Arguments made in “The likelihood of pollen from GE cotton causing harm to the environment is about as likely as a poodle escaping into the wild” (11 November 2010) article by Pamela Ronald suggest many ideas about GE crops. The main idea stressed by Ronald is that GE crops are very unlikely to cause any harm to people or the environment and should be implemented whenever possible.
Ronald shares the idea that “developing-country farmers, scientists and other groups should continue to drive the process of application of GE technology in their own countries–and that priority needs to be a focus on the public good” (Ronald, 2010). In terms of support of this claim she gives “well-documented” examples but gives no detail or any studies done.
This article shows clear support of GE crops and little effort to research both sides of the argument. She makes comparisons of GE fruits to organic fruits but makes no attempt to support these ideas with any evidence or scientific research. Ronald supports GE crops such as golden rice, Bt corn, Bt cotton and other Bt crops.
Ronald lists many positive impacts of GE crops such as ”reduced insecticide use, a shift from toxic to more benign herbicides, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, reduced soil erosion, increased profit to small- and large-holder farmers, and enhanced farm-worker safety” (Ronald, 2010). She claims that there were 14 years of research and that there was no influence imposed by political or religious groups. There is no reference as to who did the study or studies that she claims to be true. I have seen no scientific evidence that GE crops are the appropriate solution for all situations.
Ronald disagrees with many people in that GE crops are still a variable in the future of world food production. She states that there is very little uncertainty in an unlikely event of problems with GE foods or contamination of non-GE crops. But many questions about allergies or sustainability towards the GE products have been raised by groups opposed to GE crops.
Claims of conventional ideas that world food production must increase considerably by 2030 are thrown into the article as facts but have no hint of evidence or support. In order to increase yields of crops the High yield varieties (HYV) of GE crops may be used to satisfy these increasing needs. There are many problems with these HYV strands of GE crops that could come from a sudden increase of production of crops. With the HYVs it is possible to get up to three crops in a season, but this high turn around rate could deplete the soils fertility three times faster. With the soil becoming less fertile, farmers would have to increase the amount of fertilizers used which would create many environmental problems not to mention the added cost of the fertilizers. The increased crop yield would mean an increase in water usage which could very well deplete the resource in some drier areas of the world.
The lack of support in Ronald’s claims leads me to believe that she found information on GE crops that satisfied her favourable views of GE crops. This was not well supported by her or any research of proven studies to support her ideas.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
David Hillier
0719575
Blog Assignment 3
An environmental debate has been going on for decades concerning oil reserves. In particular, should the reserves beneath the surface of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) be exploited or not? In This Drill Won’t Cause a Spill: Oil Drilling in The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge author Kathryn Johnson makes arguments in favour of drilling that I will analyze and evaluate.
The most major concern I have with Johnson’s arguments is her inability to see the “big picture” perspective. Johnson (2010) makes numerous statements about the lack of environmental impact, “…drilling will not negatively affect the environment because the land will be protected… and it will leave a small environmental footprint.” Regardless of how the oil is attained, besides how stringent the reclamation laws are, oil is still being acquired to be burned. Perhaps, unbeknownst to Johnson, environmentalists don’t actually care about the Alaskan wilderness and are only concerned with reducing the World’s dependency on oil. This would make her argument rather irrelevant. Of course, this is a hypothetical scenario as environmentalists are concerned with both, but she ignores the underlying principle that the environmental footprint created as the oil is attained will be gigantic. We must consider that one of the most major ‘big picture’ environmental concerns is to reduce dependency on petroleum products; Johnson’s arguments ignore and violate this goal. She simply does not address this aspect.
This form of ignorance is furthered with lack of knowledge. “There is also a vision of ANWR being a rugged, mountainous, pristine area. The (prospective area in question) doesn’t fit that description at all. It is miles and miles of tundra, barren, no trees, and most of the year covered with snow,” (Johnson, 2010). Clearly this is a very uninformed statement. Johnson passes off the tundra as unimportant and feels it can therefore be plundered for its resources. It is arrogance of this kind that perpetuates environmental issues. Johnson provides no evidence or proof as to why the tundra is so disposable. The tundra is a vital biome of our planet that needs to be protected and is certainly not devoid of life. For example, its importance in the carbon balance is invaluable, “The rain forest is often called the earth's lungs because (it) is responsible for converting a lot of the world's carbon dioxide into oxygen. A similar claim can be made about the tundra: It is the Earth's carbon sink. Because a lot of otherwise fertile land is permafrost, it contains a lot of carbon that would otherwise escape into the atmosphere,” (Pot, 2009). Now, this is simply one importance of the tundra. An entire separate volume could be written describing its significance, but given Johnson’s comments on the necessity of trees to indicate value, I deemed this excerpt appropriate. Johnson’s comment shows a very weak point in her piece. In order to create a solid argument, it is important to thoroughly understand the topic you are addressing.
Another way of producing a solid argument is to consider the counter arguments of the opposition. Johnson actually did a good job of this in some areas, but some other areas were sadly lacking. Throughout the piece, Johnson discusses how drilling and the oil industry in ANWR could create jobs, benefit the economy, and how all of this would not negatively impact taxpayers. Even if these facts are accurate, Johnson fails to mention the alternatives to drilling. By alternatives I of course mean solar, wind or even nuclear energy. Obviously, Johnson would not support these as reasonable alternatives, but she could at least say why they aren’t viable choices. One must evaluate the objections and counter-arguments and say why they are unacceptable; she needs to clearly state why her opinion is the only reasonable one. In order to convince the reader, show them exactly what the opposition would counter with and then say why it is unrealistic. Johnson still has questions to answer. There should be no room to say ‘what if…?’ or ‘what about…?’.
