Feed-in Tariffs can open the door to Renewable Energy

As the world population and our need for energy increases, so does climate change and the push for renewable resources. Feed-in tariffs (FIT), aka renewable energy payments (REPs), could be an effective way to get people to invest in renewable energy options. FITs currently operate in nearly 50 countries and areas globally. They offer fixed long term contracts to companies, householders or anyone producing electricity to a grid through renewable energy. The REPs are set based on the price of technologies and the availability of resources, rather than having the same payment for every resource. Therefore, the producer will receive more money for supplying energy such as, solar, wind or geothermal, rather than coal or oil. REPs also provide incentive to update technologies by lowering the payment if the producer has not updated their technology in a certain period of time. Updated technologies create efficient systems. 

FITs are another great way to create jobs. For example, the province of Ontario is pushing toward an FIT system estimated to establish around 50 000 jobs within three years. Success stories of current FIT systems can be used to measure the benefits. Germany’s FIT system, for example, allowed smaller companies or people to sell electricity to the grid instead of only large companies. Currently, Germany’s system employs around 280 000 jobs and saved 115 million tones of CO2 emissions in 2008 and saved 4.3 billion euros in energy imports in 2007. The FIT system is funded by a measly 3.10 euros a month per household. 

FITs can also be implemented in developing nations if properly adapted to the conditions -of the human and environmental aspects- of the area. The biggest challenge is to find funding to start the project. FITs in developing nations could be funded through the national budget or international donors; however, keeping the project money separate from government money is crucial, to save the project money from any government conflict. Privately owned organizations, such as independent power producers (IPPs) or rural energy service companies (RESCOs) can still get funding from the government and act as the middle man between villagers and the government. Once the funding and organizations are in place, village mini-grids (ex. wind or solar) can be set up to supply cheaper energy to the village without having to transport the electricity. The people of the village can become both the producer and the consumer, which could give them much needed profit, or even a job in the installation or maintenance process. The consumer/producer can use the initial profit to pay off the price of installation, and then pocket the money once it’s paid off. This can give people with low income an inward flow of money and essentially benefit the developing economy as well.         

I believe that FITs are successful in the fact that they create economic incentive. For the most part, money drives the rate at which renewable energy systems are put in place; therefore, if people can gain from switching to RE they will. The implementation of FITs has grown over the years and hopefully continues to gain more users from towns, developing areas or cities. 

 

Bibliography: 

 

Dr. Kola Odeku, Professor Edson Meyer, Professor Mireku, Professor JLH Letsoalo. Implementing a Renewable Energy Feed-in Tariff in South Africa. Source: Sustainable Development Law & Policy. January 1, 2011. Ebscohost. Web October 19, 2013. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2be8e3cb-0905-4f53-9877-a2be87e994cb%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=117

 

 

Girardet, H, Mendonca, M. A Renewable World: Energy, Ecology, Equality. Published by Green Books Ltd. 2009. Printed by Cambrian Printers.  

 

Grinlinton, D, Paddock, L. The Role of Feed-in Tariffs in Supporting the Expansion of Solar Energy Production. Ebscohost. Source: University of Toledo Law Review. June 1, 2010. Web October 18, 2013. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=466de43c-4dba-4027-9897-a45397968fc8%40sessionmgr111&hid=117

 

Shin, H. Hashim, H. Integrated Electricity Planning Comprise Renewable Energy and Feed-in Tariff. Source: American Journal of Engineering & Applied Sciences. January 1, 2012. Ebscohost. Web October 18, 2013. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=75636460-7cb5-442b-bbc2-5b88d0460abf%40sessionmgr113&vid=2&hid=117

Giwaykiwin: Outdoor Ed. and a New Respect for Nature.

Willie was right on. Willie, the Squamish elder that spoke on our trip to Grouse Mountain, spoke of a lack of respect for both people and nature that was at the root of our generation’s environmental discrepancies. Many people (my generation or otherwise) have little to no interaction with the natural world and are subsequently unable to form any relationship with nature let alone a respectful, positive one. According to both Willie and myself, it is this disconnect that is responsible for the negative way we treat the Earth. It is by way of education and experience that we can instill new respect for nature in those who have none.

