By: Rebecca Fyfe ID# 0711174
November 11, 2010
A report posted by John Laumer titled ‘Volcano-Stimulated Rebound of 2010 Salmon Run Challenges Anti-Science Environmentalism’ centres around his view that a natural volcanic eruption event is proof enough to convince anti-science environmentalists that geo-engineering is a viable solution to numerous environmental issues. Laumer is adamant that the natural, iron-rich volcanic eruption of the Aleutian island volcano, Kasatochi, in Alaska, was the key to supporting geo-engineering. It that was reported that the North Pacific salmon spawn in B.C.’s Fraser River of the 2009-2010 cohort year greatly increased in size, due to the volcanic eruption rich in iron (August 2008). Laumer uses this point to suggest that by introducing the spawn to iron annually, geo-engineering can be proven safe and environmentally friendly while increasing the size of the salmon for higher productivity. He brings about the idea that this could potentially eliminate anti-science environmentalist ideas.
However, his arguments are not conclusive. Laumer continually spews facts, with no follow up. What was the point he was trying to argue? There were three main problems with his report. Firstly, the style of writing was more in the form of an informal opinion piece, without the scientific research as a base. Secondly, a fair few of his quotes and ‘proof’ weren’t strong enough, even irrelevant, considering the scale of argument he was trying to promote. Lastly, not enough though was given to the opposition to his argument, thus weakening the report’s validity.
The introductory paragraph is a jumble of ideas, none of which present the argument at hand. The reader must read almost to the end of the report to understand the full idea Laumer is putting out. In the first paragraph, he states “both sides of the climate debate act as if they can’t wait for the total defeat of science and humanism” leading you to believe that this is his argument. Fortunately, the next paragraph goes on to state that “this restoration [in Salmon spawning] squares with conventional wisdom about ‘iron seeding’ being too hazardous to experiment with as a potential geo-engineering method”. This is his argument. But what conventional wisdom is he referring to? No insight was given; therefore I could not determine the scale of the argument at hand.
Laumer then goes on to quote CBC as follows:
“The 34 million salmon that returned to B.C.'s Fraser River this year were "adolescents" in the Gulf of Alaska when the Kasatochi volcano erupted there in 2008, said Tim Parsons, a research scientist at the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, B.C.
The ash from that eruption fertilized the ocean, leading to a massive bloom of special phytoplankton called diatoms -- an unusually rich source of food for the growing salmon.”
He refers to this CBC report as a ‘hypothesis’. It is simply a piece of evidence, and one to support his belief in geo-engineering. One could have readily agreed long by this point that indeed the now iron-rich Pacific Ocean waters were what yielded the large, productive spawn in the 2009-2010 year. What would have been much more productive in his report would be more statistical evidence and testing to prove to the readers why the introduction of iron to the salmon is a viable, science oriented application that will not have adverse effects on the environment. Anti-science environmentalists would obviously argue the opposite.
In a more reputable article posted on the Nanaimo News Bulletin’s online site, more information is given concerning the details of the salmon spawn. The writer, Jeff Nagel of BC Local News, includes details about the run sizes of the sockeye in 2009 versus 2010, as well as the political debate which it has arisen. He also suggests alternate effects that could have led to the boom in salmon in the 2010 year, such as the phytoplankton increase due to the iron-rich eruption. More detail was given into the actual events of the eruption, thus providing the reader with a more sound understanding of the issue at hand, as well as why such a large spawn is very important and beneficial for the region. By introducing the evidence not only specific to the salmon, but to the ethical, political and social sides of the event, Nagel is providing readers with the background to evaluate the potential, and effects of, geo-engineering being introduced to the sockeye species in the Fraser River.
Laumer’s ideas are based on his strong belief in science and scientific application in the environment. He weakly supports his side, without referencing the ideas of ‘anti-science environmentalists’. He states that “anti-science thinking presupposes negative outcomes. It skips over complex issues and pulls us into ethical and moral opposition to ideas before real understanding can even be offered”. However, real understanding was not achieved in this report. For there to be real understanding, one must attempt to detail all sides of an issue.
The numbers of Pacific sockeye salmon in the Fraser River have been declining for the past two decades at an incredible rate. Having one year where their numbers spontaneously grew 30-fold is significant evidence that something of a natural cause went right and that with the proper care, science can take over where nature cannot in future years. The best way to go about this, however, is not to assume that science can simply duplicate the effect of the volcanic eruption. More detailed studies must be conducted, tests must be completed and hypotheses must be created to determine exactly what we are looking for in the outcome. To be fair to both sides of the argument, science versus anti-science environmentalism, one must observe the natural environment for more than one cohort year to determine what is and is not possible. Why not consider the issue the other way around. What is it that is hindering the salmon growth year after year? What if we were to find and eliminate that factor? Laumer fails to recognize the other options before geo-engineering, those which would satisfy the ideals of both sides of the climate debate.
References
Laumer, John. "Volcano-Stimulated Rebound of 2010 Salmon Run Challenges Anti-Science
Environmentalism." Treehugger; A Discovery company. treehugger.com, 05/11/2010.
Web. 11 Nov 2010.
Nagel, Jeff. "Volcano may get credit for immense salmon run." Nanaimo News Bulletin.
NanaimoBulletin.com, 01/11/2010. Web. 11 Nov 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment