Anyone could make an argument and come up with facts to back up what they are saying. The question is; are their points good enough to allow others to believe in what they are saying. You could come up with a lot of facts, but they could be weak facts. It’s always better to have fewer strong facts than many weak ones. It’s the same as writing a blog for instance, you could write a million words about something, some things are easier than others, but you can always do it with repetition, and standing by what you are saying.

In the journal posting Volcano-Stimulated Rebound Of 2010 Salmon Run Challenges Anti-Science Environmentalism written by John Laumer, John is arguing that although both sides of a climate debate want a total defeat of science and humanism (Laumer 2010), climate change may be a good thing. He points out that when a volcano erupted over the Pacific ocean in August of 2008 there was a increase in salmon breeding. This he believes is one of the upsides to climate change. There also the argument about whether there is climate change going on or not, clearly Laumer is a believer. With his beliefs he looks for ways to prove whether climate change is happening or not, and what the upsides and downsides are to it.

The people who believe in climate change can either be for it or against it. They could be for climate change as John is trying to prove here that climate change is a good thing. There are also the people that believe climate change is bad, and these people look for things like the fact that the volcano erupted. It is seen that with volcano erupting, believers would see this as a downfall, but when looked at closer, it can be seen that the eruption was a upside. It all depends on how you look at the situation.

With the eruption came a breeding in salmon that has not been seen for 100 years. Something in volcano disturbed the sea, and made the salmon able to breed more. It cannot be positive what made the salmon breed more, as testing would disturb too many things in the ocean, and the breeding cycles. It could just be a strange coincidence that the salmon started to breed more when the volcano erupted or it could actually be at fault for the good disturbance in the salmons mating cycle. There is no way to actually tell that if the volcano didn’t erupt if the salmon would be mating the way that they are, or did the salmon start to mate because the volcano erupted.

We cannot be certain whether some type of hormones were put into the food that the salmon eat from the volcano, or if the salmon were possibly spooked. If the volcano erupted it can put many different things into the water, and that would affect everything that lives in the water. There have been something good put in, like a hormone that made the salmon want to breed more. There could also have been something that the salmon sensed, like the world was going to end so they began to breed more rapidly to try and save their species. There is no way of telling if the salmon have a 5th sense so to speak, or if they can just get turned on easily which leads to more breeding.

This argument is very weak; you can’t even tell is the volcano eruption is a bad thing or a good thing. There are just too many opinions on the subject and not enough evidence to prove which side is right or wrong, or even slightly lean to one side. When reading this article John can make you believe that climate change is a good thing, but if he were to go into detail he could probably convince you that although there is one point in the positive side, there are so many negative additions to the subject.
John throws in some number to help you believe what he saying, this backs up his theory but he doesn’t show you the opposite side which in this case is much stronger. When just reading this article you could believe that climate change is a good thing; look at what it did to the salmon. One volcano erupts thousands of fish are born, and therefore salmon has greatly increased it population. What if this could happen to other species like the endangered ones. Then you could also see that this was a freak occurrence, the chances of what ever made the salmon breed more, making other species want to breed more and really slim.

The main item of the article may seem to be salmon breeding, but it’s actually about climate change. It’s hard to tell because climate change is only mentioned briefly at the beginning of the article, but overall this is what John is leading up to. That climate when looking at little points can be a good thing happening to our planet. Though with more research done it can be easily proven that climate change would not be good for our planet. There is just not enough evidence out there for it to be proven that climate change is that great. John may have proven that this little fact is good, but he has a weak agreement when it comes to arguing that climate change is a good thing.