 

I chalk my respect and appreciation of the natural world up to my time spent with an outdoor education organization that has, among basic naturalist teachings, adopted North West Aboriginal custom as a curriculum. Tribes that exist(ed) in and around the NW were blessed with a bounty of incredibly rich natural resources. It is impossible not to have a respectful relationship with nature when your livelihood is so inextricably connected to it. It is this connection that makes traditional NW aboriginal customs a prime exemplification of environmental stewardship. In Greg Lowan’s Exploring Place from an Aboriginal Perspective: Considerations for Outdoor and Environmental Education, he quotes Tewa author Gregory Cajete as being in accordance with that perception of Native culture.

“Whether that place is in a desert, a mountain valley, or along a seashore, it is in the context of natural community, and through that understanding they established an educational process that was practical, ultimately ecological, and spiritual. In this way they sought and found their life”. – Cajete, Look to the mountain: An ecology of Indigenous education

 

Traditionally, Native cultures (and language, for according to Lowan “land, language, and culture are inextricably linked”) were orchestrated around and for the land. Currently, many Native and non-Native cultures have strayed from the traditional land-based culture and towards, as Willie put it, the drug and alcohol cultures (among other, less-destructive things). How can we re-instill a respect for nature in aboriginal communities, and instill it in non-Native communities where it has never been before?

 

While working at a camp in upstate New York-that catered to inner-city youth with rap sheets-I encountered a young man who was cripplingly afraid of the shadows trees made. However tough this guy looked, he was deathly afraid of evergreens, for he had never seen one before in his life. How can one convince people to lower their CO2 emissions when they have no idea how trees work?

 

“I think that without experience on the land, young people can’t truly be good stewards of the land, and unless they’ve had that moment of truly connecting with land and feeling its pull, that it’s hard in [more] than a superficial way, to be a strong steward or advocate for land”. – Cajete.

Outward Bound Canada appears to be employing the practical, ecological, and spiritual educational process to promote cultural and environmental connection. They ran an outdoor education program called Giwaykiwin in the 80s, 90s, 2000s for aboriginal youth. The purpose of Giwaykiwin was to “provide culturally responsive leadership and personal development opportunities in expeditionary settings” (Lowan, 2009, pg. 43). To this day Outward Bound Canada has “culturally-grounded [Aboriginal] programs aim to build on the particular cultural strengths, traditions and values of the communities [they] serve” (OBC, 2013). It is programs like this, like Willie’s, and like the ones I was apart of as a kid that are at the forefront promoting environmental stewardship. Adapting First Nations customs as one’s own is a whole other ethical conversation, but if done with permission is a seemingly effective way to re-create a respectful relationship with nature.

 

Reference:

 

Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of Indigenous education. Skyland, NC:Kivaki Press.

 

Lowan, G. (2009). Exploring place from an aboriginal perspective: Considerations for outdoor and environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, (14), Retrieved from http://cjee.lakeheadu.ca/index.php/cjee/article/viewFile/885/618

 

Outward Bound Canada. (2013). Aboriginal programs. Retrieved from http://www.outwardbound.ca/results.asp?Category=59

 

 

 

 

 

Peruvian Organic

Peru’s Booming Organic Food Industry

A lot of countries have decided to ban GMOs instead of enforcing a moratorium. The reasons behind their policy choices vary between health risks, economics, and environmental concerns (Meyer, n.d.). Moratoriums, on the other hand, temporarily suspend the use of GMOs for the purpose of observing the effect over a set period of time, by denying market access to GM products. They can also be enforced as a time slot for further study on the subject. Moratoriums also provide a country the option of deciding what to do once the set period is over. This also makes the process of policy changes a lot smoother, since it is simply mandatory to enforce a new policy once a moratorium is lifted; rather than enforce policy changes on an existing policy, which can be a difficult process. Examples of places that have had moratoriums enforced on GMOs would include Peru, the EU and Tasmania.

