patronizing doesn't offer tap water. Barring the very occasional use, bottled water consumption shouldn't be so high. Why do we throw away the bottle when we are finished just to buy more, when we could refill the empty bottle with our own clean tap water? Why do we insist that bottled water is cleaner and better for us when that is just not true? Bottled water should be mainly used by those who do not have a direct, constant source of clean water in their midst. Instead it is the other way around. We should vote with our dollars and stop buying bottled-water in such large quantities. If enough of us do this and return to our tap water, not only will the environment be better protected but the poor will not be oppressed by large corporations over such an essential resource.