Resources
Article:
Laumer,John.2010.Volcano-Stimulated Rebound Of 2010 Salmon Run Challenges Anti-Science Environmentalism.Tree Hugger. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/massively-volcano-stimulated-rebound-of-us-salmon-runs-challenges-anti-science-environmentalism.php?campaign=th_rss_science
Picture:
Kelly, http://www.biology-blog.com/blogs/archives/Biology-blog/520525028-Feb-14-2008.html

Crucial Considerations for Our Future Food System

In June of 2010 Mother Earth News published an article by Lierre Keith entitled “The Truth About Vegetarianism”. In his article Keith intends to expose some of the problems that agriculture poses to Earth’s inhabitants. Keith presents an image of what he believes is an ideal food system. In doing so, he claims that vegetarianism is not a legitimate solution to the problems he exposes. When Keith states:

I now believe these longings – for compassion, for sustainability, for an equitable distribution of resources – are not served by the philosophy or practice of vegetarianism. (Keith, 2010)

He is questioning what many believe to be the underlying principles of vegetarianism. Using current knowledge of our food systems and many of Keith’s own ideas, it will be shown that vegetarianism is crucial step towards Keith’s notion of a sustainable, compassionate and equitable food system.

Keith (2010) asserts that his foremost concern with modern livestock agriculture practices is our inclination to feed grain to as many animals as possible even when it is not included in their natural diets. This idea is justified; however the alternative solution he provides is questionable. Keith (2010) claims, “The logic of the land tells us to eat the animals that eat the tough cellulose that survives here,” referring to deer and cows that graze in our forest and grasslands. This is only appropriate for those who live in the country surrounded by wilderness areas where animals occur in abundance. However, he states himself that “We live in urban environments – in the last whisper of forests” (Keith, 2010). What sort of edible wildlife (besides humans) can sustain its self in our cities? Surely, there are not enough deer in the forests to sustain the large portion of our population that lives in urban areas. A more plausible solution to this issue of sustainability would be to significantly decrease the amount of meat we consume. Currently the ecological footprint of a person eating meat once a day (2.8 hectares) is 14 times that of a vegetarian (0.2 hectares) (Muller). By instead relying on vegetable based proteins we will be able to significantly decrease our ecological footprints. Than, perhaps, Keith’s idea of living off the animals that naturally occur in our wilderness areas could be a sustainable option. However a transition to vegetarianism or partial vegetarianism will be a crucial first step to implementing any truly sustainable solutions to our current problems with agriculture.

Keith’s tone suggests, firstly, that in order to truly consider compassion we must look past the obvious injustices, past the factory farms and inhumane farming methods, and instead to the wrongs being committed against our ecosystems. Secondly, he suggests that vegetarianism does not go far enough to encompass this broader version of compassion but instead, “leaves us uneasy, silent and immobilized when the culprit is wheat and the victim is prairie.”(Keith 2010). Instilled in Keith’s tone is a deep longing for the rebirth of these destroyed ecosystems. Keith claims that vegetarianism is an insufficient means to accomplishing restoration, however he fails to provide any legitimate evidence for this accusation, nor does he present an alternative plan. In an unsupported statement Keith (2010) claims, “Agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won’t save us.” In order to restore the ecosystems destroyed by agriculture we must first decrease the land we require to produce food and, in this way, Keith is correct in saying we need to reduce our dependence on agriculture. However, he is incorrect in speculating that a transition towards vegetarianism will cause an increase in agriculture when, in fact, the opposite is true. The ecological footprint statistic mentioned earlier is one proof of this. Similarly, returning to Keith’s statement that, “the culprit is wheat and the victim is the prairie”, it can be shown that perhaps vegetarianism does not render us ‘immobilized’. Currently 77% of Canadian cereal production is used to feed livestock (Leckie, 2004). Thus, limiting our meat consumption would significantly decrease the amount of land needed to support our food systems. It is, of course unreasonable to believe reduction of agriculture alone can completely restore our ecosystems but we can start by providing the land needed for ecosystems to rebuild themselves. If Keith’s visions of a restored, diverse world are to be realized then he must recognize that in order to accomplish this we must first ensure our food systems do not rely on such a resource intensive staple.