In the case of Peru, a 10-year moratorium was enforced on imports of GMOs for the purposes of protecting the country’s biodiversity and farm culture, supporting local farmers, and to wait for further studies on the health effects. Peru is considered to be the only country in South America, besides Ecuador, to enforce a ban on GMOs and the cultivation of it within its borders (Tegel, 2013).  Peru, however, would be first in enforcing a moratorium instead. This moratorium has essentially put a halt to the importing of Monsanto seeds, livestock and fish; practically anything GMO related while the 10-year policy is in action. This policy is also initiated as a safeguard for the country while further studies are conducted on GMO effects. “The head of Peru’s Consumer Agency, Jaime Delgado, said the moratorium is long enough to learn from scientific studies that will emerge on the effects of GMO products” (Mackintosh, 2012). Delgado’s statement infers that more studies are needed on the health effects, as well as effects on ecosystem biodiversity, which are key motives to the enforcement of the moratorium.

Peru Terrace Farming

With the moratorium in place, Peru is still doing well economically in the agricultural sector. The Agriculture Ministry has placed Peru as one of the top organic exporters in the world, with revenues of $3 billion annually, with 40,000 certified producers. The government also wants local farmers to be independent and free from relying on seed and fertilizer corporations, which they believe to be beneficial for their livelihoods in the long run. The moratorium has also produced positive results in the agricultural sector due to Peru’s already large national market for organic foods, which is a different market to GM foods. Their organic market has been growing due to increased demands in the U.S and the EU; other countries are also showing an increasing interest in organically grown products (Tegel, 2013).

According to a Peruvian economist reporting on Peru’s export results of 2011:

“Peru’s main national market for exported organic food is the United States, accounting for about 30% of all export sales, although sales to Europe eclipsed those to the United States and accounted for more than half of all exports. Peruvian exports of organic products to Switzerland grew by over 100% over the past five years. The Middle East also showed significant growth. Coffee accounted for 58% of all exports, with bananas and cacao making up most of the rest. Mango and other fruit showed signs of growth, as did exports of the traditional Andean grain quinoa (Martinez, 2012).

The 10-year moratorium on GM products in Peru has greatly promoted small-scale farming in the country as opposed to large-scale/commercial farming. It will essentially push farmers to produce organic fruits, vegetables and livestock without relying on genetically engineered (GE) seeds and fertilizers that can be detrimental to other species in the shared ecosystems.

Farmers will also be more independent with the freedom of reusing their own seeds and using natural composts without relying on corporations that can manipulate the prices of seeds and fertilizers. The government of Peru has made a wise policy choice in addressing a lot of environmental and social issues in the country in my perspective.

Peru’s Long History of Organic Farming

References:

Martinez, F. (2012, March 7). Peruvian organic exports: Statistics and trends 2007-2011. Organic World. Retrieved from http://www.organic-world.net/news-organic-world.html?&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=665&cHash=c1ab1e08e0879e6648f333a028d6d901

Meyer, H. (n.d.). Countries & Regions With GE Food/Crop Bans. Organic Consumers Association. Retrieved from http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/countrieswithbans.cfm

Murphy, A. (2013, April 25). Peru says no to GMO. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2013/0425/Peru-says-no-to-GMO

Tegel, S. (2013, January 2). In Latin America, a growing backlash against genetically modified food. Global Post. Retrieved from http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/peru/130101/latin-america-gmo-genetically-modified-monsanto-farming-agriculture#1

The World Factbook. (2013). Peru. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pe.html

Additional Source:

http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/news/natural-growth-organic-farmers-are-benefitting-rising-demand-their-produce

Integrating Local Communities into Restoring Ecosystems

 

