Can geo-engineering be the new frontier for scientific environmentalism?

Can geo-engineering be the new frontier for scientific environmentalism?
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.
/106476743.html>

Greenwashing America

The article that I have found is called Greenwashing America and is written by Alan Caruba. The main argument the author is making throughout the article is that “Green” (environmentally beneficial product and ways of living) are being unjustly forced upon the American populous, greenwashing/brainwashing them. The moral stand point is that this greenwashing is bad and it’s a problem that needs to be fixed. Although all his arguments are agreeable in many ways I found that the evidence and major points could be argued against and can be somewhat exaggerated. In this blog I will explain that the author’s arguments are justified and have clear supporting evidence but can also be quite easily disputed against. Firstly I will put forth the author’s major arguments/the evidence supporting them and in the following paragraph I will explain my point of view on whether or not I felt his arguments were reasonable.

“America is being brainwashed by environmentalism and this is very unfair to the population”. This is the major argument of the whole article which is supported by many sub-points that prove it s validity. I will go over the two main sub-points and there supporting evidence.

One of the sub-points the author makes is that these green products are also just a marketing ploy: raising the prices of regular products because they are organic and natural he explains “calling something ‘Green’ doesn’t make it better in any fashion”. An example the author used to support this point was that companies persuade clients to by Green products by labelling them such as “100% bamboo towels” and “99.6% natural line of shampoos”.

Although I do believe that companies using advertisements to persuade their clients to buy is wrong, most if not every company does this, why does it matter if there doing it with green products or flashy designs, as long as these green products are in fact environmentally friendly. Furthermore even though this point does support the basis of the major argument ‘greenwashing” I don’t believe it is a strong point because there are so many other companies that use advertising as a method of attracting clients.

In addition the author finds that corporations claim they are environmentally friendly in order to protect themselves from Environmental protection Agencies and saving themselves money from lawsuits thus making it even more of a marketing ploy. The supporting evidence of this point can be seen in this case; an environmental marketing company by the name of TerraChoice worked with another product-safety certification organization called Underwriters Laboratories thinking that manufacturers would like to seek out third party verification of their environmental claims thus making money.

In response to the sub-point and its evidence in the above paragraph, the evidence is very strong and the point is valid but it proves that some environmental organizations are in fact unruly and scams. There is no argument against that but once again the business world is made up of unruly companies trying to make as much money as possible. There definitely should be environmental organizations out there that check if companies are being as “Green” as possible, not that I am advocating for TerraChoice (environmental marketing company doesn’t make any sense to me either). Also this sub-point doesn’t coincide with the main argument of greenwashing but gives more reason to suspect eco-friendly organizations of being wrong.

For another important sub-point the author explains that brainwashing originated from American prisoners being subjected to “re-education” during the Korean War and also describes how communists have always been fans of “re-education”. He then further explains that communism has killed many people. He uses these points to clarify that greenwashing came from brainwashing and to prove that it has been done for wrong reasons in the past. Moreover he then explains that environmental organizations/media have been greenwashing/brainwashing the public for decades on which foods to buy and what not to do according to chemicals/plastics that are not eco-friendly.

Even though I do acknowledge the fact that these eco-organizations are pushy and convincing, there advertisements or scare campaigns don’t warrant being called brainwashing, especially in the context of communistic views. Greenwashing definatley does occur but it is much more suttle than brainwashing. When it comes down to it all advertisements are some sort of brainwashing. The Korean War and Communism seems a little exaggerated and because of this I don’t find this point very strong.

The authors point on how environmental regulations are getting out of control, with the evidence being that it is the leading regulatory expense for businesses with fewer than 20 employees and Obama’s references to green cars, green jobs, green house gases and green jobs even when too many Americans are losing their jobs .

This point is quite valid and strong with strong evidence to back it up so I will not disagree with it but rather sympathize for the other side. Drastic times call for drastic measures, the world does have too many green house gases and isn’t environmentally friendly right now so regulations need to be put in place, obviously not at the loss of jobs but there must be some compromises.