Keith (2010) states that in order to develop a sustainable food system where the distribution of resources is equal we must, “be willing to examine the power relations behind the foundation myth [agriculture] of our culture.” If we do this, an interesting trend can be observed. Firstly, the power in our food systems belongs to those who are affluent in society and there is a very noticeable trend between a person’s affluence and their diet, that is people with more money eat more meat. This trend is apparent almost everywhere in the world and creates a problem when resources become depleted by resource intensive foods like meat and dairy. When this happens, supplies decrease, prices increase and the wealthy begin to bid food away from the poor (A Well-fed World). Accordingly, this favors an increase in demand for meat and dairy products, which increasingly contribute to the resource problem. In turn, grain supplies in poor countries are becoming ever more diverted to livestock. China, for example, has seen a five fold increase in grain consumption by livestock since 1978 (Leckie 2004). So how do we make distribution of resources equitable? We need to increase the supply of available resources by simplifying our diets. Reducing the consumption of resource intensive meat and dairy products and replacing them with sustainable plant proteins will reduce the scarcity of resources and promote equitable distribution.

Keith’s vision of a sustainable, compassionate and equitable food system is undoubtedly one we should strive to produce in our future. However, his reasoning lacks crucial steps necessary to achieve this vision and his questioning of vegetarianism will only slow our progress towards this future. It is becoming increasingly evident that in order to sustain our world we will need to shift towards a very similar food system. Simplifying our diets and decreasing our reliance on resource intensive foods like meat and dairy will ensure sufficient food resources and intact wilderness areas for our futures.

Works Cited

"Hunger: Scarcity vs. Distribution." A Well-fed World. 9 November 2010 .

Keith, Lierre. “The Truth About Vegetarianism.” Mother Earth News 2010 June/July: 30-35.

Leckie, Stephen. "How Meat-centred Eating Patterns Affect Food Security and the Environment." 1 November 2004. International Development Research Centre. 9 November 2010 .

Muller, Robert. “Calculating Ecological Footprint Components, and Easy Ways to Reduce Your Impact on Earth.” FantasticFarms.com. 2010 9-November .

Critical Analysis of an Opinion Piece

Biofuel: is it the fuel of the future? Or is it a fuel which is out of reach and ultimately one which will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions? Many people view biofuel as a high tech advanced fuel which will drastically cut emissions, cut cost, and overall be a better fuel for the world to run on. However on the other hand there are those who think it is out of reach, an advancement that shouldn’t be explored, and one which will ultimately lead to a rise in emissions.

The reasons for these thoughts are based around a clear and simple concept that in order to produce biofuel more crops need to be grown and therefore more farmland created, land cleared, and this process will in the end result in more harm than good being done.

In an article written by Debora MacKenzie titled Biofuels will up Euro greenhouse emissions she expresses her concern regarding biofuel and her thoughts surrounding the idea about how emissions will ultimately rise. At first read the article seems fairly legitimate and accompanied by some strong evidence, but once someone takes a critical position and re-reads it, many questions arise and it begins to appear as a weak report, with a lack of any definitive evidence.

The first main grey area within the article is surrounding the independent analysis which MacKenzie credits for concluding that the amount of land needed is not only non-existent in terms of the amount required but also that in order to clear that land and use it would result in more emissions being pumped into the air vs. the ones that would be cut from cars using the biofuel. This would result in a net increase of emissions being released into the air.

The issue with this evidence is that the independent analysis is not cited, and no information regarding who did it, when, etc. is available. To make such a claim, and back it up with essentially nothing greatly decreases the validity of the claim and makes any conclusions or results sprouting from it meaningless in terms of scientific accuracy. Anyone could say a study found this or that, and simply leave out the information about the study so no one could back check it themselves. It seems like the author drew her own conclusions that she knew were maybe a bit off the mark so she decided to hide the source.

Another issue with this publication is that the numbers which are used to represent the amount by which emissions would increase also don’t come from anywhere. It doesn’t say or show where these numbers came from, and in fact for this claim the author doesn’t even attribute the numbers to any study or research (as the above at least did) it just simply says “This would release more than twice as much carbon as Europe’s cars would produce if they stuck with conventional petrol”. It is a blanket statement and doesn’t discuss any external issues which could also play a key role in an emission level increase. This ultimately leads the reader to believe that cars emissions would be 2 times less if they used petrol vs. using biofuel, which I think is misleading.