Last year I came across a TED talk titled, ‘How to Restore a rainforest’. I was intrigued by the title, as my path of study is based on restoration of ecosystems. The TED talk was done by conservationist Willie Smits, who is well known for his work with the endangered Orangutan species in Indonesia. Smits started his studies at Wageningen University, in the Netherlands, and graduated with a degree in tropical forestry and soil science. Then continued his doctoral studies in Balikpapan, East Kalimantan. Soon afterwards, he became advisor to the Indonesian Minister of Forestry and team leader of the ‘Tropenbos Kalimantan forestry research Project Indonesia’. He has lived and worked in Indonesia for the last 30 years, and has spoken at many events and at over 25 different universities, including Harvard and Cambridge. His life-long goal is to “save the global environment for future generations by providing real life examples of living harmoniously in balance with nature”. Smits believes that integrating the local community in with the land, brings success to restoration projects.  

Smits’ TED talk was all about a project he started on the East coast of Borneo, 35km north of Balikpapan. Smits starts by explaining  a baby Orangutan he witnessed dying in a dumpster bin on the downtown streets of Borneo. He explains the depressing look he saw in the baby Orangutan’s eyes, that changed his life forever, and that inspired him to start up the sanctuary for Orangutan’s. The area in which he wanted to start the sanctuary had previously been a lush rainforest, deforested over years by clear cutting and major fires. Going off of his beliefs, he devised a system so that the local community would profit off of restoring the land. His plan went as follows: 

Step 1: Plant Acacia trees and others to provide shade for, what was then, a barren grassland to reduce fires. Give the locals jobs throughout the whole process, planting trees, planting crops etc. They also planted Palm Oil trees around the perimeter, which can create on going profit when harvested, jobs and they are fire resistant as well. 

Step 2: Use Agroforestry to create a diverse and more sustainable system. In other words, plant a mix of crops and trees, so the people can still benefit from the food and jobs, but you are still building an ecosystem within the farming. The fruit trees also created food for the Orangutan’s.    

Step 3:  Over the years, as the ecosystem continues to grow, let the locals harvest the wood from Acacia trees, and give each family a certain plot of land to do their own growing on sustainably. 

After a few years of implementing this system, positive environmental changes were being seen. The amount of rain increased per year, along with the bird species rising from 5 to 137 species. The temperature in the area decreased 3-5 degrees Celsius, decreasing the risk of forest fires. The sanctuary area went from looking like a barren grassland, to a diverse rainforest, that provided living for the previously poor local people and the Orangutan’s. 

Willie Smits’ dedication to this project is an inspiration to the fact that ecosystems can be restored if the proper systems are put in place. I was also very inspired by the fact that he found that perfect balance between integrating the local community and restoring an ecosystem at the same time. I feel as if more of these projects can be initiated locally around the world to bring back damaged ecosystems. 

Bibliography 

Open Innovation Network. The Power of Sugar Palms. Retrieved from http://www.qi-global.com/WILLIE-SMITS

Samboja Lestari Project. Retrieved from http://www.sambojalodge.com/AboutBOSFoundation/BOSSambojaLestari/

TED Talk. How to Restore a Rainforest. Willie Smits. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vfuCPFb8wk

 

Desired diversity? Crucial cause?

Is biodiversity in the interest of the ecosystem or of humans?

An odd question with a seemingly obvious answer…biodiversity is in the interest of both the ecosystem and humans. But what if you were to consider that an ecosystem is by definition simply “a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment” therefore the number of species shouldn’t matter in its ability to be an ecosystem. It may become a very simple ecosystem but nonetheless still an ecosystem…

But for humans, biodiversity is essential. For humans, biodiversity provides us with: a library of plants to help cure diseases, a high efficiency in purifying water sources, an aesthetically pleasing environment, nutritious food, all the while enriching our economy. It is an assurance for life on earth. Though despite this importance, the high cost of saving species from extinction has proven to be more of a determining factor than the value of biodiversity.