That being said, strong arguments were made in the instances where Johnson did consider the opinions of the opposition. Environmentalists have shown concerns about the presence of caribou in ANWR and they feel the oil industry could be detrimental to them. Johnson handles this very well, “… (the) herd migrates up North in March, in May the pregnant females can be seen on the slope, in late May is calving season in the North, and in late July the herd has moved off the slope and into other areas. Since the Caribou are only in the Refuge during the winter, drilling can be done only in the winter to limit the affect on the caribou during the summer,” (Johnson, 2010). Johnson makes a strong argument here as she points out the flaws in the opposition’s argument, she then proceeds to make a compromise to appease their concerns. She says the caribou are actually not in ANWR all year-round, so with that, drilling will only occur during times which limit the impact on them. This is a strong strategy to utilize.
I don’t personally agree with this view point, as with most of Johnson’s opinions, but analyzing the viewpoints of those you contend with is the best way to strengthen, test and affirm your own opinions.
Pot, Justin H. (23 August, 2009). Why is the tundra so important?
http://www.ehow.com/about_5329435_tundra-important.html#ixzz152TMqO9v
(retrieved November 9, 2010).
Johnson, Kathryn. (4 November, 2010). Research Draft 1: This drill won’t cause a spill; oil
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
(retrieved November 9, 2010).
Wind Turbine Criticism Churns: Noise, Water Contamination
Jackianne Abbey
0709105
In the article “Wind turbine criticism churns: noise, water contamination” (14 September 2010), found in NEWS telegram.com, Craig S. Semon informs the readers about problems associated with wind turbines. In the article, the opposition to wind turbines is voiced by Robert Anders, a building inspector who worked in Webster. The author extensively quotes Robert to get his insight on the issue. Therefore, most of the arguments are made by Anders and not the author. Andres’ major claim is that “Wind Power is NOT Free” (Semon 2010) because of the consequential costs. Kurt Tramposch, a community and environmental health planner, states in the article that Webster “lacks the right conditions” to farm wind turbines.
Some of Anders’ examples include “each turbine produces more than 800 gallons of hazardous waste, induces lightning strikes, can throw ice several thousand feet, cause nauseating strobe effects with the flickering shadows of its blades, can contaminate groundwater and can fall over or explode” (Semon 2010). The source of Anders’ evidence is very unclear. Without sourcing, how is one to know that this claim has not been fabricated? Anders does not specify what kind of hazardous waste is produced. Is this amount a large amount when compared to other energy sources such as fossil fuels or natural gas? All of today’s energy sources have some sort of consequences. We need to understand which consequences are most/least harmful.
Other consequences that Anders brings up include heightened noise levels and lowered aesthetics. We must ask ourselves whether or not these consequences are worse than greenhouse gas emissions being produced by other energy sources. Another point of consideration is the fact that we could run out of natural resources at any point. One could argue that the benefits outweigh the costs because without green energy, there could be larger problems than noisy turbines.
Where does one draw the line between costs and benefits regarding wind versus conventional energy sources. For example you could say that one thing is the least harmful because it pollutes the least. What if a factory pollutes less in a sensitive area? This could kill a whole ecosystem even though the pollution count is technically low. How do we know that polluting less is in fact less harmful than the product that pollutes a little bit more but doesn’t kill an entire ecosystem?
Anders brings up the example of an exploding turbine in California. He fails to explain the causes of the explosion of this turbine. Did it fall and explode? Did someone shoot a firework at the turbine, causing it to catch fire? If the cause of the explosion was included, this piece of evidence would be much stronger.
Kurt Tramposch states that the proposed building site for turbines “lack the right conditions.” However, Tramposch does not state what the right conditions for a wind turbine may be, and does not state why the Douglas Woods Wind Farm would be so unsuitable for the turbines.
Another consideration is that while the harms of fossil fuels are proven, the theoretical harms of wind turbines are not. The precautionary principle states that one should know all the harmful effects that may be caused before allowing a product to be used. It is not realistic to rely on the precautionary principle for wind turbines. The benefits outweigh the consequences and setting up a test station to find out the harmful effects of the wind turbine would be unnecessary. Instead, the turbines should be set up in a community right from the start. The community will benefit from the electricity that the turbines are producing and if a harmful consequence were to happen, it could be documented and used in later research which may re-evaluate the benefits and risks of wind turbines.
In Anders’ arguments, the main concern for turbines is the serious consequences that come along with them. However, all energy sources have harmful consequences. For example using fossil fuels may lead to a depletion of natural resources, and these fossil fuels are the main contributor to the worlds greenhouse gases (Enzler 2009). The penalties associated with wind turbines seem much less harmful than the penalties that come with fossil fuels.
References
Enzler, S. “Greenhouse Gases”. LENNTECH. 2009. Lenntech Water treatment & purification Holding B.V. 8 Nov. 2010. < http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/greenhouse-gases.htm>.
Semon, C. “Wind turbine criticism churns: Noise, Water contamination”. NEWS telegram.com. 14 Sept. 2010. Worcester Telegram & Gazette Corp. 8 Nov. 2010.
Is Animal Agriculture Really Sustainable?