The last main issue with the article is that external issues and no time line are addressed. There are many things that will affect the amount of emissions in the atmosphere and none are even mentioned. Examples of other things which could affect emission levels are deforestation, urban development, and even in general population growth. Because of these other reasons which are dependent and will emerge with time, this is why no mention of a timeline is an issue. The article talks about short term? Long term? Forever? I can’t tell. It says levels would be doubled with the implementation of biofuel. However it also recognizes that biofuel does cut emissions when used. So this leads me to believe that eventually the levels would even out and that in time the emissions would ultimately be lower once biofuel was established and in place for many years. Yet the article fails to mention or even shine any light on this future hope.

It seems like the author recognizes that in the short term, bio fuel is going to do more harm than good, or at least has the potential to do so, but also knows, yet is hiding, that in the future it will be a better fuel for the world. I would say that it’s an investment in the future. I would say that the author is more worried about short term compared to long term and I would say that because of this selfish view on the issue at hand, she has written the article the way she has, excluding some key bits of information and making it seem as solid as possible by saying things like reports show this, etc but leaves out the source so no background can be done.

There are some strong points in the article, don’t get me wrong. However ultimately I would say it is written with minimal concluding evidence and is just how one person interrupts the biofuel movement. I would like to add that 23 out of 27 EU countries have gone forward with the biofuel initiative so doesn’t it seem like more support it and believe in it as an investment for the future instead of being worried about the short term issues? It is a good piece of writing, opinion is expressed and an argument is presented with some form of support, whether it be good or bad. However I think it follows the precautionary principle a bit too closely because it’s a known thing biofuel helps with emissions.

I personally would rather invest now, take the hit when we aren’t in the red and have some time in case something goes wrong instead of waiting for it to be too late. Biofuel, in my opinion, needs to be implemented and people need to understand the short term possible effects but also the long term potential gains. Knowledge and understanding is power, why not invest in a very hopeful chance?

Fed To The Sharks

In order to argue effectively one must gather strong facts to support their point of view. In the case of scientific arguments, examples of convincing evidence could include: studies, scientific observations or statistics regarding the issue being argued. Principles of inference derived from observations can be particularly useful due to them coming out of logical observation.

In order to pose a good argument the person must also consider what the opposition’s points will be and address each of these in turn. The author of the article neglected to address the arguments of the opposing side, which greatly weakened his own argument. The author should have instead used logical facts supported by statistical data, which cannot be argued with.

As for the rising sea levels, which the article’s author argues would increase farmland, according to an article published in the Scientific American Journal, Greenland holds enough ice to raise global sea levels by seven metres (Biello 2008). Seeing as Antarctica contains approximately 90% of the world’s ice, with an average thickness of 2, 133 metres thick. That means it contains enough ice to raise sea levels around the world by about 61 metres (Brain, 2010). This would result in the many major coastal cities like Los Angeles, New York and Miami being completely underwater were all of the Antarctica ice to melt and major problems for them in the case of Greenland melting (Biello 2008). Up to ten percent of the world’s population lives in vulnerable areas less than ten metres above sea level, which equates to about 669, 725, 404 people (Przyborski 2010) As a result, much farmland would actually be lost instead of gained.

Another argument that the author did not back up with scientific evidence was that the increasing temperatures would decrease the number of cold related deaths in the world each year. While they make a logical argument the author failed to support their point properly by neglecting to cite statistical data that would have reinforced his point. In Europe as a whole approximately 200, 000 people die from excess heat annually. This is very insignificant in comparison to the 1.5 million Europeans that die from excess cold, however (Lomborg 2007) . Had the author presented this statistic or another of a similar nature in his article his argument would have been greatly strengthened.