The recent approximated figure for the cost of saving the world’s endangered species, recently published in Science, is “76.1 billion annually” (Guardian). This number is staggering at first but considering that the “investment [would require] just 0.1% of global GDP” the number no longer seems so high (Guardian). Without any species to study, or natural carbon sinks to cover our tracks, our climate would most likely become more unpredictable. Currently it’s 76.1 billion; soon it will probably be 100 billion to save known endangered species plus the couple billion that we will incur annually because of increased natural disasters. As stressed by the secretariat of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, we should be more worried about the “huge cost of inaction” (Guardian).

Those who argue against the importance to save endangered species often question whether the future degradation of the environment is more important than human suffering that is occurring in the present. Morally, the choice to save animals over humans is most often incomprehensible while the choice of choosing future humans over present humans is a more commonly disputed. As in almost all ethical dilemmas, the ‘correct’ decision does not seem to exist. Despite this conflict, humans must recognition that a simple ecosystem doesn’t bode well with our current lifestyle as humans. We are a species of excess who’s “recent interest in diversity of life on earth, arises from an uncomfortable perception of rapid decline”, valuing that which is unique, special or difficult to obtain (Oksanen, 1997).

We exploit nature in search of its power for we need more to feel strong while it stays strong even with less.

Some scholars have suggested that “by assigning value to diversity we merely legitimize the process that is wiping it out” since humans naturally exploit things that are of value (Ehrenfeld). While others believe that humans only react to incentives, most significantly monetary incentives therefore proposing “economics [could] help guide the design of biodiversity policy by eliciting public preferences on different attributes of biodiversity” (Christie, 2005).

In our dominantly anthropocentric world, we must acknowledge that 1) if an individual wants to create change, one must remember that policy is driven by humans not animals, and present day humans not humans of the future and 2) conserving biodiversity is in our best interest.

Our habits have ransomed our environment, are we willing to sacrifice comfort to buy back our future?

Citations:

Mammals harbor diseases http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23932400?print=true

Can we afford it? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/oct/12/extinction-species-save-cost-biodiversity

Why do we need biodiversity? http://www.eniscuola.net/en/life/contenuti/biodiversity/left/biological-diversity/why-do-we-need-biodiversity/

Wilson, E. O. (1985). The biological diversity crisis. BioScience, 35(11), 700-706.

Why is biodiversity important? http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares#Ahealthybiodiversityoffersmanynaturalservices

How much did Katrina cost? http://www.livescience.com/32181-how-much-did-hurricane-katrina-cost.html

Why saving endangered species matters http://www.fs.fed.us/outernet/r9/wildlife/tes/docs/esa_references/Why_Saving_Matters.pdf

Ehrenfeld, D. (1988). Why put a value on biodiversity. Biodiversity, 521, 212-216.

Oksanen, M. (1997). The moral value of biodiversity. Ambio, 541-545.

Valuing the diversity of biodiversity http://207.248.177.30/mir/uploadtests/20348.66.59.4.Christie%20Valuing.pdf

Christie, M., Hanley, N., Warren, J., Murphy, K., Wright, R., & Hyde, T. (2006). Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecological economics, 58(2), 304-317.

Biodiversity and forage production http://forages.oregonstate.edu/nfgc/eo/onlineforagecurriculum/instructormaterials/availabletopics/environmentalissues/biodiversity

What is biodiversity? http://eol.org/info/464

Cahen, H. (1988). Against the moral considerability of ecosystems. Environmental Ethics 10: 196-216.

Radioactive Fishes.

 

It has been two and a half years since the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant was ravaged in March of 2011 by earthquake & tsunami, and despite soothing words from the prime minister, the effects do not appear to be “under control”¹.

 

“TEPCO has been telling lies from the start, since the nuclear plant exploded. TEPCO tell us there are no problems, but then there are problems. We cannot trust them or the Government”⁴ –Fumio Suzuki (Fukushima Fisherman)

 At least 300 tonnes of contaminated groundwater is flowing from the power plant into the Pacific Ocean each day. This has resulted in a shutdown of the local fishing and with it, the livelihoods of the native fishermen⁴. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution marine scientist Ken Buesseler says that the levels of radioactivity found in some of the fish are not declining. About 60% of the fish had low enough levels to be considered safe to eat and the remaining 40% would not meet Japan’s safety regulations. A point Buesseler reiterates in the article is that just because the media has let this story go, doesn’t mean the effects will not continue to stay around for decades to come³.

