Blog #13

In the “Endgame” by Michael Grunwald it is a political nightmare for the Everglades, Florida and all those involved in politics. 

               When conservationists want to save the Everglades but the federal government wants to put a major airport at the edge of these Everglades, the political war began.  At the time vice president Al Gore refused to “take a stand.”  He stated that he would seek a balanced solution in which the environment would not be harmed and the economy would be helped.  During the political war of finding a balance between saving the Everglades by having taxpayers spending $8 billion or allowing the major airport to be built on the edge of the Everglades, Gore wasn’t convinced that the airport was the main problem. 

                Every political race and every politician raises the promise of a greater and healthier environment.  When the “issue” begins the politicians will gladly place the environment on the back burner for issues that are felt to be of more importance. 

                Florida state officials, economic interests and tribes fought to reduce the CERP’s importance on nature.  However, once again, they all came together to encourage a restoration plan for the Everglades.  During the Clinton administration, January 16, 2001, the announcement was to reject the airport.  The Everglades were once again saved from possible ruin. 

                Grunwald stated, “The twentieth century had been an era of mess-making; the twenty-first century could be a time to clean up the messes.” 

                Yes, the Everglades were saved time and time again through a maze of political warfare.  Will the next political wave of politicians bring environmental issues to the table?  If so, what will they feel is more important and place our earth’s environment off to the side to be reviewed yet again at a later date?

Blog #12

                “Love It or Lose It:  The Coming Biophilia Revolution” written by David W. Orr has a quote, “Compared with earlier cultures, our distinction lies in the fact that technology now allows us to move much further toward total domination of nature than ever before.”  Today we have iPods, cell phones, extreme video games, and we live in areas encrusted in freeways, shopping centers and condensed urban or suburban settings.  The only thing nature is used for is to tastefully decorate the surrounding areas.  Each day that passes more and more sophisticated technology becomes available.  Could the world survive without it?  Could the people be happy is the question?

                E. O. Wilson has described the word “biophilia” as “the urge to affiliate with other forms of life.”  The people of our earth have become attached to materials and not to nature.  Biophobia is what an individual feels when they are requiring all the things they want to be changed into mass consumption.   Our world and the individuals who live here have easily become biophobia because we have technology that allows us to have almost total power over nature.  

                Can the people of our earth become attached to nature again?  Interestingly, Stephen Jay Gould believes we have to in order to save our species and the environment.  Our people need to think of how we are using our supplies and how we use our earth.  Orr suggests if we were loved our nature more we would have more parks and less shopping centers, more small farms and less agri-businesses, more small towns and less large cities, more bicycle trails and less freeways, more readers and less tv watchers, more wilderness and less landfills, and more wildlife and less pets.    

Blog #11

Aldo Leopold wrote “There is as yet no ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it,” in The Land Ethic, an excerpt from A Sand County Almanac.  We have ethics in philosophical terms, however little is thought of extending it to ecological.  Our community includes the soils, the waters, the plants, the animal, and the land.  Most of the land takes on the characteristics of the people who have lived on it.  If we were to extend our ethics to land it wouldn’t prevent the changes, the managing, or the use of the resources found, however, it would ensure the continued existence of all that lived.  Wouldn’t you think everyone in the world would want to ensure life of our earth?

Leopold wrote, “The combined evidence of history and ecology seems to support one general deduction: the less violent the man-made changes, the greater the probability of successful readjustment in the pyramid.”  As I look around the area I have lived for 12 years I see the changes that has been made to the land.  There are new homes, apartments, stores, new roads, bridges and parking areas.  All the development has taken our soils, waters, plants and animals and displaced them.  Will the plants regrow when the buildings and cement are over the soil?  Will animals have anything to eat while there is no grass around?

For people to make a conscience effort to preserve the land, it will preserve our future of the earth. 

Blog #10

          In the 60 Minutes piece, “Re-Writing the Science” James Hansen has spoken up and spoken out.  James Hansen was the leading researcher on global warming as the head of NASA’s top Institution for 30 years.  He states that the White House does not want us to know the seriousness of the climate changes.  Hansen’s research finds that within 10 years if the people don’t do something to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, global warming will begin to rise above 1 degree Celsius and become unstoppable.  The fact that a leading researcher has spoken this and then states the White House is changing documentation as to the real facts is a scary prospect. 