The author’s argument was weakened because they failed to address a major argument that the opposition would almost surely use. This argument would be that global warming would affect or is affecting many plant and animal species already in a negative way. There are already major losses of habitat occurring in the Arctic regions, putting pressure on the Arctic Fox, Penguin and Polar Bear populations in particular (Naik 2010). The change in temperature would also not only affect the animal species but also the plants because as a result of warmer ocean temperatures storms will become more severe, as well as floods and droughts as precipitation patterns change (Przyborski 2010).

Creating a good argument takes a lot of time and patience, but is worth it if you can convince the opposition to agree with you. Inductive reasoning is a useful tool in creating points that will stand up to the scrutiny of the opposition. A good argument must always address the opposition’s arguments with scientific facts and statistics, for these are useful tools in arguing a case.

Should Uncertainty Hinder Environmental Science?

In The New York Times article “Scientists Scramble to Bridge the Uncertainty Gap in Climate Science” (November 9, 2010) Amanda Peterka introduces the topic of her argument by explaining how uncertainties in environmental science are the major factor limiting the application of environmental practices. Specifically, she states, “Skeptics of climate change –a good number of them about to take seats in congress- often point to uncertainties or holes in the science as reasons for delaying or not taking action.” (Peterka 2010). While it is a fairly safe assumption that skeptics would target the unknown aspects of scientific theory behind environmentalism, Peterka would benefit from giving more specific examples of how scientific uncertainties are hindering the progress of environmental policy. “Acid rain and the depletion of the ozone layer” were briefly mentioned; however it needs more analysis of how the science falls short in each case, and whether or not these uncertainties are legitimate reasons for alarm.

The author’s central claim in this article is that new environmental policies should be put in place, despite uncertainties. She supports this claim by stating that science is indefinite in nature, which is true. Scientist are never 100% sure of anything. In making her point, Peterka chooses an oddly worded quote from James McCarthy, "If you were to hear someone say, 'I know with 100 percent certainty that the Earth's climate will change or not,' that would be a statement to walk away from because you would know right away that a scientist hasn't made that statement." (Peterka 2010). Is this quote suggesting that only comments made by scientists are worth consideration? This quote is unclear and could have been omitted. She does make a valid point, but it can easily be argued against. Just because science is indefinite does not mean that a theory cannot be either supported or rejected by repeated experimentation. The author could have mentioned how long term effects often are untestable, and have considerable uncertainty, but should not prevent us from taking any action, ever.

The author then goes on to explain how uncertainty can be integrated into the development of our environmental policies. She states government mechanisms, education, and a liability/bonding system can help create a system wear policies can still be developed despite the inevitable uncertainty. Peterka describes government mechanisms as an organized group scientists working with government to make the scientific aspect of issues understood by policy makers and the public. She provides a good example in the former Office of Technology Assessment in the United States. One problem with government mechanisms is would be directly tied to the government, and would likely skew the scientific evidence in favor of whoever is in power.

She also suggests that a more educated public would have a better understanding of how uncertainties apply to certain sciences. Peterka supports her point well with a quote from Vaughan Turekian, “When you think about critical thinking, you don't take as given either facts or counterfacts that are just imposed on you…rather, you take the time to sort of critically assess which uncertainties are more important and which uncertainties have nothing to do with the broader trends.”(Peterka 2010). If more of the population can think critically about scientific evidence, politicians will be more accountable for the information they give, and the society as a whole will progress a lot more. However the public of the developed nations like the United States, and Canada are accustomed to a life where they can go through their whole lives without ever having an extensive scientific background. Some may not want such an intensive education. Some may be opposed to taking away from other subjects such as physical education, languages, or the arts. Many people are forced out of school in order to make ends meet, and cannot afford a post-secondary education. These are just a few of the other problems that must be addressed before we can have an overall more scientifically educated public. The author should have mentioned how they would go about improving scientific education.