 

Scientists have discovered that the levels of radiation contained in the fish are just as high as they were 18 months ago³. However, Professor Jota Kanda of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology says, regardless of the continuous flow of radioactive water, the fish radioactivity is largely due to the initial release in 2011².

To make matters worse, just twenty kilometers away was a 5.3-magnitude earthquake that hit just Friday morning (Sept. 20^th) at 2:25am¹. This is almost ironic as just yesterday (Thursday, Sept. 19^th) Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was expressing that the Fukushima plant’s command center holds the future of Japan on their shoulders².

 

Atsunao Marui, a groundwater scientist, says that there used to be a river right where the power plant is now standing. So contaminated groundwater beneath the leak is able to flow quickly into the ocean⁴.

 

References:

1: http://globalnews.ca/news/851561/5-3-magnitude-earthquake-hits-near-fukushima-nuclear-power-plant/

2: http://www.voanews.com/content/japan-to-decommission-final-two-fukushima-reactors/1752772.html

3: http://japandailypress.com/fish-off-fukushima-coast-maintain-high-levels-of-radiation-18-months-later-2617335/ 

4: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3852675.htm

 

“Going Green and Getting Nowhere” – How policy, not individual action, is the answer to Climate Change

Whether it’s composting, switching of the lights, or buying organic- on a daily basis, I define myself as a mildly informed consumer. Thus, hopefully, a mildly successful steward of the earth. Reducing GHG emission through lifestyle choices is one of the few constants at the front of my carousel conscience. Sadly though, I’m a pseudo steward, sold on Ralph Nader’s core idea that the informed consumer holds the reins to the corporations who emit the most GHG. But, as professor Gernot Wagner has detailed in his NYT Op-Ed – Going Green but Getting Nowhere – my actions aren’t only futile but a dangerous distraction in the attempt to curb climate change.

“So why bother recycling or riding your bike to the store? Because we all want to do something, anything. Call it “action bias.” But, sadly, individual action does not work. It distracts us from the need for collective action, and it doesn’t add up to enough. Self-interest, not self-sacrifice, is what induces noticeable change. Only the right economic policies will enable us as individuals to be guided by self-interest and still do the right thing for the planet.”

It hurts to hear this, but the truth isn’t always pleasant. Will I keep up these “action bias” practices? Yes, “Be the change you wish to see in the world” as overused as it may be, is a mantra I find authentic and practical when framing myself as an environmentalist. But I understand now, that  Cap and Trade systems and/or Carbon Taxes, like the BC province just recently put in place, are the sorts of policies that government need to implement inorder to truly address climate change. By forcing industry to pay the true cost of GHG emissions, and therefore passing that cost on the consumer- consumer self interest, not altruism, will force corporations to adapt, advance technologically, and find the cheapest way to decrease emissions.

Returning Sea Otters Cause Major Fisheries Problem

Currently, sea otters, a once nearly extinct species, due to over hunting, now a species on an upward trend, that number at 53,654 in Southwest Alaska, where it was once believed that none remained (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013). We are not used to numbers this high and a result of this increase is that different fisheries we are used to having an abundance of are slowly decreasing. This is because theses fisheries are species that the sea otters rely on for survival (Alaska Sea Grant, 2013). This raises the moral issue of whether or not it is ok to start allowing hunters to hunt a certain amount of sea otters to keep population down so our fisheries, like crab, continue producing at the rate they are today. To put it into an overarching question: Is it morally ok to kill an animal so that another animal can live for humans benefit?

