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.

Deforestation - Effects on Environment and Society

Paul Hata, the author of the Solar Energy Center article “Deforestation – Effects on Environment and Society” (31 October 2010), has many strong opinions regarding the degradation of forests around the world. In the article, Hata makes many statements and claims that are geared towards how the human effect on forests is having a negative impact on both the environment and society. Though his claims may have ethical value, Hata does not provide any evidence for his arguments to validate that deforestation is truly harmful.

By reading the article it is clear that Hata has a strong passion for the forests being exploited. It is clear how thankful he is for the resources forests provide for us and their significance in the world today. Hata relates how these resources have brought upon an irresistible dependence for forests, shared by nearly every human being on this planet. By the rate of mass deforestation, Hata is confident that a negative aftermath will be the result of logging actions. From this, it is easy to tell how Hata’s emotions greatly influences the claims he makes. Therefore, his statements and claims are ignoring true facts and are, rather, based entirely on ethical beliefs.

Although with out evidence, Hata makes numerous claims regarding the effects of deforestation that he believes are personally valuable. Some of his main claims include that if deforestation continues at its current rate biodiversity will seize to exist; forests will never be able to regenerate back into the “perfect” form they are in now; and how the protection of forest species will benefit future generations in both medicine and technology. Other claims or statements include how deforestation turns the forest into a useless barren land; how it eliminates the possibility of exploring new alternatives; and that the indigenous people living in the forests will be left homeless and lost. The key point Hata tries to emphasise is that nature should be adored, not destroyed; as he states:

“Overall, the terrible effects of deforestation cannot be compensated by the plans of further world development. No matter what great importance industrialization may bring, we must also consider that nature serves us in far better ways than buildings and other facilities you can see in urbanized areas.” (Hata 2010)

After reading his arguments anyone with strong environmental morals would most likely agree with Hata. However, what he has proposed is unrealistic in the industrial dependant world we live in. Accordingly, the evidence is just not there to support the irrational claims he makes. As a very influential species, human beings are focused on their personal welfare more than the environment that surrounds them. And with a growing need for forest products, it is hard to imagine a total abolishment of all logging practices. On top of human dependence and irrationality, some of the claims Hata makes are unclear to what he is trying to propose. Therefore, Hata’s claims can be separated into two groups, the economical and social aspect, and the irrational argument aspect.

As long as human beings “dominate” the Earth, we will continue to use any resources available to us to sustain our standard way of life. Forests are mandatory resources required to maintain suitable economical and social environments around the world. Hata’s claims show no relevance to how the economy of numerous countries will be affected by the reduction, or elimination, of logging practices. We depend on this resource, and the principle of scarcity works to regulate our consumption. Humans benefit from the things trees provide for us and, as a result, our consumption is controlled by the trees available. Therefore as a benefit to the economy and human welfare, forests are needed to be logged. Though deforestation may be seen as degrading to nature, the overall cost is more beneficial to humans and, therefore, will be continued. This increase in welfare also increases our total utility. It is an economical and social obligation to keep utility high within populations and, as a result, we need many resources to do so. In some cases this utility is reached by involving the miniride principle. By relating to one of Hata’s arguments, since deforestation will benefit humans in many ways but in turn will remove small groups of indigenous people from their homes, it is necessary for us to use forest resources at our desired need. This is because both indigenous and modern humans rely on the forest to survive; however, the larger population and utility gained for the modern people outweighs the rights and utility of small indigenous groups. It is the main goal of economical and social groups of a country to increase and maintain the welfare of their people. Such an example can be seen in Brazil’s plan to sell logging rights for the Amazon Rainforest. Their goal is to abolish illegal logging as well as increase the economy and produce jobs for locals, all strong initiatives to increase the welfare of the country.

Hata’s claims not only ignore social and economical needs, but some are just completely irrational. Numerous arguments seem to not act on fact, but merely emotion. Firstly, Hata states that deforestation will eliminate all biodiversity. This is a far stretch argument to make considering not all species live in, or rely, on forests. The same is true for his other claim, stating deforestation will turn these “perfect” forests into permanent barren land. This argument, though, goes even further to say these forests are perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect as this meaning can greatly differ from person to person. This is especially true for forests since destructive insects, wildfires, and pollution is inevitable. Also, it is hard to state something as being permanent. It may remain in the same state for a single lifetime, but what about the many generations down the road? In time, everything is bound to change, no matter what way we look at it. In Hata’s case, his arguments are not justified and do not provide any true evidence to how the outcome of deforestation will negatively effect the environment and society. His claims are based on opinion, not true facts as they should be.