To conclude overall the article was very informative and an interesting read, with valid points and a great overall argument which made it very difficult to argue against. There were a few points that seemed too exaggerated in order to catch the reader’s attention such as the “communists have always been big on re-educating” and this in my opinion took away from the strength of the argument.

Recycle the Liquids

Nicholas Frey

Clean water, safe for consumption. In some countries this resource is very low and in other countries that have an abundant supply that clean, safe water means nothing to them. From the blog Recycling Water the author says that water can be recycled just like any other material. The point the author of Recycling Water is trying to get across is that recycling water is something homeowners and companies should try to get in to. The argument in support of recycling water in the article is supported by different facts and opinions that every day normal people would have a hard time to disagree with due to the moral concept of humans having the responsibility to take care of the planet. Evidence provided by the authors argument is the multiple uses water has once being recycled including real examples of where water recycling is being done and reasons why water recycling should be used.

In this argument the author first informs the reader about the topic of how water can be reused instead of letting the earth have to deal with our waste. Used water can be reused to water gardens and house plants. The author also lists that agricultural and landscape irrigation could be other ways to reuse water. This is one possibility and a great way to reuse water but there are many more ways that humans can recycle water. The author also gives notice to the fact that some companies even reuse their water onsite in cooling systems. These are all good examples for someone that doesn't know where to start with water recycling; although the author should really expand on more ways that people can keep reusing their water. Such as, using rain water to wash a car or use the rain water to wash dishes. With using recycled water there are limits though. An example of this is water sewage. People should not try to treat water that contains waste at their homes because the possible contaminations that could be involved. With that being said, the author does state that the most common way we reuse water is sending out waste water or sewage to a treatment plant where it does go undergo treatment and is purified. Overall the author could have spent a bit more time talking how we, as humans, can still do more to recycle our water.

Reusing water like sewage or waste water requires the water must be treated before it is reused or even let back into the environment safely. The author shares with the readers an example of two lakes in the Unites States of America that have treatment plants just outside of the city to help treat the water so that down the river there won’t be contamination. These rivers are the Colorado River and the Mississippi River. Treating the water is crucial for the environment because it takes a lot longer to naturally break down what humans put into the water, also what we put into our water can be dangerous for the environment. Humans also should help and speed up the process so that less worry is placed on running out of usable water. Even with the two examples, the author should have expanded on other ways that cities could be helping with water recycling. The author should have expanded on his final idea, that planning should involve a beneficial factor of recycling water. Also the author should have included different substances humans put in the water and how this waste water has damaged ecosystems. If the author would have added this extra information his argument would have came across a lot stronger in this area of his argument.

With the authors last point of his argument about water recycling the author shares where and how water recycling has helped in the environment. With this the author also shares that we should still work to cut back in waste water being let into the environment. If municipalities can fix this issue of contaminated or dirty water being placed into the environment humans can help water pollution decrease and help repair habitats. All of these issues the author touches on in his blog. These points made this part of the argument strong and easy to understand. If this part of the argument wasn't strong the author would lose the overall effect of his argument. This part of the argument was to make the readers notice that our water waste damages and even destroys habitats. So by having a strong effect the author can and did pull the whole argument together in the end making the reader think and reflect on themselves about their water waste.

This all comes to the final paragraph that pulls the author’s argument together. The author’s last paragraph summarizes into this: people should rethink water recycling and water laws because there are other people that don't have the luxury to have as much water and we should be knowledgeable about how we use ours. This is a great way for the author to conclude on because it restates that people should think and act on recycling their water. With this the author finishes the blog and the reader is left thinking about how they use water and how major this topic is.

In conclusion water recycling is something people should all look into and participate in; and this topic was successfully touched on by the author of the blog Recycling Water. The earth’s surface is covered by 75% water and of that only 2.5% of that water is fresh water (UN). Knowing the issue of water is important and needs to be taken seriously.