Today the sea otter is still listed as threatened on the endangered species list (Fish & Wildlife Service, 2013), but it is debated on whether or not they should remain. The sea otters are causing an issue in Southeast Alaska because with the number they have today the amount of crab and shellfish the population consumes has gone up (Alaska Sea Grant, 20130). This is an issue because the commercial fisheries that fish crab, clams and sea urchins are seeing a decline in those populations and they believe it is due to the increased sea otter populations (Alaska Sea Grant, 20130). This debate has caused Alaska senator Bert Stedman to create a bill that would put a bounty on sea otters, if hunted in accordance with law (Miller, 2013). The issue with this bill is that sea otters are still protected under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act, which prohibits the capture or killing of marine mammal, except for native Alaskan (Miller, 2013).

I can see where the fishermen are coming from when arguing that the sea otters are taking their livelihood, but what makes it right for humans to completely get in the way of nature. We cannot start killing an animal that we have already nearly killed to extinction for the purpose of preserving our fisheries. The high numbers that we have had in the carb and seashell stocks are because we killed off one of the main predators for those species, and because of this we cannot complain about the declining numbers. We have already worked so hard to get the sea otters number back to normal it would be pointless to just let them deplete again. In an anthropocentric view we are part of nature and it is survival of the fittest, if we have to kill one species so we can benefit form another then so be it. The problem with this is if we were to always follow these rules that humans could wipe out nearly all predators, which in a lot of cases are keystone species, which the ecosystem needs to function correctly. Obviously treating animals like they are equal to humans is a bit over the top as well, but to go so far as to kill an animal so that we can make a bit more money from a fishery that they need for food as well, is just as much over the top in my mind. Animals may not be equal to humans but all animals should be equal to each other.

The way I see it is that this is a good chance to make a stance that conservation is important and that we understand we can not just conserve the populations that benefit us the most but we have to conserve all populations because they all have their own distinct role in the worlds ecosystem and I find it morally unjust to pick on animal over another.

 

 

Reference:

 

Alaska Sea Grant, (2013) . Examining the impact of sea otter recolonization on commercial and subsistence fisheries in southern Southeast Alaska , Alaska Sea Grant College Program. Retrieved from http://seagrant.uaf.edu/ research/projects/10/otter/

 

Fish & Wildlife Service, (2013) . Sea Otter , Fish & Wildlife Service, Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/alaska/fisheries/mmm/seaotters/otters.htms

 

Miller, M. D. ,  (2013) . Coghill vows to work with Stedman on sea otter bounty bill , Juneau Empire, Retrieved from http://juneauempire.com/state/2013-04-06/coghill-vows-work-stedman-sea-otter-bounty-bill#.Ujx91xanBUQ

 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (2013) . Southwest Alaska DPS of the Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation , U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved from http://www.fws.gov/alaska/ fisheries/mmm/seaotters/pdf/SW%205_year_review_sept_2013.pdf

Keep the Stars Bright and the Skies Dark

We ventured from our dorms in the dead of night, leaving our lit up campus behind. We lay down with our backs on the damp grass and looked up, up at the stars. We traced the constellations with our fingertips and whispered about the mysteries that shone above. I let my gaze fall south to the shadow of Mt. Habrich and The Chief; the dark mountainous outline was illuminated with an orange glow and the surrounding sky was barren of stars. Vancouver’s city lights were reaching us from 70 km away. I wondered… what if this orange glow was to take over the whole sky? What would it be like to never see the stars? What are the consequences of falsifying the immemorial cycle of day and night?

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/star%20gazing?before=19

Nicole Mortillaro’s article, Saving the Night, highlights just how detrimental light pollution can be to human health and natural ecosystems. It’s more than just a matter of being able to stargaze late at night with a loved one; light pollution has proven to cause depression and cancer in humans, while negatively affecting the lives of birds, sea turtles, and many other wild species. All for what? To keep people safe from the dangers of the darkness? Not only is this terribly ironic, but there are very simple solutions that will both decrease light pollution and increase safety. We must limit the overall amount of light used at night and we must direct it to where it is really needed, instead of casting it into the sky.