In conclusion, a first time read of Hata’s article allows the reader to agree with his proposed claims, if they are an environmentally conscious individual. Based on an ethical point of view, I for one agree with the arguments Hata describes as an overall degradation to nature. However, it is one thing to agree with a point of view, and another to evaluate if it is realistic or evident. The economical and social wellbeing of society benefits from the resources trees provide and, therefore, will continue to be explored. Also, a statement or claim that is missing evidence is not completely supported and, therefore, cannot truly be considered. Although claims such as these go without evidence, I believe it is important that we share and understand these opinions to instil a proper respect and commitment towards the environment for our own sake and for the many generations to come.

By: Tyler Blauel

References

Effects Of Deforestation - Deforestation – Effects on Environment and Society. (n.d.). Solar Energy Center. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from http://www.petererickson.net/article/deforestation-effects-on-environment-and-society

Pyne, S. (n.d.). Logging Amazon Rainforest Deforestation. International News Global News from Around the World.. Retrieved November 6, 2010, from http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/brazil/101019/logging-amazon-rainforest

Words: 1172

Are Genetically Modified Crops the Solution?

In The Australian Food News article, “Greenpeace ‘Cries Wolf’ about GM Food Ingredients” (2010 November 1) the author, Dan Quinn, expresses several claims regarding the ongoing opposition of genetically modified crops. A few of the claims involve the beneficial factors GM crops has accomplished worldwide and the ongoing success it wishes to establish. Specifically the Golden Rice project is one subject where the author makes some claims that I feel lack supporting evidence. One strong claim mentioned in this article is that Greenpeace have not found a single piece of scientifically credible evidence that there is anything wrong with GM crops and its production/distribution. I feel that these claims (and the many more that will be mentioned) are weak, irrational and exaggerated forms of judgment upon the views of Greenpeace and those who oppose Genetically Modified crops.

In Quinn’s argument, he believes that Greenpeace and the many other activist groups are opposing GM food and preventing their release worldwide which (in his view) is slowing down the solution to solving world hunger. I believe that these groups who oppose GM crops rebel against them for reasons that can be considered viable. For example health issues and the long term effects of GM crops may affect certain individuals and according to another article (by Chuck Palazzo, October 2010), these health issues and long term effects of GMO (genetically modified organisms) have not been thoroughly tested for food-safety concern. This was something Quinn failed to present in his article which relates back to the Golden Rice project; where those in favour of its properties wish to release the rice worldwide to stop vitamin A deficiency (VAD). The problem here is that the development and research of the golden rice has provided no impact on VAD through its methods of production (Eric Darier, November 2010). The use of pesticides and other chemicals on the GMOs has contaminated the other neighbor crops. GM is clearly irresponsible to the environment (Eric Darier, November 2010). Quinn’s argument has provided no supporting evidence to back up his statement that “GM crops are good.” Upon reading his article, he merely formulates statements without scientific facts to prove his point.

Dan Quinn provides quotes within his argument to establish the message that genetically modifications are no more dangerous that the conventional breeding of crops, reported by scientific experts. Once again Quinn provides no scientific evidence to support his argument. He claims through other reports that:

“GM products have been in several foods for many years and consumed without any substantiated evidence of ill effects on health, and their safety confirmed by many peer-reviewed studies world-wide.” Australian Academy of Science (2007)

“There is a comprehensive body of knowledge that already adequately addresses current food safety issues including those dealing with GM products; it is considered by the experts as sufficient to assess the safety of GM products.” European Union Joint Research Centre (2008)

“GM foods currently available on the international market have undergone risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health any more than their conventional counterparts.” World Health Organization (2005)

I find these quotes to be sheer statements with no relevant evidence. In this article, Dan Quinn lacks the supporting verification from any research and/or statistical evidence to persuade the reader into believing and considering that GMOs are completely safe. There are three main reasons why there are so many criticisms towards GMOs (as mentioned in another article by Deborah B. Whitman) that Quinn did not consider to bring up in his argument. There are environmental, health and economic issues that involve genetic modification. Quinn failed to acknowledge any of these reasons and for that matter I believe that he is biased towards GMOs and neglects the views of Greenpeace and other activist groups.