During the Bush administration it was found that President Bush pulled out of the global treaty with revealing a lot of misleading information despite all the findings from James Hansen.   Hansen became disturbed and spoke out at a talk with the University of Iowa.  This resulted in NASA restricting his interviews. 

The climate reports, including “Our Changing Climate”, that were co-written with Rick Piltz, have been turned in to the White House Administration and have been edited to sound less threatening.  A large amount of changes have been written in by the Chief of Staff.  The edits he made were made into the final copy.  It is felt there is a political agenda for this to be happening.   Piltz felt that anyone who disagreed did not have a place and soon left his position. 

The White House is spending billions of dollars in researching climate controls but Hansen feels that research is great, but action is much more important. 

If the White House is aware of the research findings from respected researchers it is a wonder why more has not been done?  Why are the facts, that are written in black and white being edited to be less of an issue?  What does this mean for the future of climate control if the White House Administration is not being forthcoming with the issues presented for our world?

Blog #9

Global Dimming – This is the reduction in the amount of sunlight that is reaching the Earth’s surface.  In the serious of short videos by NOVA, called “Dimming the Sun”, this conclusion has been reached that we are experiencing Global Dimming.  During research between the 1950’s and 1990’s it was found that the level of solar energy that reached Earth dropped 9% in Antarctica, 10% in the USA, 16% in the British Isles, and a whopping 30% in parts of Russia.  This is a serious and troubling problem.  While billions of dollars is being spent on the research of why the sun is dimming, the people must take action because researches feel that in less of a decade there will be no turning back the negative impacts emissions are creating in our world.  According to the researchers anything we do to create energy generates pollution in our world.  The cars we use, the energy we create, the products we use all create pollution.  INDOX spend $25 billion dollars to determine if this is pollution is behind the global dimming.  They compared the northern and southern parts of the Maltese Islands.  Results confirmed these findings. 

3 million years ago temperatures rose due to the natural gasses that were created and the oceans rose 25 feet above what we see it today.  50 billion years ago the temperature was 13 degrees F. higher than it is today and life struggled to survive.  Plant life withered and dried up, agriculture was gone, drought was common and all this brought the famine.  Life would be a struggle and totally unlike anything we have to experience today.  If we can’t reverse the emissions that we create within the next decade we will be beyond help.  We must keep our temperature from rising the 1 degree.  If the oceans rose as they did before, Florida and Louisiana would disappear, and on the other side, the Amazon rainforest would be dry.  Is this what we really want to happen?  Global Dimming isn’t just a thought or a hypothesis, this is the real deal. 

Blog # 8

The article “As The World Burns, written by Ryan Lizza on October 11, 2010 for the New Yorker, was an eye opener.   Politics is a complex thing, however, add climate change to the mix and you have an issue that just doesn’t seem to have an easy answer for anyone.  Interestingly, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman all got together with environmentalists and industries to support a bill that would make environmentally sound sources of energy instead of the massive amounts of carbon consumption that is currently being done.

  Unfortunately, as easy as that sounded to put together a group of people with the same goals, the ultimate goal of passing a bill wasn’t.  Back and forth, back and forth it went.  The politicians couldn’t pass any important changes without gaining permission from the largest commercial interests who will be affected by the possible changes.  Politicians tried to develop a workable plan to slow down the emission of gases that is warming our earth, however, others were not happy to lose or to pay more for the opportunity to help change the emissions.  They would go on and on to attempt to come to an agreement for all involved.  Politics came in because it wasn’t going to be a good seller at election time, whereas the health care issue and taxes would be considered number 1.  When the possibility of a bill would come to light, there was always a new issue that would take precedent and yet again it would be pushed away. 

Gloomily, when Americans were asked to rank the importance of 21 issues, climate change came in last.  Ultimately, even with the backing of the President of the United States for the change in emissions, the economic interests always took over.  So, where does this really leave the issue of climate changes that are desperately needed for our earth?  Sadly, it seems like it is a continuous battle of wars to even come to the smallest agreement so it will take a massive shake up to get things moving in a quicker motion.