In “Animals Are Essential to Sustainable Food” by Nicolette Hahn Niman, the sustainability of animal agriculture is discussed, in which a number of assertions are made in support of its necessity. However, Niman uses many proofs towards her argument which can be put up to much dispute.
She first ascertains, “The U.N. report blames 18 percent of global warming on livestock. But very little of that has any connection to well-managed traditional, grass-based animal farming. For starters, 48 percent of it is from land-use changes, mostly clearing of forests (for grazing and growing feed crops) in Brazil, India, Indonesia, and other developing countries. The United States, however, is not expanding croplands... Smaller, traditional American farms have low CO2 emissions because they keep their animals outdoors on pasture and use little machinery.”
It is a fact that agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world
-wide. There are no buts that can override the importance of this statement. The problem with this statement is its complete lack of relevance in the entirety of the issue. It is true that smaller farms produce less carbon dioxide emissions, but how can that provide any consolation in the US, where it is stated by Scherr and Sthapit (2009) that four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens? It is still evident that GHG emissions have risen by 48% due to land use such as deforestation. Furthermore, industrialized or not, deforestation and devegetation for livestock farming cause release of carbon from the ground in two ways: the decay of plant material and erosion of soil, which is stated by Scherr and Sthapit (2009). When forests are cut down each year, all contained biomass must go through a decay and release of atmospheric carbon. In addition, the grazing fields then constantly experience soil erosion and infertility, as land is made bare and exposed to the elements. This sacrifice for meat hardly seems worth the cost to our environment, as 1 hectare of pasture only provides around 51 kg of beef per year. This can be compared to all frequencies found in plant crops, which are much higher, such as 3916 kg of food product produced by 1 hectare of rice. In actuality, animal agriculture has a very intense effect on our atmosphere, including that of the US.
Niman next declares, “It’s important to note that there were plenty of animal enteric emissions in this country long before the arrival of cattle. Prior to European colonization, enormous herds of large ruminants covered the continent, including an estimated 10 million elk and as many as 75 million bison. The total number of large ruminants was surely greater than the 40 million mature breeding beef cows and dairy cows in the United States today.”
This is not an effective argument, as ruminant agriculture continues to increase. Scherr and Sthapit (2009) state the domestic animal population has increased by 0.5 to 2.0 percent per year during the last century. It is unreasonable to even consider Niman’s statement as evidence, as the wild ruminants of pre-colonized United States have little connection to ruminants and the role they play in today’s society. Species in the wild cannot be ethically compared to animals produced in agriculture, as they are produced for once purpose: human consumption. Why can animals with only one life purpose be considered to have intrinsic value? The only intention of animal agriculture is death and consumption, and aid in increase of our already overbearing population. We cannot afford to add to methane emissions with a practice that is not necessary for sustaining human life, which impedes a necessary reduction of emissions for sustaining global life.
The articles next statement asserts, “we shouldn’t forget that all food has global warming impacts. Wetland rice fields account for almost 30 percent of the world’s human-generated methane. ..Singling out meat’s climate impact makes no sense.”
It makes complete sense to single out methane emissions from livestock. Scherr and Sthapit (2009) state that 22% of the world's methane emissions are due to livestock. Livestock are ruminants, who have a unique, four-chambered stomach. In the rumen chamber, bacteria ferment food product and generate methane as a by product, which is stated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (2006) to be 23 times more effective in increasing global warming. And while Niman claims 30% of anthropogenic methane is produced by rice paddies, this figure is widely uncertain. Estimates require many process-based models, and source figures have range from 10 to 35% methane emissions. Rice paddies and beef cannot even be suitably compared, as emissions per unit product differ. Additionally, the ability to control methane emissions differ. Stated by Van der Gon et al. (2002), rice methane emissions are proven to be controllable. Many different rice varieties can be grown in drier conditions which lead to a reduction in methane emissions without any loss in yield. Also, species with more flowers can be grown (thus increasing yield), where produced carbon can be stored in flowers rather than in ground soil, which means less carbon will be available for bacteria to convert it into methane. According to Eshel and Martin (2005), methane produced by cattle cannot be decreased without a decrease in beef yield. This is because a corn-fed cow uses less land, but produces less methane. A grass-fed cow uses more land, but also produces four to five times more methane than its industrial counterpart. So in essence it seems the ratio of available land to food source cannot be changed, and thus methane levels will prevail unless less meat is produced.
Another questionable argument presented is “Traditional animal farming also has environmental benefits. Recent studies show that pasture and grassland areas used for livestock actually lessen global warming because their vegetation and soils effectively act as carbon sinks. Converting croplands to pasture sequesters significant amounts of carbon...There is growing evidence that both cattle ranching and pastoralism can have positive impacts on biodiversity.”
This is not a plausible argument for the favour of animal agriculture. Industrial animal farming has reached paramount levels, and is on the rise due to the increasing population and increasing appetite for meat and dairy. We cannot afford to convert any more cropland as over two thirds are already in place to sustain animal agriculture. We cannot just convert the industry to traditional methods, as there are not enough resources to sustain it anymore.
Biodiversity also cannot be sustained. F.A.O.U.N. (2006) states that 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to ruminant grazing and feed crop. How can this cattle ranching possibly be considered to have positive effects on biodiversity? Thousands upon thousands of species and habitat are being wiped out each year.