The environmental issues that arise may include the unintentional harm towards other organisms, reduction of pesticide effectiveness and the possible gene transfer to non-targeted species. Health problems may involve not knowing the true effects of GMOs. For example studies have been done with GM potatoes that were tested on lab rats. It was observed that there were differences within the rats’ intestinal tract compared to rats that were fed unmodified potatoes. These differences could simply foreshadow the potential threats of GMOs to human beings if something like the Golden Rice was released worldwide. There are also allergenic problems that play an important role in health issues. For example, many people are allergic to peanuts and other food. By introducing genetically modified foods into their lives there may be a chance that certain individuals may develop new allergens towards the product. These problems were never stated in Quinn’s article but were rather avoided and unheard of.

Dan Quinn also claims that Golden Rice presents a sustainable, cost-free solution and not requiring other resources. Well, the third issue here is economic concern and although the Rockefeller foundation provides a non-profitable organization, they do not provide a cost-free solution to VAD as Quinn has stated but instead, they provided it at a reduced cost. This is one of the false claims Quinn made. Quinn additionally says that GM crops would not be planted if farmers did not benefit from them. I say that without doubting the beneficial factors that GM food has to offer, it should not be the only solution to solve world hunger.

The Author Dan Quinn proposes limited evidence to his claims and merely declares them to be true. Quinn’s claim for saying that Greenpeace have found nothing scientific to prove that GM crops are bad, is completely false and is a statement served with no background evidence to support it. I believe that his argument is weak in terms of not providing enough proof to support his points. There are indeed many great beneficial properties that genetically modified crops have to offer but there are also many uncertainties that come with it. I believe that stating both the positive and negative factors of GM crops is important for everyone to know which was something Quinn lacked to include in his article.

References
Palazzo, C. (2010) Who let the GMOs Out? Veterens Today, 20 Oct 2010. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/10/20/who-let-the-gmos-out/. Accessed 10 Nov 2009.
Darier, E. (2010) GE golden rice’s lack of lustre. Greenpeace, 9 Nov 2010. http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/Blog/ge-golden-rices-lack-of-lustre/blog/28192. Accessed 9 Nov 2010.
Quinn, D. (2010) Greenpeace “cries wolf” about GM food ingredients. Australian Food News, 1 Nov 2010.http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2010/11/01/greenpeace-cries-wolf-about-gm-food-ingredients.html. Accessed 9 Nov 2010.
Whitman, B.D. (2000) Genetically modified foods: harmful or helpful? CSA, Apr 2000. http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php. Accessed 10 Nov 2010.

In the article “Global Warming – Truth or Conspiracy”, the author, Russell Checchin, discusses his belief that global warming does not exist. Within his work he makes many irrational claims. In one claim he that global warming is a government conspiracy, “Well first of all I don’t believe it’s someone, I believe its government and to take it one step further I believe it’s left-wing politics! Why do I say this you ask, it’s because left-wing politics is known as the party of doom and gloom.” (Checchin 2010)
There are many faults in Russel Checchin’s article. One of which is that he expresses his opinions in a first-person point-of-view, this makes his argument seem like a hasty generalization, which makes his argument weak, informally debated and appear not as liable as it would if it were written in a third person point-of-view. Another flaw in his claim is that he does not have any evidence to support his logic, which makes his argument implausible and the liability questionable. It seems that the purpose of this article was to express his detestation of left winged politics.
There are many reasons why his claim is ludicrous. However, first of all it must be said that there are scientific facts that have proven the polar ice-caps are melting due to the thinning of the ozone. His entire argument is wrong to say otherwise with no scientific evidence to support it. If we were to assume global-warming was false, it is absurd to pin point the people behind it as only the government and especially ‘left-winged’ politics. It’s a Generalization of all left-winged politics, although all support a green movement, it is NOT true that they are the only politic that for environmental changes and therefore is a ridiculous to say that only left-winged politics are behind the ‘global-warming conspiracy’, if such existed. Another problem is that Checchin claims that left winded-politics are a ‘party of doom and gloom’, which is not true. Left-winged politics is centred around the ideology of egalitarianism, which does not have any negative aspect about it.
Russell Checchin’s article is a suitable example of a weakly-argued article. With his lack of evidence supporting his opinions as well as the irrational beliefs he presents, make for a his claim to be unaccountable.