References

Recycling water [Web log message]. (2010, October 16). Retrieved from http://www.theenvironmentalblog.org/2010/10/recycling-water/

Water resources. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.unwater.org/statistics_res.html

Oil Dispersants Bad for Environment?

Peter Hodson, of Queen’s University is an active scientist in the field of aquatic toxicology. In a recent conference held by the Society of Environmental Toxicology in Portland Oregon, Hodson made the claim that chemical dispersants used to clean up oil spills are more likely to cause damage than leaving the oil as is. He claimed that the dispersed oil will cause more damage to aquatic systems and the life pertaining to them. His reasoning behind this claim, was that when the oil, more specifically the toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, is dispersed it is able to cover a greater volume of water rather than simply floating on the surface, thereby affecting a greater range of aquatic life. I feel like this claim made is a very broad exaggeration of the truth, and lacks hard evidence. His evidence he has to support his theory is research he has conducted on embryonic herrings. He claims to have found that, “Exposures as brief as an hour can have a negative effect on embryonic fish”.

The first point that I find weak about his claims is the fact that his study only focuses on the embryonic form of one species of fish in the entire oceanic sector of ecosystems. This poses two uncertainties in his theory, the first being that he only studies the effect in the embryos of a single species. Because the embryos could be much more sensitive to chemical and other external factors, like the PAH, it is unpractical to base the conclusion that dispersed oil is “worse” for the ecosystem the non-dispersed oil. The study on embryos does not take into account other, much more important pieces of the ecosystem, like the fish that must produce the eggs. If the fish of the ecosystem are not as sensitive to the dispersed oil compared to the embryos, and are more affected by the concentrated oil, than the oil dispersants should not be deemed “worse” for the ecosystem. Hodson claims that it is bad because “an entire hatch could be decimated”, but if there are no fish to lay the eggs and support the embryos then it is pointless to act in the interest of the embryos. The second reason for uncertainty is that only one species of fish was being experimented on. This creates uncertainty because other species of fish could have a different tolerance to PAH, or have unknown methods of preventing negative effects on themselves and their eggs. This difference could indeed be more devastating than the affect on herring, but without further research on the topic it is impossible to say. Hodson continues to claim that the health of embryonic fish in general is affected by the dispersed oil, when as I already stated, his study only consisted of herring embryo. Therefore, for the reasons listed above, to say that because the embryos of a certain fish are affected negatively by PAH, the ecosystem is affected more negatively by dispersed oil versus non-dispersed is unjust.

I feel that if Hodson could improve his evidence supporting his claim, his claim would be much sounder. To improve his evidence Hodson could do further research on the topic of his claim. He claims that the dispersed oil does more damage to the ecosystem than the floating surface slicks but has no supporting research on the effects of floating slicks on ecosystems or dispersed oil on the whole of the ecosystems. Therefore to improve this supporting evidence, he should research the effects of the slicks on factors such as the fish that the embryos rely on to exist, and the microbial activity that affects the water quality, of which all aquatic life depends on. If the slicks were found to do a significant amount of damage to such factors than Hodson’s claim would be somewhat falsified. Although on the other hand if there was no noticeable amount of damage comparable to that of the dispersed oil, than Hodson would have more supporting evidence to back-up his claim. Another way to strengthen his evidence would be to conduct research on other species embryonic forms that would be in harm’s way of the dispersed PAH. Determining whether it is just certain species embryos affected would help him to make his claim more reliable. A final way to increase the validity of his claim would be to test the effects of dispersed PAH on the fish themselves, whether that is herring or another species. If these tests showed that the fish were equally affected by the dispersion than his claim would be much sounder.

The lack of evidence Hodson had brought in support of his claim makes it impossible to make realistic condiserations on the topic of oil dispersants. Further research on this topic, whether that research is similar to that stated above or not, would greatly increase the external validity of his studies, and the soundness of his claim.


