No Impact Man

I thought I might mention here a light, fun book that readers of this blog may find interesting. Outlining the exploits of journalist Collin Beavan who, after some time lamenting the state of the environment without actually doing anything about it, sets out on a grand experiment -- to see if he, his wife, Michelle Collin, their young daughter, and their dog could live for a year in New York City without leaving any sort of carbon footprint. The family's exploits included such steps as not making garbage, using only man-power to get around, and eating locally, which translated into spending the year without electricity, restaurant takeout, toilet paper, or motorized transportation. Ascetic as it might sound, Collin's book is filled with insights on the American lifestyle and what comes with giving it up. The complaints are many, but he recognizes the many benefits too, and has pledged to hold onto some of his newfound habits, even after the family's year-long experiment ended.

I mention this book because I saw it in the college bookstore at the beginning of this spring semester. Inquiry led to the discovery that Dr. Julie Daoud was using the work in her class on literature and conscience, and though I was not taking the class, I contacted Dr. Doaud because I had an exciting piece of info to offer. My friend, Amy, had just come back from New York on a trip to receive training from Mr. Beavan's No Impact Project, an initiative which works to bring environmental awareness and "No Impact Weeks" to college campuses and neighborhoods nationwide. Though Thomas More was not lucky enough to host a No Impact Week this semester, Amy did arrange to visit Dr. Daoud's class and talk with her students about the Project and about "lighter living."

I hope that, perhaps sometime in the not too distant future, the ideas and awareness brought about by No Impact Man can be brought to Thomas More by the No Impact Project. In the meantime, readers and contributors to this blog might pick up the book (or watch the new documentary by the same title) for a light summer read. It's worth it... and the book's printed on recycled materials, if you were wondering.

Global Warming Trends Take a Bite Out of Important Crops

Without exception, our abuses to the planet always seem to come back to bite us, and this time, they've taken a bite out of our food supply.Scientists have long predicted that — eventually — temperatures and altered rainfall caused by global climate change would take a toll on four of the world's most important staple crops: rice, wheat soy and corn. Most inconveniently,as world grain prices soar near record highs, a new study reveals that these effects are starting to be felt.
According to Wolfram Schlenker, a teacher environmental economics and coauthor of the study, for two crops, corn and wheat, there has actually been a steady decline in yields over the past 30 years. The scientists looked specifically at places in the world where warming trends are most pronounced and, sure enough, they found these staple crops weren't doing quite as well. For rice and soy, declines in some places were offset by productivity boosts elsewhere in the world, so there was no overall change. But they did see a change for wheat and corn. The losses caused by warming thus far are still smaller than the gains made though improved agriculture, but rather than seeing gains in yield, as would be expected form the improvements, yields are only managing to remain stable.
The study, published online by Science magazine, shows that these crops have declined about 5 percent over what they would have been in the absence of warming. That sounds small, until you consider that globally, these crops are worth about a trillion dollars a year. And according to Gerald Nelson at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C., as the planet heats up in the coming decades, the 5 percent loss seen today could easily grow to 20 percent. No small change, if you ask me.
To add insult to injury, most of these yield problems hit people who can afford it the least. Those Who hurt most are people who spend the greatest portion of their income on food, and in developing countries, this can be as high as 40% annually. Here in the United States, a doubling of wheat prices might only add, say, a dime to the cost of a $2 loaf of bread, but double the price of rice and people who fill their food bowl with that grain every day will really feel it.
Americans are also insulated from this effect for another reason. The new study found that the effects of warming have not been felt evenly around the world, since the temperature trends themselves are not evenly distributed.And since America's breadbasket has not warmed significantly, American grain farmers have been fortunate. Professor Gene Takle at Iowa State University says farmers in the Midwest have actually dealt with a long-term trend of additional rainfall in that area.
Midwestern farmers have adapted to the added wetness by spraying more pesticides to control fungus, by planting more per acre, and by buying bigger machines to cope with the wetter fields. But there are limits, and many other farmers around the world are already starting to find out where those limits lie as they confront higher temperatures.

# 17

I thought that the last discussion went really well. There was a variety of topics presented that brought up new dicussions in class. The topics were interesting as well as how they were presented. I think that they gave insight to a different way of thinking and explored different aspects of ecological ethics that as a class we had not talked about. This entire class gave me a different perspective on life and and nature. I have become more aware of my actions and how they affect all other life. My thoughts have become more biocentric rather than strictly anthropocentric. It has taught me to show respect to living creature and to better understand how my actions can contribute to better life on earth. I have really enjoyed this class and how it has opened my eyes. The earth is not just about human existance but the maintenence of all life, and from now on I will always remember to "tread lightly".