Work Cited

Checchin, Russell. “Global Warming – Truth or Conspiracy”. Ezine Articles. November 2010. Web. 11 November 2010

The Future of Green Energy in Ontario

Published in the Toronto Star, the article “California vote illuminates Ontario’s energy future” by Ken Neuman and Rick Smith addresses a vote in California on proposition 23. Proposition 23 was rejected by Californians meaning California’s global warming legislation will continue. This legislation deals heavily with using green energy alternatives to reduce greenhouse emissions and the authors claim that California’s plans should be utilized as encouragement for justifying our own green energy plans in Ontario. These green energy plans include new solar panel production plants, solar panel fields and windmills to be introduced to Ontario to provide green energy. These forms of green energy will also to phase out other types of energy, like coal, that are not viewed as environmentally friendly. Despite having many reasons why these implements for green energy would be beneficial, the authors’ points are easily arguable and would more than likely lack the foresight needed to convince those that are unsympathetic to their views.



Much of the authors’ argument of why green energy alternatives are beneficial to Ontario is the amount of jobs it will introduce. For instance, the authors write that more than 600 jobs will be created in Guelph after a new solar panel manufacturing plant is completed and that each time a windmill is constructed a job opens for a new individual (Neuman and Smith 2010). These statistics may look positive, but upon closer inspection it must be noted that jobs will also be lost along with those gained, as the authors mention that green energy is phasing out other types of energy like coal, forcing coal plants to shut down. The authors do not specify how many jobs are lost from closing coal plants and therefore it is unclear whether or not more workers will lose or gain work after the green energy alternatives are introduced. As the reader cannot discern whether the work force will grow or shrink from implementing green energy alternatives it is difficult to decide whether or not their statistics about new jobs are beneficial. Perhaps the authors could assure the reader through relevant data or comments on the amount of people that actually work at these coal plants, informing us that fewer people will lose work when coal plants are closed than the amount of jobs gained through green energy.



Through formulating their argument Neuman and Smith address new jobs green energy promotes, how green energy does not negatively impact the environment and even how rural economies are bolstered by windmills and solar panels. However, the authors fail to address two of the most important problems with wind and solar energy, cost and efficiency. When compared to coal or nuclear power plants; solar panels and windmills seem gratuitously expensive to build (Bailey (2009) states solar panels cost up to 6 times more to build than conventional coal). Both solar panels and windmills require large amounts of space and many units to produce enough energy to compare to coal or nuclear, this means more land must be bought to accommodate these types of energy thus forcing production costs to rise. Both sources of energy are also unreliable, solar panels are sunlight dependant, allowing them to only produce energy during daylight hours while windmills locations must be carefully selected to insure a reasonable amount of wind is received. On the other hand, coal and nuclear power can function anytime of the day regardless of weather conditions. To argue these points the authors might write, despite initial investments, green energy production no longer requires any resources to be input (ie. Coal) and is relatively self-sufficient. These forms of power are also far cleaner than coal or nuclear power and produce no negative byproducts (ie. Nuclear waste). Wind and solar power is much safer with no danger of nuclear meltdowns or acrid smoke and carbon dioxide air pollution. Therefore, although the initial costs are steep the benefits far outweigh the costs.



Another major downfall in the strength of the argument is the over confidence the authors’ have about how many people believe green energy is the right choice. The article opens saying that Ontarians received some good news last week, referring to the proposition California passed. This opening line immediately establishes that the authors assume every Ontarian is pro green energy, however unfortunately for them there are many skeptics about the benefits of green energy. Coal power plants inevitably produce large amounts of carbon dioxide which is released as a byproduct into the air and these greenhouse gases are thought to be the leading cause of global warming. However, as with anything in science the effects of carbon dioxide emissions contributing to global warming are not certain. Thus, many people do not believe that global warming is occurring for unnatural reasons and due to this many people consequently do not see the benefit of spending large amounts of money on green energy sources, which can be expensive and unreliable. Despite the numerous positive examples of benefits green energy could provide Ontarians given by the authors (ie. more jobs and less emissions) these points are not developed into the type of strong argument that would be needed to convince a skeptic. For instance, Neuman and Smith (2010) mention that ten times more solar panels will have been installed in Ontario in the next three years, than the amount that currently exist, saying this will provide enough energy to power one million homes. Rather than just presenting this statistic without any interpretation the authors could strengthen their argument by elaborating on how ten times more solar panels will be advantageous over other energy alternatives. Also, some points made by the authors contribute nothing to their argument and consequently should be removed from the article. One such point is when Neuman and Smith (2010) mention that Ronald Regan removed the solar panels on the white house when he was in office and his former secretary of state, George Shultz, is a supporter of clean energy. This point is obviously trivial, aside from the fact that people are allowed to have different opinions, their values can change in the almost thirty years since Regan was first in office. If the authors were to remove their overconfident assumptions, strengthen existing points and remove inconsequential examples they would be much more likely of converting skeptics to their view.