By: Matt Gillman

Reference:
Lovett, A.R. “Oil Spill’s Toxic Trade-off” Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Blog Environmental Toxicology. November 10th 2010. http://gulfofmexicooilspillblog.com/2010/11/10/gulf-of-mexico-oil-spill-blog-environmental-toxicology/

In Need of a New Energy Source

The blog titled “The Energy and Climate Problems of the World – How to Solve them?” talks about how the world has an energy problem and we are in need of a solution. Oil is currently humanity’s main energy source, and we are starting to run out of it, and we know for a fact that it has many detrimental effects to the environment. The author believes that we are in need of alternative energy sources, but they should not be used to the extent or in such a way that they cause new problems.

Although the author brings up a good idea, he does not explain or back up his opinion with enough evidence. It is true that we need to look for alternative solutions for energy production besides oil, because as we know it does harm the environment, especially after the oil spill this year, and there are also limiting amounts of the resource. However at this point, every alternative source of energy does indeed have negative impacts in one way or another. He is being unrealistic in saying that we need to find a solution that has no negative impact whatsoever, since at this point, there is no such thing.

One of his arguments is that energy economization is important. This in fact is true; cutting down on the amount of energy we use could be helpful in the diminishing of energy needed to be produced and the effect on the environment. However, he goes on to say “one must also stop using energy on activities that do not result in any added comfort, do not give gain of any sort, or give only marginal resulted value.” However, consumerism is a big problem with people these days. I cannot see it being very effective by telling people what they are and are not allowed to use energy for. Even with all of the advertising that goes around about the need to be environmentally aware about energy conservation, many people have not changed their way of life to help out. Expecting that people will only use energy for activities that give a valued result is not pragmatic. The author says that if we are able to use our energy sources more effectively, then the world’s energy need could drop by as much as 30%. That seems like an unrealistic number. In order for there to be that much of a decrease, there would have to be some serious changes.

For the majority of the points that are brought up, the author does point out the pros and sometimes the cons to that specific alternative energy source. He dismisses all of them as a solution to the problem at hand. Although he does not give a good enough explanation to why they are not the best choice.

Bio fuels can reduce our dependence on unstable foreign sources of oil. The author’s reason for not using bio fuels is that “it is unethical to grow cop just for making bio-fuel, since that can cause food shortage and rise of food prices.” This is a misleading statement. It would only affect food supply if the regular crops for food were replaced by the crops grown for bio-fuel. Which is probably not what would happen. Instead forested areas or fields would be converted into agricultural fields. Another con to bio-fuel technology is that there is also discussion that the energy needed to convert the crops into bio fuel is so much that there is no environmental benefit.

Solar panels are an option. The author states however that there is a “limit on how much solar cell panels you can mount before the environment is disturbed.” This is not a very good explanation for why we cannot depend solely on solar energy. Although solar panels are a good way of transferring solar energy into usable electricity, there are many negative aspects to their use. In order to produce enough electricity, there needs to be an immense number of solar panels, this is both very expensive and there are not enough places for the solar panels to go. Large areas of land would have to be transformed into solar panel farms, which would obviously detract from other uses such as agriculture for example.

The author then begins to talk about windmills, which can produce larger amounts of electricity than solar panels. He states that “there is a limit on the number and extent of wind-mill parks you can set up before the environment is heavily disturbed.” Once again he does not go into enough dept as to what the cons of wind mills are. In order to produce enough electricity, there is a need for large amounts of wind mills, which take up lots of space. This source of energy is also not useful if you are in an area where there are not normally high amounts of wind, or in any area, on a day when there is no wind.

The author talks about hydroelectricity, he says that it is a good source but there is a limit to how much we can use it before it starts to be too detrimental to the environment, but he never explains why. One of the major cons of hydroelectricity is the need for a large enough reservoir. Constructing a large reservoir is a major challenge, both in terms of time and money. In some cases, constructing a reservoir or damming a river at a certain location may lead to adverse ecological effects on its immediate surroundings.