We are running out of land, we are running out of water, and we are running out of time to reverse the effects humanity has on our Earth. Niman’s arguments are based on reasons why it may seem animal agriculture is acceptable on our planet. These arguments do not particularly reflect the title of the article, as no proof was given to deem animal agriculture essential. Niman discusses the use of traditional agriculture as a way of providing better impacts on the environment. And in some ways it is. But can traditional agriculture even be sustained with the increasing population of humans?
References:
1.Niman, Nicolette Hahn. (2010) Animals Are Essential to Sustainable Food. Earth Island Journal. Vol 5, Issue 1. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/rancher/
2.Scherr , Sara J. and Sajal Sthapit. (2009) Farming and Land Use to Cool the Planet. State of the World. Issue 2009: 30-49. http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/SOW09_chap3.pdf
3.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow. 36-47.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
4.Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Kropff, M. J., van Breeman, N., Wassman, R., Lantin, R. S., Aduna, E., Corton, T. M., van Laar, H. H. (2002). Optimizing grain yields reduces CH4 emissions from rice paddy fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. vol. 99 no. 19 12021-12024. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12021.full
5.Eshel, Giddon and Pamela A. Martin. (2005). Diet, energy, and global warming. Journal of Earth Interactions. Vol 10, Paper 9: 1. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1
She first ascertains, “The U.N. report blames 18 percent of global warming on livestock. But very little of that has any connection to well-managed traditional, grass-based animal farming. For starters, 48 percent of it is from land-use changes, mostly clearing of forests (for grazing and growing feed crops) in Brazil, India, Indonesia, and other developing countries. The United States, however, is not expanding croplands... Smaller, traditional American farms have low CO2 emissions because they keep their animals outdoors on pasture and use little machinery.”
It is a fact that agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world
-wide. There are no buts that can override the importance of this statement. The problem with this statement is its complete lack of relevance in the entirety of the issue. It is true that smaller farms produce less carbon dioxide emissions, but how can that provide any consolation in the US, where it is stated by Scherr and Sthapit (2009) that four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens? It is still evident that GHG emissions have risen by 48% due to land use such as deforestation. Furthermore, industrialized or not, deforestation and devegetation for livestock farming cause release of carbon from the ground in two ways: the decay of plant material and erosion of soil, which is stated by Scherr and Sthapit (2009). When forests are cut down each year, all contained biomass must go through a decay and release of atmospheric carbon. In addition, the grazing fields then constantly experience soil erosion and infertility, as land is made bare and exposed to the elements. This sacrifice for meat hardly seems worth the cost to our environment, as 1 hectare of pasture only provides around 51 kg of beef per year. This can be compared to all frequencies found in plant crops, which are much higher, such as 3916 kg of food product produced by 1 hectare of rice. In actuality, animal agriculture has a very intense effect on our atmosphere, including that of the US.Niman next declares, “It’s important to note that there were plenty of animal enteric emissions in this country long before the arrival of cattle. Prior to European colonization, enormous herds of large ruminants covered the continent, including an estimated 10 million elk and as many as 75 million bison. The total number of large ruminants was surely greater than the 40 million mature breeding beef cows and dairy cows in the United States today.”
This is not an effective argument, as ruminant agriculture continues to increase. Scherr and Sthapit (2009) state the domestic animal population has increased by 0.5 to 2.0 percent per year during the last century. It is unreasonable to even consider Niman’s statement as evidence, as the wild ruminants of pre-colonized United States have little connection to ruminants and the role they play in today’s society. Species in the wild cannot be ethically compared to animals produced in agriculture, as they are produced for once purpose: human consumption. Why can animals with only one life purpose be considered to have intrinsic value? The only intention of animal agriculture is death and consumption, and aid in increase of our already overbearing population. We cannot afford to add to methane emissions with a practice that is not necessary for sustaining human life, which impedes a necessary reduction of emissions for sustaining global life.
The articles next statement asserts, “we shouldn’t forget that all food has global warming impacts. Wetland rice fields account for almost 30 percent of the world’s human-generated methane. ..Singling out meat’s climate impact makes no sense.”
It makes complete sense to single out methane emissions from livestock. Scherr and Sthapit (2009) state that 22% of the world's methane emissions are due to livestock. Livestock are ruminants, who have a unique, four-chambered stomach. In the rumen chamber, bacteria ferment food product and generate methane as a by product, which is stated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (2006) to be 23 times more effective in increasing global warming. And while Niman claims 30% of anthropogenic methane is produced by rice paddies, this figure is widely uncertain. Estimates require many process-based models, and source figures have range from 10 to 35% methane emissions. Rice paddies and beef cannot even be suitably compared, as emissions per unit product differ. Additionally, the ability to control methane emissions differ. Stated by Van der Gon et al. (2002), rice methane emissions are proven to be controllable. Many different rice varieties can be grown in drier conditions which lead to a reduction in methane emissions without any loss in yield. Also, species with more flowers can be grown (thus increasing yield), where produced carbon can be stored in flowers rather than in ground soil, which means less carbon will be available for bacteria to convert it into methane. According to Eshel and Martin (2005), methane produced by cattle cannot be decreased without a decrease in beef yield. This is because a corn-fed cow uses less land, but produces less methane. A grass-fed cow uses more land, but also produces four to five times more methane than its industrial counterpart. So in essence it seems the ratio of available land to food source cannot be changed, and thus methane levels will prevail unless less meat is produced.
Another questionable argument presented is “Traditional animal farming also has environmental benefits. Recent studies show that pasture and grassland areas used for livestock actually lessen global warming because their vegetation and soils effectively act as carbon sinks. Converting croplands to pasture sequesters significant amounts of carbon...There is growing evidence that both cattle ranching and pastoralism can have positive impacts on biodiversity.”