In conclusion, though the article presents numerous facts to attempt to reassure the reader of the benefits of green energy plans in Ontario, little is done to try and formulate strong points to convince the reader. The arguments presented by the authors seem to make the assumption everyone is already on their side and thus don’t take a defensive stance, not attempting to argue common rebuttals to the green energy movement like cost and inefficiency. The potential within the points and statistics is available to develop a convincing argument, although more expansion is needed.







References:

Neuman, Kevin, and Rick Smith. "California Vote Illumintate's Ontario's Energy Future." Toronto Star. 7 Nov. 2010. Web. 10 Nov 2010. .



Bailey, Ronald. "Obama among the (costly) Solar Panels Again." Reason. N.p., 30 Oct 2009. Web. 10 Nov 2010. .

Image:

http://cagematch.dvorak.org/index.php?topic=4772.0

Environmentalism and Capitalism

In the article “Corporations Want to Keep Carbon Emissions Secret”, the author writes about the problem with our capitalist country and how it is leading to environmental degradation. He makes a claim that “Long term solutions to environmental problems will never be possible as long as key economic decisions remain in private, profit driven hands”. I do not believe this claim to be accurate and I find it to be a very bold thing to claim.
In the Western society we live in, there are multiple large, privately owned companies that make their own decisions about things and there is nothing we can really do about it. For example, Wal-Mart is a privately owned company and we as the general public do not get to be a part of their decisions making. The company does not work like a democracy and like the claim, they are profit driven. And as a big company that supplies so much of our needs, they produce a lot of waste and release tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Producing waste and carbon dioxide is just the nature of big factories and manufacturers and there’s really not much we can do about this.
Our economy supports our country and builds it up. There is no way we could get rid of the banks and big companies that make our country what it is. And in a capitalist society there is no way we could control the company’s decisions about waste production or anything else for that matter. Companies do not want us knowing about the waste they produce because they are profit driven and it would be negative advertising for them, which is something they do not need or want. Knowing the amount of waste a company produces and knowing all the toxic substances they put into the air would make us significantly more aware of the choices we are making. It would help us to make more conscious decisions about which products from which companies to use, but since all these companies are profit driven, they would evidently not want this information to be revealed.
We cannot say that because sharing this information is better for the environment, we should do it. To start off with we cannot force companies to share this information because they are privately owned. If we wanted to control these companies we would have to become a communist country which would be changing the whole entire country from what it is right now. The author’s claim is that we need a planned and organized economy to have a sustainable one, but that is not even possible in this situation. It may be true that if we did control these companies, a lot less waste would be produced, but this is simply just not possible. In the case where we could control these companies though, we would also have to make the right decisions. It is expensive to use renewable sources of energy and expensive to make environmentally friendly products. It is unrealistic and impossible for us to have a planned economy.
Although companies are profit driven, they also have moral obligations to take care of our planet. Many companies are taking green steps such as donating money to non-profit environmental organizations, using recycled products, and also creating more environmentally friendly products. Many companies are creating more environmentally friendly products because that is what is in demand and that is what is popular by consumers right now. Many companies are just using “green” as an advertisement to make consumers feel like they’re doing their part to help their environment and make them buy more and more. This is called greenwashing. But it is wrong for us to say that all companies do not care about the environment and they cannot help be a solution towards environmental problems.
People are becoming more and more aware of the fact that we need to start taking care of our environment every day. It is something we’re obligated to do and many companies are trying to do their part. But producing waste is the nature of many of these companies and there is no way to change that, but many are trying to play their part. Our technology is becoming better and more sustainable practices are being used.
Environmental responsibility and capitalism can go together. Long term environmental problems may be harder to solve when profit driven countries are making all the economic decisions but that is something we cannot control and many companies are trying to do their part. Us as consumers though can show our want for more environmentally friendly products and we can show our interest in companies that practise sustainability. This will push companies to be more environmental and long term solutions will be made.