In a way the author is being considerate of other points of views. Even though the author is trying to prove that there is currently no perfect source of energy, he does point out the positive aspects of those sources. He does not just simply negate all of them. He tries to show both sides of the situation.

The author’s argument that we need alternate sources of energy is very accurate. He further tries to argue that no current alternative sources are good enough since they lead to damaging effects on the environment. However he needs to learn to better argue his point. He brings up many different alternative energy sources, and explains why they are a good idea, but then states that they are not the best solution because there is a limit to how much you can use it before it affects the environment negatively. Although he never states how it can be detrimental to the environment. The author is very repetitive in his explanations, and does not provide enough evidence as to why sources are not an appropriate solution.

By Stephanie Moloughney

Reference:

Unknown, . "The Energy and Climate Problems of the World – How to Solve them?." Environment Studies. Jimit Patel, 06 nov 2010. Web. 07 Nov 2010. %E2%80%93-how-to-solve-them-2>.

Can farmed fish feed the world?

Aquaculture is the farming of marine organisms. One of the largest types of aquaculture or aquafarming occurs with salmon. Salmon are raised either on land in large pens or in the floating cages. Aquaculture is typically thought of as destructive to the rest of nature and is frowned upon my many individuals. However, in an article written by Josh Ozersky called “How I Learned to Love Farmed Fish”, he argues that aquaculture is a good thing.

Ozersky’s main argument is that aquaculture is the only way to save the worlds’ oceans.

“But the fact is that, whether through DNA modification, artificial insemination, antibiotics or any other technique, high-tech aquaculture is the only way to save the planet's marine life.” (Ozersky, 2010)

The fact is that this is definitely not the only option to solve the worldwide problem of declining fish populations. Ozersky quotes Martin Schreibman, a biologist at the City University of New York, who said, "We don't have a choice anymore." The truth is, however, that we actually do have a choice still. Although, according to Nature, 90 % of marine wildlife will cease to exist by 2048, there is still an opportunity now to save many species including the salmon. Ozersky did not mention any alternatives to the declining populations in the ocean. Putting limits on the number of fish that can be caught each year could significantly help populations. In Alaska, the Halibut population has been very low in the past years. But recently, new and stricter limits were put into place an

d scientists have noticed a rise in numbers. This is a very easy way to help populations rebuild and it does not involve any aquaculture or fish farms.

Another method to help increase marine populations is to create more protected areas in the oceans. These areas should be off limit to any sort of fishing. Today there are around 4000 ocean reserves, but it only accounts for around .6% of the total oceans area. This means that 99.4% of the ocean is fishable. This is why marine populations are declining. Fishing vessels have little or no restrictions on where and when they can fish. Making ocean reserves has been proven very effective in places, like the Bahamas, and could work to help the salmon populations recovery as well.

Genetically modified salmon (rear) vs. natural salmon (front)

Another claim that Ozersky made was that there is nothing wrong with altering food to make it [the food] grow better. He states “There are no black Angus cows grazing in the wild; they're the product of breeding for size, marbling and fast growth, not unlike the genetically modified salmon.” (Ozersky, 2010) Really, Ozersky is trying to say that there is nothing wrong with genetically modified foods. However, this cannot be considered 100% true. GM crops have been the main issue in many heated arguments in the last few years. Most people consider genetically modifying food not only wrong, but also very dangerous. Their effects are not yet fully known but many predict negative consequences. Ozersky has no references or examples (other than Angus beef) to show that nothing is wrong with altering food to make it grow better. His argument is not very strong.