Not only do we not want to see the glow from Vancouver’s city lights rudely creeping above the mountains, we don’t need to. Keeping bright city lights on from dusk until dawn is unnecessary and it can be avoided. France has already greatly reduced its light pollution; as of a month ago, shop lights are mandated to shut off all lights between 1 a.m. and 7 a.m. and all offices must be dark within an hour of the departure of employees. This will allow France to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 250 thousand tons, save $266 million, and save many nocturnal and crepuscular species from dying.  As worldwide development continues to increase, light pollution becomes an ever-increasing issue and countries around the world should follow France’s example.

A satellite view of our ‘lit up’ world. Are we trying to mimic the sky’s stars with our city lights?
http://globalnews.ca/news/748109/light-pollution-cause-for-concern/

As well as reducing the amount of lights that are kept on at night, we need to better manage those lights that are kept on. The purpose of many city lights are to create a safe environment for people to navigate the streets at night, but many of these lights shine out into the sky, instead of lighting the ground. The light that escapes into the night distracts birds from their migratory paths and causes them to collide with buildings. Similarly, many different turtle species are misled by city lights, mistaking it for the natural reflection on water, and are guided into cities and streets where they die from dehydration and human activity. This can be avoided simply by ensuring that the light is reflected onto the ground instead of out into the night. Nonetheless, cities across the world continue to waste energy and harm living species by casting artificial light into the night sky; the U.S alone spends $2 million and uses 17.4 billion kWh on wasted light energy. How many humans will die from cancer and how many wild species will go extinct before it becomes important enough to turn down the lights?

Misguided by city lights, this bird flew off it’s path and collided with an office building.
http://globalnews.ca/news/748109/light-pollution-cause-for-concern/

Step outside tonight and look for the stars. Can you see them sparkle? Or are you blinded by the glare of the streetlights above you? Trust me when I say that the stars are there. The stars will always be there; it is but our choice to keep them hidden or to let them shine.

Sources:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/klinkenborg-text/2

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/bringing_back_the_night__a_fight_against_light_pollution/2681/

Saving the night: Light pollution a serious concern for human health and wildlife

http://www.emagazine.com/earth-talk/nighttime-light-pollution/

Ecotage

Adam Cohen-Congress

9-19-13

Blog 3

http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2013/09/16/russian-ecoanarchist-cells-of-ccf-and-elf-carry-out-a-coordinated-attack-on-highway-construction-site-in-moscow/

 

 

 

On September 8^th, 2013, two Eco anarchist cells in Moscow planned and executed a coordinated strike on a construction site. The cells Earth Liberation Front, ELF (Russia), and Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, CCF (Russia), have been quite active in ecotage. In past years, E.L.F. has claimed responsibility for many fire bombings including car dealerships, ranger stations, mansions, and the ski resort Vail. C.C.F. or otherwise known as SPF (Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei) is considered a radical anarchist group, which is based in Greece. This group has been responsible for multiple bombings and a police shootout.

            The specific event I am addressing is that of the burning of two construction bulldozers. The statement addressing the incident is very straightforward, “…we were tempted to fuck them up and torch their houses with tools and personal belongings. But turned out that our mutual desire to clean karma was stronger than inclination to spoil it, so we didn’t touch the slaves. We torched their vehicles” (CCF-Russia, ELF-Russia). This statement shows that these groups are not trying to directly hurt humans, but acting in protest. It does seem that they do not fully blame the construction workers, calling them slaves. They explain that Moscow is overrun with construction projects, which entail the uprooting of trees and the spreading of bitumen. In this statement, they apologize to a passing by driver who was almost in an accident because of their very public achievement. These groups were acting as an agent of defense for the earth, by destroying what was harming the earth. This act might also be seen as redundant, since there probably had to be more money to fund this project after the attack occurred.

            Even though some might call these groups’ terrorist organizations, could it be that they are just acting as Earth’s guardians in an already destructive and unjust world?