http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/news-channels/usa/corporations-want-to-keep-carbon-emissions-secret-43619.htm

DNA barcoding

Blog Assignment 3
Pascal Tuarze
To General Public
ENVS*1020 F10 (01-06)
11/11/2010

Introduction:

In the Reuters news article (DNA bar-coding aims to protect species and food) the author Natalie Armstrong makes several claims on the subject of bar-coding living species. Her stronger claims appear near the beginning of the article where she infers that all species will eventually have their DNA bar-coded. She then goes on to say that it will help us track endangered species and protect food.
Her arguments are:

“DNA bar-coding aims to protect species and food” (Armstrong 2010)

The title of the article is misleading because the first part of the statement does not seem to be accurate. Just because we know the barcode of a species does not mean we can protect it. She offers no explanation on how this would be accomplished. The only statement she makes is that it will help scientist track endangered species and I personally don’t see how bar-coding could help us track endangered species. She does not explain the point and therefore I feel it is a weak claim. The second part of this statement seems to be a strong claim because if we were able to determine what species a piece of meat came from, it could significantly reduce the amount of mislabelling going on in our supermarkets.

“Every species, from extinct to thriving, is set to get its own DNA barcode in an attempt to better track the ones that are endangered, as well as those being shipped across international borders as food or consumer products” (Armstrong 2010)

Her argument seems to be that all species will be able to be identified by DNA, once they are bar-coded it will help us track the ones that are endangered. She also claims that bar-coding will dramatically cut down the time shipments of food are held up at borders.

The first problem with this argument is that she seems to believe that all species could be bar-coded. The only evidence she provides in the article is that researchers have already described and placed 87 000 species barcodes into the system of BOLD (the Barcode of Life Datasystems). I feel this is a weak point because not only is there already millions of species on the earth, more are currently being discovered each year. For example in 2005, 20 000 new species were discovered. The barcodes of organisms are also very complex and can be very similar in the case of sister species. Another problem with the argument is that organisms evolve over time according to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. For example, bacteria can evolve in much shorter periods of time and can change their DNA barcode. Her final statement is the system of bar-coding could cut down time at the borders. However it would take a while to manufacture enough for all border inspection stations and even then people could avoid detection. Another point that could possibly cause problems for the DNA bar-coding could be cross contamination, especially in food. Contact with another product could leave traces of DNA on the product being sold and could potentially give the barcode of the contaminant.




Cost effectiveness:

Could this technology be cost effective? Millions of dollars is being put into research the organism of our earth. Will a greater understanding of the world out way the benefit of that money that could be put towards other things, things that are affecting humans directly such as disease and starvation. Would knowing about all species actually be beneficial to us? I feel it is important to have a good understanding of as many organisms as possible, but do we really need to know about the ones that aren’t important to us. Personally I feel that we should continue with the research as long as we can see there is still benefit for the human race. She also claims that researchers hope to make a handheld device that could be operated by an untrained border patrol officer. This technology would not be cheap and would be very difficult to manufacture this sort of device and distribute it all over the world.

Moral rights:

We as a species have an overwhelming need to know as much information as possible and in the process of bar-coding species we are disrupting them. According to which view you take it may or may not be a moral decision to continue doing research. An anthropocentrist would not believe that species have rights, making it a non-moral decision. An eco-holist would believe that species and ecosystems have rights and would feel that it would be wrong to disturb species for our own personal reasons.

Basis of her argument:

Her argument is based on the fact that it is actually possible to obtain samples from every species on earth and barcode it. It would be nice that if in the future we will be able to take a sample of any organism and be able to determine what species it comes from. But we cannot be 100% sure this will ever happen, not only are there millions of undiscovered species but organisms are also changing and adapting according to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Therefore I think it is unlikely we will ever be able to barcode all life forms on earth. Perhaps we will be able to barcode the majority of the species that we come in contact with and can see on a daily basis. For example I see the benefit of bar-coding the different species of fish to able to distinguish them from others to stop the mislabelling that is becoming a major problem for us.

Conclusion:

I feel that a better way to write her argument would be to mention the fact that it would be near impossible to barcode all life, so it would go something like this. In the future we hope to be able to analyse and identify most organisms that affect us through the methods of DNA bar-coding. Perhaps a mobile device that would be accurate enough and cost effective could be produced and made accessible. If this were true in the future it could simplify and cut down shipping times.