This is not a plausible argument for the favour of animal agriculture. Industrial animal farming has reached paramount levels, and is on the rise due to the increasing population and increasing appetite for meat and dairy. We cannot afford to convert any more cropland as over two thirds are already in place to sustain animal agriculture. We cannot just convert the industry to traditional methods, as there are not enough resources to sustain it anymore.
Biodiversity also cannot be sustained. F.A.O.U.N. (2006) states that 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to ruminant grazing and feed crop. How can this cattle ranching possibly be considered to have positive effects on biodiversity? Thousands upon thousands of species and habitat are being wiped out each year.
We are running out of land, we are running out of water, and we are running out of time to reverse the effects humanity has on our Earth. Niman’s arguments are based on reasons why it may seem animal agriculture is acceptable on our planet. These arguments do not particularly reflect the title of the article, as no proof was given to deem animal agriculture essential. Niman discusses the use of traditional agriculture as a way of providing better impacts on the environment. And in some ways it is. But can traditional agriculture even be sustained with the increasing population of humans?
References:
1.Niman, Nicolette Hahn. (2010) Animals Are Essential to Sustainable Food. Earth Island Journal. Vol 5, Issue 1. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/rancher/
2.Scherr , Sara J. and Sajal Sthapit. (2009) Farming and Land Use to Cool the Planet. State of the World. Issue 2009: 30-49. http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/SOW09_chap3.pdf
3.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow. 36-47.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
4.Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Kropff, M. J., van Breeman, N., Wassman, R., Lantin, R. S., Aduna, E., Corton, T. M., van Laar, H. H. (2002). Optimizing grain yields reduces CH4 emissions from rice paddy fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. vol. 99 no. 19 12021-12024. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12021.full
5.Eshel, Giddon and Pamela A. Martin. (2005). Diet, energy, and global warming. Journal of Earth Interactions. Vol 10, Paper 9: 1. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1
Word count: 1187
Jamie Prime 0718393
Save the Tigers...But Why?
AFP/Getty Images
No matter how relevant, if an argument is going to evoke a reaction from a reader, it must be sound enough for that reader to listen to what it has to say, and even care as much as the person who made the original argument. If it is poorly structured; without enough evidence, a confident voice or position, or even sufficient research; no one will listen to it, even if it deals with a pressing issue. Such is the case for "Save the tigers from tanking," (6 Novermber 2010), an editorial published in the Globe and Mail.The fact that I am refuting this argument does not mean that I think that a person has the right to kill a tiger for their own hedonistic purposes. But I do need to know why we should put so much effort into saving tigers, which is something that this argument does not delve into. What the editorial does tell us briefly is this: that tigers will be wiped out within twelve years due to poaching and habitat loss, that we should take action to prevent this from occurring, and that three species of tiger have gone extinct already. Moreover, it just seems to dump down facts--some of which are not true at all--without giving a reason as to why they are important.
The main problem with this editorial is that it does not seem to know why tigers should be saved from extinction. The reasons given are too vague even for a reader to figure out what kind of environmentalist stance that it is trying to exhibit. Is it ecoholist? Is it sentientist? Does it have any environmentalist views whatsoever? The fact that the argument refers to all tigers just as "the tiger" within the text--though not the title--suggests that it is attempting to give the entire species intrinsic value, but the view still does not seem ecoholist.
From the points given, the editorial's reason to preserve tigers seems purely aesthetical instead. It is not the tigers themselves that have intrinsic value; rather, it is the idea that the tigers are there. Ever since people have become aware about the tigers' critical situation, they have become charismatic megafauna almost as pathos-inducing as giant pandas and polar bears. This editorial follows suit here, to the point where it portrays the tigers more as a means to an end than an end in itself.
In doing so, the argument presented contradicts itself. It states that we are to blame for the tigers' endangerment, destroying their habitat for products that will only benefit us, and singling them out as poaching targets because they are so much rarer and more beautiful than other animals. And yet it does not hint at any other kind of value that they might have, other than the statement that the are "one of the great beasts of the Earth." (2010) Instead, emphasis is placed in what we ought to do to help them, as though trying to place a sense of duty in us. But since nothing in the argument says why tigers have rights, again, this duty feels more aesthetical than ethical.
But that is not the argument's only problem. Aside from mixed messages, it just runs through all of its points too quickly, without any evidence to support it other than a citation from the World Wildlife Fund. It lists the reasons why tigers are threatened, but offers no concrete examples of these, instead assuming that we have heard enough already to know that it is the truth. It then goes on to say that all that we need to preserve the tigers is government assistance to end poaching and reverse habitat loss, but it does not go into much detail as to how this will happen. It does suggest the use of corridors for tigers to travel from one habitat to another, but it does not give any evidence that this would work.
Finally, there is the lack of research to consider. Toward the end of the editorial, three species of tiger that have gone extinct are listed: the Javan tiger, the Bali tiger, and the Tasmanian tiger. Although the Javan and Bali tiger are both extinct species, the third is the Caspian tiger, not the Tasmanian tiger. In fact, the extinct "Tasmanian tiger" was not a tiger at all, but a striped, carnivorous marsupial whose actual name was "thylacine." It was also referred to as the "Tasmanian tiger" because of its stripes or the "Tasmanian wolf" because of its wolf-like appearance.