Finally, the author suggest the implementation of a liability system in which companies buy bonds to insure themselves in the worst case scenario of pollution. Peterka explains, “This would create an incentive for emitters to reduce uncertainty by funding independent research or adopting cleaner practices.” (Peterka 2010). They would have to clear a lot of things up for this system to work. For example, how would they determine what the price tag of the worst case scenario is, doesn’t this assessment have its own uncertainty? This might cause a lot of companies to go out of business, especially those that involve an extreme worst case scenario, even if the chances of that scenario are extremely low. In regards to the “independent research” described above, when the polluters fund their own research, they could influence the results in their favor. Also, how long would the polluters be liable for? What about when blame cannot be attributed to a specific company? The author left many unanswered questions regarding the liability system that would allow uncertainty to be integrated into policy making.

Overall, this text has the basis of a valid argument primarily but needs more proofs for its central claim; that environmental policy should be formulated despite uncertainty. The author did not take into account counter arguments to her points, and needed more specific examples as to how uncertainty can be used in environmental policy. After a thorough critical reconstruction of this argument, a case can be made for uncertainty in environmental policy.

References

Peterka, Amanda. Scientists Scramble to Bridge the Uncertainty Gap in Climate Science The New York Times. November 9, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/11/09/09greenwire-scientists-scramble-to-bridge-the-uncertainty-65524.html?pagewanted=1

We’re Killing Everything, Including ourselves: Royal Society Sort of Says

In the Tree Hugger a Discovery Company article “We’re Killing Everything, Including ourselves: Royal Society Sort of Says” (11 October 2010) the author, Matthew McDermott discusses the effect that humans have on the environment and the earth as a whole. His major argument is that the human race causes so much destruction to ecosystems and the earth we will eventually kill ourselves because we will have driven everything else to extinction.

It is the mass extinction currently underway, caused by overexploitation of natural resources, that needs to worry us.(Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B)

Unfortunately McDermott shows no hard evidence to back up his idea, though he does believe that his argument will ultimately come true. His argument functions around the ideas that: animals are becoming extinct at an alarming rate, there has been no other species on record to has such a large impact on the Earth, and that everything is connected.

First off I think there are a couple of things wrong with McDermott’s argument, although losing species and ecosystems ultimately going to negatively impact the environment there is no hard evidence stating that it hurts humans every time. This shows that McDermott’s argument is approaching a slippery slope. Secondly it is based on the assumption that humans are generally negatively impacted when a species or ecosystem is destroyed or becomes extinct, but it doesn’t consider the benefit that may come from the action that caused the destruction or extinction and how it may outweigh the negative. This brings in the idea of opportunity cost and how it applies to environmental situations. These two weaknesses in McDermott’s argument will be further discussed below.

McDermott’s basis for his argument leads to a slippery slope ideology. Allowing for the argument to be based the idea that every time an organism or ecosystem dies or gets destroyed somehow negatively effects humans. This becomes a problem because there isn’t a way to draw a line separating the two. If you were able to draw a line and argue that one side has value, and the does not there would be no problem. Since you are unable to specifically state that the destruction of ecosystems negatively affects humans every time, a line cannot be drawn within this argument leading it down a slippery slope. Although it can be thought that the extinction of certain species can lead to the eventual collapse of any ecosystem throughout the world. It is highly less plausible that enough extinction could happen to cause mass collapses of ecosystems that would ultimately have a negative effect on people. This is partially in place due to the regulations we have to stop the outright extinction of major specific species throughout the world.

If the slippery slope argument was not an issue with McDermott’s argument there would still be the question of opportunity cost. Opportunity cost as defined by the Risk & Policy Analysts Limited is

...for environmental services their opportunity cost is the net benefit forgone because the resources providing the service can no longer be used in their next beneficial use...” (Tietenberg, 1992).

The opportunity cost of destroying environment may have negative effects on the environment as a whole, but the benefit of destroying it to create something for human use maybe greater than the negative cost making it more beneficial to destroy it. This idea in conjunction with the slippery slope idea poses a major problem with McDermott’s argument. Though his idea can be read to be true, when the issue that not all destruction of the environment can be concluded to have a negative effect on humans is looked at, since the negative effect cannot be totally assed the opportunity cost will almost always be greater in favour of humans. With that in mind opportunity cost can also become a matter of opinion to what is more important since there is no universal way to give value to the environment.