Bibliography:

Armstrong, By Natalie. "DNA Barcoding Aims to Protect Species and Food Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News Reuters.com. 01 Nov. 2010. Web. 3 Nov. 2010. .

Killing Ourselves?

Sarah Mark

I came across a recent article which addresses the issues of extinction. The article, entitled “We’re Killing Everything, Including Ourselves: Royal Society Sort of Says” (October 11) by Matthew McDermott, makes one large claim on the issue. His main point is that humans are the cause of the majority of the extinctions that have occurred during our time here on earth. We are the reasons for the environmental concerns of the world, and if this will inevitably lead to our downfall, he wonders why people cannot understand this. How can the problem be any clearer?

The issue he addresses is clearly an important one; I don’t think anyone can argue that. This is no doubt something that we as a race should all be concerned with, but he goes into almost no detail about it. He offers one reference which points out the great changes people have made but then does not go on to explain it at all. He quotes from the Royal Society, "There are very strong indications that the current rate of species extinctions far exceeds anything in the fossil record...Never before has a single species driven such profound changes to the habitats, composition and climate of the planet."(Magurran et al , 2010) He then follows it up with nothing, no explanation and no point. He continues on then to summarize the conclusion of the article which basically states only the quote he already included. The summary itself does make some good points, about mass extinctions, climate changes, biodiversity and how we should be finding tools to measure the extent and intensity of these changes. These all seem like things McDermott could have expanded on to make his point clearer but he said nothing after the summary, he only went on a rant about how people don’t care or listen. I even found his title a little confusing… using “Sort of” does not sound like a convincing article is going to follow.

The second concern I had with the article was that McDermott didn’t include any sort of statistics. He uses his quote to point out that the rate of extinction in species exceeds anything in the past, and that climate changes are at a maximum but he doesn’t include any numbers to go with it. I feel that any convincing argument, especially one that refers to an actual study, could make a much better impact with some statistics to show the actual increase. Percents and numbers always have a way of getting people’s attention.

Just to pick on the little things, I also thought the article could have used some editing, and that’s something coming from me. I stumbled on a few obvious grammar problems but more importantly I found it hard to read a lot of the sentences. This wasn’t because of big words or complicated thoughts; it was just that they weren’t well thought out in their structure. “In case the litany of separate studies showing how bad the ongoing extinction crisis the planet is undergoing, driven for all intents and purposes entirely by humans, really is haven't driven the point home”(McDermott 2010) What? Am I the only one confused by this sentence? I personally find it difficult to be swayed by someone’s opinion when I can hardly follow their train of thought.

My next critical thought came when I noticed, and it didn’t take long, that McDermott did not offer any sort of solution. He simply stated the problem and then commented on people’s lack of interest. Oh, but he did make one comment about another person’s suggestion. “Paraphrased, how do we get people to care? Richard Brenne suggests more provocative headlines and the one on this post is mostly Brenne's. Thanks.” (McDermott 2010) And that’s it. That is the only input he shares with us regarding a solution to people’s lack of action.

Lastly I was concerned with the way McDermott chose to end the article. It didn’t seem to me to be very nice and didn’t make me sympathize with him. “Why is this simple, seemingly self-evident concept so difficult to grasp? Let alone act upon?”(McDermott 2010) I think this is more of an insult to people rather than a thought provoking question. Kind of a poor ending, but it did keep in theme with the rest of the article. I would have been more interested if he had asked a question not pointing out my ignorance and lack of action but one that made me really think about the problem. A question that would stir in my mind until, maybe, I really felt the initiative to make a change.

In conclusion, I do agree with his main point of the importance of this issue, and I appreciate his passion, but I feel that if he wanted to go to the trouble of writing and posting the article, he might have considered making it a bit more convincing. Statistics, more explanation, a little compassion for the reader, and a little editing would have made this article a much more interesting read.

Citations:
McDermott, Matthew., New York, October, 11, 2010.Science & Technology, We’re Killing Everything, Including Ourselves: Royal Society Sort of Says.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/were-killing-everything-including-ourselves-royal-society-sort-of-says.php

Magurran, A. E., and Dornelas M., 2010, The Royal Society B, Biological diversity in a changing world.
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/365/1558/3593.full

Food or Fuel? Why Not Both?