As I have mentioned before, the one source mentioned in the argument is the World Wildlife Fund, which does state that the third species of extinct tiger is the Caspian tiger, not the thylacine. The World Wildlife Fund's page on tigers does share another comment with the article: that there might be as few as 3,200 tigers left, and the editorial does cite the World Wildlife Fund when saying this. There is one difference between the two of them, though: the World Wildlife Fund says that this is possible, whereas the editorial presents this as though it is a known fact. And although that one statement has a source behind it, anyone who knows what a Tasmanian tiger really is will not trust anything else that the argument has to say.
For that matter, the World Wildlife Fund's page on tigers does list a few reasons on why the tiger should be preserved, and the values that they give the tiger also seem more instrumental than intrinsic. Although they do have some ecoholist reasons, which say that tigers play a key role in their ecosystems and maintain biodiversity there, they have just as many instrumental and aesthetic reasons: that tigers are greatly admired and atttract tourism. Like the editorial, the page does not go into detail on the positive effects of tigers on ecosystems, but just assumes that we already know that, or do not need that much explanation to care.
The difference between the information page and the editorial is that although they more or less present the same argument--that we should preserve the tiger--they do so under different formats. The World Wildlife Fund is an organization whose purpose is to get people to care about wildlife, whereas a newspaper editorial is meant to be a solid, sometimes insightful opinion piece that gets the reader to think, or at least present an argument worth considering. In this editorial, the argument given is nothing that the readers have already seen before, only with a rushed execution, glaring research errors, and a voice that contradicts the environmentalist image that it is supposed to have. Although I agree that tigers should be preserved, I believe that it should be for the sake of the tigers themselves and the environment that they affect, not our own aesthetic pleasure.
Reference List
Save the tigers from tanking. (2010, November 6) The Globe and Mail. Retrieved November 9, 2010, from
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/save-the-tigers-from-tanking/article1769609/>.
AFP/Getty Images.(2010, October 22). Save the tigers from tanking. [Photograph]. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/save-the-tigers-from-tanking/article1769609/>.
World Wildlife Fund. (2010). Tiger: Overview. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from <http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/tigers/index.html>.
World Wildlife Fund. (2010). Tiger: Why Tigers Matter. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from
<http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/tigers/why-tigers-matter.html>.
Wind Power: Worth the Supposed Aches and Pains?
By: Julia Lee (0722659) ENVS*1020
I would like to start off by saying that I acknowledge that this is not an official newspaper article, but rather an article written by a reader and was submitted into the “Opinion Exchange” section of the Star Tribune newspaper. Therefore, I would not say it is entirely right to start harshly criticizing the article. What is said in this blog post will more so be my advice on writing a more informative piece.
The article written by Gary Carlson (8 November 2010) relay’s his thoughts on wind turbines. It mainly talks about his participation in the county’s discussion about wind turbines that were possibly going to be developed nearby and then goes on to talk about his own online research put into the topic. However, the underlying message is that wind turbines cause medical problems to people living within a certain range of them and he has argued that they should be set farther from any residences.
The thing that bothers me about the article is the lack of details given about certain aspects of the argument. For example, Carlson mentions that “sleep disturbance is the most common problem”, however there are many more symptoms that could have been mentioned. By just mentioning the possible sleep disturbance, many can claim that it is some unrelated problem or, as some have said in the comments of the articles, that people are just “whiners”. In the report Wind Turbine Syndrome by Nina Pierpont (2009), the following symptoms listed are said to be connected with the presence of turbines: sleep disturbance, headache, tinnitus, ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, tachycardia, irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes. Researching and providing the different symptoms would have let the reader see that there is possibly some more damage happening that can’t just be ignored.
Another example of something that could have been elaborated on was how the turbines can “produce a lot of infrasonic and low-frequency noise” (Carlson 2010) within a certain area. Mentioning how this works would again educate the reader and help them to understand the argument better. To relate how the infrasonic waves affect the body, we can use one of the above symptoms as an example. First off, the turning of the turbine blades generates both sound and seismic waves. (Pierpont 2009) The energy of these waves travel and once they hit a solid object of some medium, can cause it to vibrate. (Pierpont 2009) The rest of the example is best said by Pierpont:
A sound wave in the air, encountering a house, may set up vibrations in the structure of the house. These vibrations, in walls or windows, may set up air pressure (sound) waves in rooms, which can in turn transmit mechanical energy to the tympanic membrane and middle ear, to the airways and lungs, and to body surfaces.
This would explain the ear pressure symptom in the list previously mentioned. One cannot simply just list the symptoms, but must also go through and give examples the reader can understand or at least some examples. Otherwise, the argument may start to just seem like ones opinions, rather than something actual studied.
My final input would be to maybe just cut down on the personal background information. It is these points that really make it the opinion piece. Without these, and along with the suggestions above, this article could actually hold a fair argument. That’s not to say that the personal information is not needed all together. It gives a bit of credibility to hear that the author of the article is a physician. The reader can assume that they will already have some background knowledge when it comes to the different health problems mentioned in the article. It is also good to hear about different communities discussing the wind turbines, rather than just building them without taking the communities feedback into account. However, that does not always mean that everyone’s opinions will get heard in the matter. The paragraph on being somewhat of an environmentalist really could have been squeezed into the first background paragraph. Again, it is not bad to have personal information in the article—in some cases it can make it more relatable—but you do not need to put every single detail into it.