McDermott’s argument that humans are killing everything and entail killing themselves is slightly skewed. His argument is based on the premise that whenever something in the environment is destroyed or becomes extinct somehow negatively affects humans. This leads to a slippery slope argument to the effect that there is no way to determine which side of the argument can be certain to have a negative effect on humans. As well the opportunity cost will almost always favour for the development of human lifestyle over the destruction of the environment. Unfortunately McDermott’s argument does have some logic to it, the fact that humans do destroy a major portion of the environment for the progress of their species also has the reproduction that if we destroy to much we will suffer as a species.

References:

Risk & Policy Analysts Limited, Induced and opportunity cost and benefit patterns in the context of cost-benefit analysis in the field of environment.(1999) Pg(17)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/others/pdf/costbenefit_patterns.pdf

McDermott, M. Treehugger a Discovery Company, We’re killing everything, including ourselves: royal society sort of say. (2010)

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/were-killing-everything-including-ourselves-royal-society-sort-of-says.php

Is human health affected greatly by wind turbines?

In the Wellington Times article, “Unity of knowledge” (4 November 2010) the author, Rick Conroy, makes numerous arguments and claims. One of his strongest claims is that the negative effects of wind turbines on human health should dismantle Ontario’s Green Energy Act and shut down industrial wind turbine businesses. In particular Conroy claims:

“[The industrial wind turbine business] has been promoted by governments eager to be seen to be doing something about the western world’s reliance on fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal. In many respects wind energy policy has been a public relations exercise fuelled by governments’ willingness to spill billions of taxpayer dollars into developer’s pockets. They do so with a mix of wishful thinking and willful blindness in the expectation that technology leaps will fill in the significant operational gaps before most folks realize intermittent generating sources don’t work on a large scale. None of these folks anticipated, however, that industrial wind turbines would actually make people sick. After the first international symposium in Picton on the weekend, there can be little doubt remaining.” (Conroy 2010).

Conroy produces evidence presented by scientists and researchers to support this claim, however, most of this evidence is considerably weak. Conroys first argument appears to be that wind turbines have negative effects on human health, ranging from sleep disturbances to cognitive performance deficit. Another of Conroy’s arguments seems to be that the Ontario government failed to use the precautionary principle when it removed regulations to developers of industrial wind energy.

Inconclusive Evidence

Conroy’s first argument is supported by inconclusive studies and ineffective research conducted by seemingly bias scientists. At the beginning of this article, Conroy first states that every animal with a functioning hearing organ is at risk of being affected by the low-frequency pulsating sound emitted by wind turbines whether they are aware of it or not. Conroy gives no proof, research or reference as to where the validity of this statement arose. To back up his first argument, Conroy references Dr. Nina Pierpoint who conducted a study on the cognitive performances of those living near wind turbines in comparison with those who don’t. Her findings concluded that the group living near wind turbines had more difficulty reading, spelling, and other cognitive performances. She also went on to state that stress to the hearing organ is linked to balance, which has a close relationship to emotions including panic and fear. At first glance, these findings seem plausible and convincing. However, Pierpoint shows no evidence that the noise from wind turbines are loud enough to be a cause of stress to the hearing organ, and she also fails to conclude that there is a direct and proven link between noise generated by wind turbines and feelings of panic and fear. When read further, the article explains that Pierpoints findings were based on a sample group of only 21 people.

Conroy continues with another allegation in which he claims that the low-frequency noise produced by wind turbines has a demonstrable effect on hearing mechanisms. To supports his indefinite claim, Conroy references Dr. Alec Salt, who has conducted research which illustrates that the sound emitted from industrial wind turbines is inaudible by humans. Salt states that when the cochlear structures in the ear (canals for the transmission of pressure) move around it can have an effect on a range of symptoms. Conroy addresses that Salt is not clear on whether symptoms persist after exposure to wind turbine sound or if it is discontinued. The findings presented by Salt are, again, plausible but generalized with a lack of full certainty.