In the news article, "How to improve food security by reducing grain demand" ( 9 November 2010) the author, Lester Brown, makes a number of arguments. One of his arguments is that we need to stop using grain for fossil fuels because it’s a large waste and the grain can be used in other places such as feeding animals or people. Brown states:

"If we are to reverse the spread of hunger, we will almost certainly have to reduce the latter use of grain. For perspective, the estimated 114 million tons of grain used to produce ethanol in 2009 in the United States is the food supply for 370 million people at average world grain consumption levels." (Brown, 2010)

Brown does give evidence for his argument but is not completely accurate. He claims that the entire amount of grain used for producing ethanol and biodiesel is removed from the food supply. Neither corn ethanol or biodiesel uses the entire grain in the fuel making process. Ethanol has distiller grains and biodiesel produces meal as byproducts. These byproducts are used as cattle feed as most grain is used for anyways. Some of the byproducts are used in the production of food for humans.

"It is also possible to produce ethanol through a wet-milling process, which is used by many large ethanol producers. This process also yields byproducts such as high-fructose corn syrup, which is used as a sweetener in many prepared foods."(West, 2010)

Not only does the byproducts of producing ethanol go to feeding cattle it is used in foods that we eat everyday. So when Brown says that we waste millions of tons of grain to produce ethanol he is incorrect. We are producing fuel, food for cattle and byproducts that are used in the production of food that we eat. The grain used for ethanol would most likely be going towards feed for cattle anyways, so there is no reason why we can not first extract what we need for fuel and feed the cattle with the byproducts. The cattle suffer barely no nutritional loss from eating the byproduct of ethanol because the starch that is removed from the grain for the fuel has very little nutritional value for cattle.

Brown’s claim that we should stop using ethanol to help stop the hunger crisis is not a very good one when you consider that not much of the grain is wasted during the production of ethanol. If all of this grain went directly to the people, which the majority of it does not, his claims would be more reasonable. He just never took into account that most of the grain produced in the United States and Canada goes towards cattle and not directly to the people.

Another argument that can be made against Brown’s claim is that when it comes to producing ethanol it is more efficient then gasoline.

"For example, Dr. Wang from the Argonne National Laboratories has estimated that for every 1kJ of ethanol fuel energy produced from corn it only requires 0.74kJ of energy from fossil fuels. Compared to gasoline, where 1.23kJ of energy is required to make 1kJ of fuel energy available on the market." (Williams, 2007)

According to this gasoline takes more energy to produce it than it actually provides us with which is not very efficient especially when people are worried about the environment. Ethanol on the other hand produces more energy then it takes to make it which makes ethanol more efficient than gasoline, but the only down side is that ethanol requires the usage of a food source whereas gasoline does not.

Brown states, "Even in the United States, with an abundance of feedlots, over half of all beef cattle weight gain comes from grass rather than grain." (Brown, 2010)

Even though this may be true it is grain that makes the cattle grow faster. Farmers will not lose time feeding the cattle grass when they can feed them more grain and make the cattle grow quicker so they can ship them out faster and make more money. Many grain products that are fed to cattle contain steroids that help the cattle grow faster and larger. Grass may be healthier for the cattle but grain will make the farmer more money and when it really comes down to it grain wins every time.

Brown’s argument is based on the importance of food and does not take into account the importance and value we have with fuel. The article was biased and he did not mention how the production of ethanol does not waste food since most of the byproducts are used by cattle and us. He also does not mention that ethanol is a more efficient fuel to produce compared to gasoline. He does not take into account that the grain that is being fed to cattle usually contains steroids and that farmers will not strictly feed their cattle grass because they will take too long to grow and they will lose money. There is a lot to consider when arguing about ethanol production and food production but by using ethanol we can produce both and this is what Brown never considered.




http://www.organic-center.org/images/200810_SCOOP/co2cycle.jpg link to a picture




References:

Brown, L. (2010, November 9). How to improve food security by reducing grain demand. Retrieved from http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/how-to-improve-food-security-by-reducing-grain-demand.php

West, L. (2010). How is ethanol made?. Retrieved from http://environment.about.com/od/ethanolfaq/f/ethanol_process.htm

Williams , M. (2007). How is ethanol produced. Retrieved from http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/physics/high_schools/2007/AlternateFuels/ethanolprod.html