After all this nitpicking, I’d like to say that this article wasn’t so bad. I think it did serve its purpose in some way. For example, I never knew that there were any negative health benefits to windmills. After reading this article and doing some quick research I’m not a bit more informed on the matter, which is really what you should want your article to achieve. I also applaud Carlson for sending in the article. It’s good to see people getting involved in matters and trying to help spread the word.
If there is really anyone to criticize for not doing enough research or putting critical thinking into their opinions it would have to be some of the people who commented online for this article. Accusing the author of being a hippy or just being a whiner and to “suck it up” in no way actually improves the argument. For the number of well thought out comments, there were a few obvious spur of the moment ones. But hey, it’s the internet. When people have a computer screen to hide behind they’ll say whatever they please.
References:
Carlson, G. (2010) Wind energy’s ripple effects. Star Tribune, 8 Nov 2010. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/106925008.html?page=1&c=y. Accessed 11 Nov 2010.
Pierpont, N. MD. PHD. (2009) Wind turbine Syndrome. http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/AC708819BAAFAD9BCA25770D00471BA3/$File/Expert+Witness+Statement+of+Dr+Nina+Pierpont.pdf. Accessed 11 Nov 2010.
Image taken from: http://www.windpowerninja.com/wind-power-news/south-dakota-wind-turbine-plant-announces-lay-offs-21583/.
Montreal Protocol, a viable solution to solving climate issues
Blog Assignment 3
Lucas McCann
In the New York Times article “A novel tactic in climate fight gains some traction” (November 8, 2010) the author, John M Broder examines the claim that could impact climate change regulations for years. The claim that was made is that the Montreal protocol should be expanded so that it would include the phasing out of HFC’s (hydroflourocarbons), a potentially harmful greenhouse gas. To further show this claim, Broder uses a quote from Mr. Reifsnyder:
“What we’ve found is that the Montreal Protocol has been a very effective instrument for addressing global environmental problems,” Mr. Reifsnyder said in an interview. “It was created to deal with the ozone layer, but it also has tremendous ability to solve the climate problem if people are willing to use it that way.” (Broder 2010)
Broder offers both strong and weak evidence to back up this claim that the Montreal protocol can be used to improve other aspects of climate change. In particular these main points seem to be: (1) even though the Montreal protocol was designed for the ozone layer; it could also be used to promote the reduction of climate issues, (2) HFC’s are potentially 1000 times worse than carbon dioxide and (3) the Montreal protocol actually achieved what it was designed for, compared to recent climate talks.
I think that the first and third pieces of evidence are particularly stronger than the second piece of evidence. First off, it is true that the Montreal protocol was designed to eliminate chemicals that were potentially harmful to the ozone layer. However this does not mean that it could not be used for much brooder applications. The full effects that hydroflourocarbons may have on the environment are not known for sure; however that is not to say that we shouldn’t do anything about them just because we don’t what affect they have. The wingspread precautionary principle states that, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”. Just because we do not know the full affect that hydroflourocarbons have on the environment, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything to prevent it Interpreting the precautionary principle in this way allows for an accurate expansion of the Montreal protocol to include phasing out HFC’s.
Over the past couple of years, international climate talks have produced little results or actions at all. The Montreal protocol is one of the most significant and effective (if not the most) international environmental treaties signed. It achieved the goals it was designed for, and it is a perfect vehicle to use for lowering other climate problems. Therefore it is only natural that we try and adapt the Montreal protocol so that it incorporates different climate problems, other than ozone. For example, say that the Montreal protocol was adapted to reduce hydroflourocarbons and it yielded extremely positive results, say it decreased the rate of global warming. If this were the case than the Montreal protocol would be applicable to all climate change issues, it could possibly be used to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the environment. This is a key part of the argument, we do not know if the Montreal protocol is applicable to other climate problems until it is tested; but the possibilities if it were are endless. Therein lays a problem because possibly applying the protocol will not occur for years. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that adapting the Montreal protocol to adopt the HFC proposal could eliminate approximately 88 billion metric tons of CO2 by 2050. If there were even the remote chance of that occurring, than we should obviously adopt the HFC proposal.
Now, ignoring the potential strong points in this argument; there is a weak point that Broder has made. The evidence in question is that hydroflourocarbons possibly have thousands the global warming potential compared to carbon dioxide. I feel that this part of the argument is extremely unconvincing without further scientific proof. The claim that HFC’s are thousands of times worse than carbon dioxide is outrageous, how can you possibly know to what extent if something is worse compared to another, without scientific testing. I feel this argument is flawed here because Broder doesn’t present any scientific proof, which specifically says that HFC’s are worse than carbon dioxide. For all we know HFC’s are better than CO2, it is impossible to know without scientific proof.
One way Broder could make this argument more convincing would be to actually incorporate scientific facts about HFC’s, if there are any. This could reduce any uncertainties that are involved in his argument and make it more convincing. This is really the only low point in his argument; however there is no real way to test if this approach could reduce HFC’s. The claims are mostly based on what if arguments, which does not make them relatively, sound.
Broder is arguing that the Montreal protocol can be updated so that it includes reducing the amount of HFC’s that are used. The evidence provided shows that this may indeed by true, and this could ultimately have extremely positive effects. However it is impossible to know this for sure, because this hypothesis has not yet been tested. Until this is actually tested and scientific knowledge is produced we cannot be sure of what effects this may have. To me the argument that has been made logically commits us to pursuing it, to find out if the Montreal protocol is truly effective on climate issues other than ozone depletion. If true this could change the way we attempt to reverse the damage we have done with greenhouse grasses.