Ozersky also claims that the farmed salmon will not escape and affect any other species. He states “The genetically modified salmon aren't going to jump into the rivers and take over native ecosystems; they're bred inland, in tanks; even if one engineered a Finding Nemo-style escape to the open ocean, it couldn't do anything, since they're all bred to be sterile.” (Ozersky, 2010) The problem with this is that there is not that many inland tanks compared to the amount of open-net cages in the ocean. Ozersky is trying to make the farming of salmon seem a lot more environmentally friendly by presenting a method of aquaculture that is rarely used. Salmon farms that are located in the open ocean have already created huge problems for the salmon. Just one example is the salmon in the Fraser River. Fifty years ago over 100 million salmon travelled up the river, and in recent years less than 1 million travel the distance. (Suzuki, 2010) This is because of all the open-net salmon farms located on the west coast of Canada.

Ozersky seems to have a very anthropocentric viewpoint. He does not recognize the moral standing or intrinsic value of any non-human things. He looks at salmon as only a source of food and for nothing else. In his article he does not talk about any negative impacts of the fish farms. He views it as just another way to get salmon. He says, “it will help stave off a food-scarcity crisis larger than any the world has ever known.” (Ozersky, 2010) In my opinion this statement is definitely not true and has no references or back up statistics. Salmon and most fish are carnivores and therefore eat meat – mostly fish. Fish that are farmed are usually fed fish pellets. It takes 2-5 pounds of fish pellets to produce 1 pound of salmon for human consumption. (Animal Feed Responsible For One-Third Of World’s Fish Catch, 2010) This means that by using aquaculture we are actually adding to the food-scarcity problem and not helping it. Aquaculture is not sustainable at all and will not help solve the problem of declining fish populations and lack of food. Simply, the only way that fish populations will bounce back is if we stop killing them.

In Josh Ozersky’s article called “How I Learned to Love Farmed Fish”, he expresses his opinion on aquaculture and the effects it may have. In my opinion Ozersky does a very poor job at delivering his argument. He does not use any references and few, if any, statistics. Many of his claims seem to be created by himself, in fact much of what he says seems to be opposite to the truth. Ozersky’s article does not show the true effects of aquaculture and it is a poor representation of the issue at hand.

Peter Dickson

References

"Animal Feed Responsible For One-Third Of World’s Fish Catch - Science News - RedOrbit." RedOrbit – Science, Space, Technology, Health News and Information. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1594702/animal_feed_responsible_for_onethird_of_worlds_fish_catch/

By. "How I Learned to Love Farmed Salmon - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2015134,00.html

Clover, Charles. The End of the Line: How Overfishing Is Changing the World and What We Eat. New York: New, 2006. Print.

Suzuki, By David. "David Suzuki: With Fraser River Sockeye Salmon, Seeing Red Is Cause for Cautious Celebration | Vancouver, Canada | Straight.com." Home | Straight.com. Web. 10 Nov. 2010. http://www.straight.com/article-344924/vancouver/david-suzuki-fraser-river-sockeye-salmon-seeing-red-cause-cautious-celebration

Is a healthy questioning of climate change really immoral?

When making an argument, it is important to have solid, factual evidence in order to back up your position. It is not enough to rely only on emotional appeal to convince your audience; sound, logical claims are the basis of an effective argument. While a potential reader’s interest may be grabbed by a headline making a bold (and sometimes over the top) statement, in the end if that claim is not backed up factually

by the author of the article then they have misinformed the reader. In a perfect world, that is the exact opposite of what an author aims to do.

In a recent article by Greg Hardwick on the Australian Eco News Online website entitled “Denying Climate Change: it’s a question of morality” (13 Dec. 2009) he starts by making several bold claims. Now before I begin to pick apart Hardwick’s article, bear in mind that it is written to an audience that has established global warming and climate change as completely concrete facts. For example, Hardwick uses terms like “having buried one’s head in the sand [regarding climate change]” (Hardwick 2009) or being a “climate denier” for those who do not agree with his opinion entirely. Personally, I believe in doing all we can to curb climate change and global warming, but there are still facts that we still do not know. There is still some room for questioning but on the same token, when it comes to the environment, we must not let that get in the way of making a change in our habits. It seems to me that Hardwick is communicating to the reader that if he or she does not agree with his somewhat radical stance with the fervour that he does then they should be smacked with the label of “climate denier”.