Blog 17-This is the end

After taking this class, I now have a different perspective of nature and how we as humans affect it. This class has presented the ethics of various philosophers such as Garrett Hardin and his lifeboat ethics, James Lovelock and his GAIA hypothesis, Arne Naeis and his Deep vs Shallow Ecology and Mary Midgley with her ethics towards animals. They all have presented very good arguments that call for a major change in humans.

This class has taught me to be more simple and respectful towards nature and to try and teach others about the problems we face today regarding nature. Though not much was said in discussions throughout the semester, however in these last few weeks, it is evident that this class has taught us something about ourselves and that we are definitely thinking about what this class presents to us. The panel discussions went very well and I glad we were able to discuss other topics instead of just one. Overall this was a great class and I definitely recommend it. Thanks Dr. Langguth and I hope everyone has a great summer.

The End

The last discussion week was very well done. There was a huge array of topics but we were able to tie them altogether. The heated debate on Friday was very interesting as well and I think that was the most discussion the whole class has ever had. I liked that people were more presenting their opinions rather than just describing the topic they had because that is what would start the debate up.

Overall, this class went very well and I have gained a greater respect for the nature around us and how everything is actually connected. Now, it makes me think when I'm copying 50 pieces of paper, how it is affecting everything and not just the trees. This class was very well done and has definitely opened my eyes. I actually ended up giving up meat for lent to see what being a vegetarian was like. It was eye-opening again because now I am thinking more about where everything came from, rather than just if this will taste good or not.

I have definitely had to rethink where I stood on some aspects of life, because being an animal lover, I didn't realize that I was more partaking in the shallow ecology whereas I should be involved with the deep ecology. Now making decisions I will have more to think about, and hopefully be able to better treat the environment.

Thanks everyone and Dr. Langguth for a great semester!

Blog 17 - Final Thoughts

The last discussion was very interesting; Thanks Joel! All the topics were very interesting and thought provoking. One thing I have thought of in discussions about deep and shallow ecology is that we may be underplaying the importance of shallow ecology. The deep ecologists continually say that shallow ecology is useless and that everyone needs a completely new mind set that is environmentally friendly. When looking at this it seems bizarre. I don’t think anyone will wake up one morning and decide, “Hey I’m not going to create an impact on the earth, I’m not driving a car, etc”. That is completely unrealistic. I believe that shallow ecology, especially flannel ecology, creates a stepping stone that could eventually lead to a deep ecology mind set. By going out and planting trees, spending time in wilderness, or cleaning parks, a person may develop a love for the land. From this love may come the deep ecology mindset that is needed for sustainability on earth. I believe that shallow ecology is the only thing that makes deep ecology possible. I doubt any deep ecologist just became one over night, I imagine they had many experiences in nature that were “shallow” that developed their current view point.

The only problem with Tori’s statement about reintroducing predators into the wilds to control populations, thereby reducing the need to hunt is that its not plausible in today’s world. The populations of predators are decimated and the amount of wilderness left is shrinking fast. Predators require huge tracts of undisturbed land to sustain them, and there just isn’t enough of this left to maintain a healthy population. I know about the natural cycle that involves peaks and lows of prey and predator. The fact is that human interference is going to prevent the reemergence of predators. Also, lots of overpopulation of deer, rabbits, etc. occur in places such as Fort Thomas. Obviously a large population of predators cannot be maintained in such an environment.

I think many people took Joel’s presentation the wrong way. Its a philosophical discussion and some people took it personally. The fact that everyone fails to see is that the points he brings up actually would help control population. Its just that nobody wants to be controlled by regulations or make sacrifices. That is the reason that this world is in trouble. We aren’t going to change as a society, because as a whole we are selfish. I find it funny that people say deep ecology is what needs to happen, but when it is disguised without a name people freak out. If a person was actually a deep ecologist they would take steps to lessen their impact on the world. This exemplifies that sadly, deep ecology is not feasible, because no one is willing to sacrifice their “rights”.

Blog 17

The idea of deep ecology is infact a scary one, but it would be impossible to argue that would it fix the environmetal issues we face today. If you take a step back and take in the environmetal destruction the world faces today, you can almost feel yourself on Hardin's lifeboat. The desicions that mankind will be soon face with will be a difficult one and wether we choose to accept it or not it likely requires a massive reduction in not greenhouse gases but the reduction of the human population. I strongly feel like we are industrious enough to save ourself, but we need to stop avoiding the real problem and address it. It is understandable that mankind be afraid to truly stop and try to resolve these environmental problems because first of all they contradict the American culture. As one of the leading countries in the world, it is our responsibility to be a trend setter in environmetal policies and right now that isn't the case. People also need to understand that shallow ecology (greencars, recycling, energy efficient lights, whatever) are slowing down the problem, but can never fix it, because they still contribute. If the problems are going to be resolved, it involve a massive movement to ELIMINATE greenhouse gas emissions, not reduce, and an increased awareness for the rights of other organism on the planet and an understanding that our desicions affect them too. We can't be selfish.