For further backup, Conroy also references Dr. Chris Hanning, a sleep expert. Hanning observes that sleep disturbances over time can lead to frustration, anger, and feelings of loss of control. Hanning suggests that the noise generated by industrial wind turbines is viewed as an invasion of a place in which people go to feel safe. This claim not only contradicts Dr. Salt’s argument (that the sound generated by wind turbines is inaudible) but also shows no evidence that wind turbines lead to the symptoms mentioned. Conroy mentions another study conducted by Dr. Michael Nissenbaum, which concerns the effects of industrial wind turbines on residents who live within 1,100 meters from a wind turbine. Nissenbaum found that 82 percent of those closest to the turbine reported a new or worsened sleep disturbance since the turbines went online. These results sound convincing and prompting, unfortunately some of this shock value is lost when it is shown that Nissenbaums control group consisted of 27 people, and his affected group was that of only 22 people. Sarah Boesveld published an article in The Globe and Mail that explains a study conducted to test the before-and-after effects of wind turbines on human health. The researcher, Dr. Neal Michelutti, states:

“A lot of these symptoms are pretty commonly reported symptoms - anxiety, sleeplessness, these sort of things…It's difficult without having that baseline data to attribute them to a specific cause and effect like the windmills." (Boesveld 2009).

The amount of research presented by Conroy is indeed sufficient, however the lack of strength of claims in each reference diminishes this articles validity.

Precautionary Principle

Conroy’s second argument is that the Ontario Government didn’t use the precautionary principle when making policy on green energy. Conroy claims:

“the province failed to use the ‘precautionary principle’ when it lowered and removed regulatory hurdles to developers of industrial wind energy through the Green Energy Act.” (Conroy 2010).

Conroy seems to believe that responsible policymaking operate on the precautionary principle which states that the right policy is the careful one. Jamie Whtye (2007) in an article from The Times explains that the precautionary principle is meaningless and provides no guidance when making significant decisions such a provincial policy. It is a matter of risk versus uncertainty. An outcome is considered risky when it is not guaranteed but the probability is known whereas an outcome is uncertain when its probability isn’t even known. In relation to Conroy’s claims, the risk would be the proven and known negative health effects that wind turbines have on humans. The uncertainty would be the unproven and possibly inexistent health effects of wind turbines on humans. The precautionary principle is even more so ineffective since we cannot identify safe options when we’re ignorant of the probable outcomes. In correlation to Conroy’s article, since industrial wind turbines show no certain and proven negative health effect on humans, using the precautionary principle is useless because it is a factor of uncertainty so there is no telling whether any policy is a safe or sorry proposition.

Conclusions

Conroy’s first argument is based upon generalizations and unproven statements made by unreliable sources. He draws conclusions from unrealistic sample sizes and uncertain data. His second argument relies on the alleged effectiveness of the precautionary principle. In situations where the probabilities are unknown, the precautionary principle falsely implies that ignorance is not a serious problem, that a wise policymaker is able to know that an action is right even when they do not know its likely effects. Nowhere in his article does Conroy state the benefits of having industrial wind turbines. The benefits of wind turbines are another in-depth investigation altogether, but these benefits do indeed exist. In conclusion, Conroy could improve his arguments in his article by using credible (peer-reviewed) research, not claiming the precautionary principle should be used as an effective means of policymaking, and presenting some benefits to wind turbines in order to minimize his bias.

References

Conroy, R. (2010) Unity of knowledge. Wellington Times, 5 Nov 2010. http://wellingtontimes.ca/unity-of-knowledge/. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.

Whyte, J. (2007) Only a reckless mind could believe in safety first. The Times, 27 July 2007. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2148188.ece. Accessed 11 Nov 2010.

Boesveld, S. (2009) Study to determine health effects of turbines. The Globe and Mail, 8 July 2009. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/whats-blowing-in-the-wind/article1210357/. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.