Another problem I have with this article is that the author expresses his opinion mainly through other people’s quotes. While quoting someone is often a great tool to use to get your point across, too much of a good thing can definitely be a bad thing. Hardwick quotes and paraphrases 11 different people over the course of the article, composing more than three-quarters of the article’s volume! If it weren’t for the strongly worded title, and the main underlying theme we would hardly know where the author himself stood. There are few, if any, statements that the author makes that are not part of a quote or paraphrase from one of the many people he quotes.

However, Hardwick does quote some people who bring up good points. He states that we, as a population, “clearly refuse to recognize the implications of that knowledge [of climate change]” (Hardwick 2009). While it is true that political, social and personal inaction will lead to grave implications down the road, I find it interesting that Hardwick says nothing about steps that have already been taken and little about a future course of action. This is sort of understandable, given Hardwick’s emphasis on “blame-shifting” throughout the article. He explains blame shifting as “...a form of moral disengagement whereby people disavow their responsibility for the problem or the solution... it is reflected in narratives such as ‘it’s not my fault because my country is small’ and ‘my carbon footprint is smaller than others’ ” (Hardwick 2009). I agree with the author that blame shifting is a major roadblock to real action being taken. It is very difficult for effective climate legislation to be passed, because in most major governments around the world, politicians often make decisions that will ensure they stay in power. You only need to pay a little bit of attention to political news to realize that many policy-makers are skilled at shifting responsibility until their term is up. On the other hand, those who do make meaningful legislation combatting climate change may often have backlash for spending too much taxpayer money (among other reasons) and could have the bills overturned by future governments.

Hardwick brings up an interesting comparison later on in the article. He quotes someone who compares global warming to the financial crisis, but on a larger scale. He states that action will probably not be taken until the (climate change) crisis is fully upon us, at which point we’ll be forced into damage control mode. It is then that we’ll realize, when it’s too late, that we should have taken preventative measures. Hardwick claims that this will come only after denial and aggressive opposition, and that we should instead view climate change as a moral issue rather than a political or economic one. However, after emphasizing the problem and lamenting over it to a degree for nearly the whole article, Hardwick fails to present a concrete solution. Neither does he make a suggestion to the reader as to what he or she can do to effect their part in reducing climate change. Hardwick also does not elaborate that much on why denying, or at least questioning, climate change is a moral issue throughout the article.

Another weakness I find with this article is that as a side-effect of Hardwick quoting so many people, he neglects to offer much scientific evidence. This flies in the face of what he says near he end of the article, “...those who understand and trust the science must unite...for climate change mitigation” (Hardwick 2009). This poses a problem for someone who may not know much about climate change reading the article. Since this hypothetical reader does not have a factual background on climate change he or she may just assume that Hardwick is just appealing to emotion. This may lead to thinking that the factual basis for climate change is weaker than it is due to an emotional appeal without the sufficient facts to back it up.

However, emotional appeal does have a place in an argument when backed up by fact, as a motivator for change. Hardwick constructed a somewhat decent argument, but it was, by no means, very solid either. His constant quoting of others made it so that he could not flesh out a single idea in depth in a convincing way. This was the case with his idea in the attention-grabbing headline about why climate change is an issue of morality. As a reader, the headline definitely got my attention, but I felt the author did not deliver because he focused too much on the denial of climate change and not enough on the morality of the issue. Hardwick brought up a few good points and problems in his article, but did not focus on a workable solution that would help to remedy the climate change problem we all face.

References

Hardwick, Greg. "Denying climate change: it’s a question of morality." Eco online: environmental news, features and opinion from the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia. N.p., 13 Dec. 2009. Web. 10 Nov. 2010.