Reference
Broder, John M. "A Novel Tactic in Climate Fight Gains Some Traction." New York Times. 8 Nov. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2010.
Nuclear Energy: A Sustainable Solution?
“Switching from a finite supply of oil to a finite supply of uranium cannot work for the long term”, claims an article written by Caroline Lucas published in the Herald Scotland November 7, 2010. Lucas’ argument seems to be that there must be a shift directly from oil to solely green technologies and therefore a shift from centralized power supply to small scale grids. She argues that nuclear is not economically viable or sustainable, nor is it “genuinely low carbon”, and therefore we must stop our use of nuclear energy completely. Finally the claim is made that politicians like nuclear energy because it is greener that oil and gas and people do not want to have to change their lifestyles, i.e. energy consumption. However Lucas provides little support for her claims and views, which weakens her argument drastically.
While Lucas argues that nuclear power is not sustainable in the long run, others would believe otherwise. There are vast supplies of uranium still in the Earth, approximately 8.3 million tonnes with high estimates of 35 million. This amount could support current global demand for nuclear energy which is 80-100000 tonnes/year for over 100 more years (World Nuclear Association). While clearly this supply will not last forever, one must consider what time frame long run refers to as some might consider upwards of 100 years rather long term. Also with respect to sustainability Lucas points out the finite lifetime of nuclear plants but fails to address the fact that there is also a finite lifetime of green technologies. For example the average solar panel lifetime is 20-25 years with efficiency decreasing drastically over this time period (Solar Panel Info). Compared with the lifetime of a nuclear plant which is 60-80 years, the lifetime and efficiency of solar panels is much smaller and therefore could not come close to supporting current energy consumption. What Lucas should have done to strengthen her argument was give pros and cons of each technology and draw a conclusion based on these facts.
Another large theme Lucas presents focuses on the economic side of the issue, claiming that nuclear is much too expensive to be a viable solution. However at the present time in Canada, electricity from nuclear costs 4.5 cents/kwh, and electricity from solar panels for example costs 80 cents/ kwh, which is nearly twenty times more (OPG, FIT). This difference in price and the present time provides not incentive for people to change their source of energy, which severely limits the development of green technologies when comparing to efficient and cheap sources. Another claim of Lucas’ also faces the aforementioned issue in regards to public decision. She suggests a shift towards higher energy efficiency and affordable public transit. This is a good idea in theory however would require a great deal of investment and subsidizes from the government in order to not only implement it but to convince people to change their habits. This is unlikely to be possible without an increase in taxes or some other social program to obtain funds and raise awareness to catalyze a change. This is not unlike the issue of high costs for building and decommissioning nuclear plants which also require money from taxpayers. The question is which one incurs the lowest overall cost while also obtaining the highest benefit to society.
Examining the environmental aspect of Lucas’ argument also raises some issue with her claims. Lucas states that nuclear energy is not “genuinely carbon free”, however green technologies are not necessarily green either. When accounting for a product or service’s carbon footprint, the entire lifecycle of that product must be taken into account; from the harvesting of the natural resources to the eventual disposal, recycling or down cycling. This being said one could argue that some green technologies are not genuinely carbon free either. To illustrate I will discuss solar panels once again. Solar panels, although they use no fuel or produce no carbon emissions while in use, their production requires the mining of special metals which is very energy intensive relying on large amounts of fossil fuels. Also recycling these materials after use is nearly impossible, resulting in an inability to reuse most of the components. Therefore one could argue that green technologies are not any less carbon producing that nuclear.
The big problem with Lucas’ argument is that she does not provide any specific facts about the negative aspects of obtaining power from nuclear energy, nor does she provide and specific viable alternative which could used in place of nuclear power in the transition away from oil and non renewable resources in general. Lucas fails to recognize that implementing green technologies in a scale large enough to sustain energy demand with no use of nuclear or other non renewable fuels would take extreme amounts of energy and time. It is an idealistic idea, and most definitely not an attainable one in a short time span. Instead of merely stating that “nuclear energy is not a viable stop-gap”, Lucas should have presented valid facts from both sides of the argument in order to give readers a representative and realistic view of the issue. This would also make it possible for readers to make a more informed decision about their opinion on the matter, making the article more impactful to everyone. Both nuclear energy and green technologies have some similar downsides, and therefore one must weigh the cost and benefit of each of these technologies to determine what the best option is. Furthermore, while the end result of more sustainable energy sources and overall way of life is ideal, this transition must be taken in small steps to be really effective, viable and long lasting. Lucas could have made her argument against nuclear energy much more effective and valid had she stated that nuclear may help ease the transition from oil and gas reserves to more sustainable green technologies, but should be limited to such and not be developed further.
Word Count: 991
REFERENCES
Nuclear is not a viable energy stop gap. Caroline Lucas. Herald Scotland. November 7, 2010.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/guest-commentary/nuclear-is-not-a-viable-energy-stop-gap-1.1066419
Feed In Tariff Prices for Renewable Energy Products in Ontario
http://fit.powerauthority.on.ca/Storage/102/11128_FIT_Price_Schedule_August_13_2010.pdf
World Nuclear Association
http://www.world-nuclear.org
Ontario Power Generation Reports 2009 Financial Results
www.opg.com
http://www.solarpanelinfo.com/solar-panels/solar-panel-cost.php
http://www.freewebs.com/renewableandnuclear/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)