Pale Blue Dot

Although the name of this course is 'Environment and Resource Management', an alternative name could be 'The Art of Preserving the Human Race'. We have looked at the importance of managing resources in such away that is ultimately sustainable for future generations. In the majority of the situations we have looked at, we are currently not practicing sustainable methods, although there is progress being made, albeit slowly. Why can't we get there any quicker?

The average lifestyle of a person in North America lives a pretty good life. Nonetheless, any suggestion that the average joe give up a portion of the good life in order to help future generations is usually met with fierce opposition. Perhaps this is due to a deep-rooted cynicism of authoritative bodies, and the belief that any relinquished portions of hard-earned livelihood will either end up in greedy pockets, or be ineffectual.

Like Joe Friday says: 'Just the facts, ma'am'. The media transmits a tremendous amount of information, but sifting through the opinions, rhetoric, bias, and just plain misinformation for reliable facts is very difficult. Making good choices and actions depends on your ability to discern the facts.

But ultimately, we really don't know what the future holds, because... well, its the future!

In many martial arts, coloured belts (a relatively modern idea, actually) determines rank and skill. Often, the black belt is considered the highest and most coveted rank. In fact, people who reach this level are considered to have really only begun learning! So consider yourselves black belts in environmental stewardship! Have you reached the pinnacle? Hardly, grasshoppers... you've only just begun.

Please feel free to make one last post. Has this course changed the way you view your actions on the environment? Any general thoughts and/or suggestions for the course would be appreciated!

Cheers!
Mr. Holmes

Taking the Lead on Lead

The metal lead is an element. That means that the particles that make up lead are atoms, which cannot be chemically broken apart. It is soft, heavy, and malleable. If you cut a piece, it looks bluish white, but it quickly combines with oxygen in the air to form lead oxide. It doesn't conduct electricity all that well, but it is highly resistant to corrosion, so you can use it as a container for acids. The symbol for lead is Pb, which stands for plumbum, which is the latin name. It used to be used for pipes to carry water, most famously way back in Rome. This explains the origins of words like plumber, and plumb line.

It is also a potent neurotoxin. But that wasn't always known. In the 1920's lead was added to gasoline to reduce engine knocking. Lead was also found in paint. But as the realization that lead was both damaging to the environment, and toxic to humans, it has been almost completely phased out of use in gasolines and paints in North America.

So why then are both the Public and Catholic school boards for the Thames Valley area (that includes Parkhill) now checking the drinking water at all schools for lead? What are the effects of lead on the human body? Should Londoners be concerned about this problem? Who could be affected the most by this? Do some research into this recent problem that has been highlighted in the media of late, and post your findings on your blog!

Odd Guy Out - Introducing New Species

In episode 16, season 6 of the Simpsons, ("Bart vs. Australia"), Bart brings his pet toad to Australia. As the dysfunctional family escapes the grasp of the angry Australians, they happily note the destruction caused by the massively reproducing toad on the Australian ecology (which is quickly followed by a quick view of an ominous koala bear attached to the exterior of the plane).

This is actually a reference to the introduction of the cane toad to Australia. Introducing a new species into an ecosystem that has never seen the likes of its kind can be disasterous. This is because there are often no predators to keep populations in check. Also, the new species can rapidly consume and/or alter the biotic and abiotic resources of the ecosystem if they are suitable.

A closer to home example is the Emerald Ash Borer. In June, 2002, it was discovered in Canton, Michigan. The normal range of the ash borer is eastern Russia and northern China. It is believed the beetle managed to hitch hike its way over on a shipment of contanimated wood. The beetle is so named because it likes to 'bore' into ash trees to lay its eggs, and its emerald in colour. How about that, an animal named for what it looks like!

The beetle has devastated ash trees in Michigan, and recently it has been found in London. The City of London website has hosted a faq that answers many questions you might have about how bad it is, and what they're doing about it.

Research and find 3 other examples of accidentally (or purposely) introduced species in North America that have had a negative effect on the environment. Explain in your blog how they have affected the ecosystem they were introduced to and explain any efforts on the part of humans on how they have attempted to control the introduced species.

What is SFM?

Well, we all know what sustainability is. And we know that forests are one of Canada's most important resources. But the use of forests generally means cutting them down because wood is a commodity, thus proving the old adage wrong that money doesn't grow on trees. In fact, growing trees equals more money.
But trees don't exactly grow fast. And forests have social and economic values besides harvesting wood. And despite the fact that trees are renewable, they can be overharvested. So shouldn't we be careful with how much we cut down? Shouldn't we take steps to ensure that trees are replaced as quickly as possible?

Sustainable Forestry Management, or SFM, is the principle behind just that. Is Canada practicing SFM? According to a recent report (19 July 2005), perhaps not.

This report is written on the topic of SFM in Canada and is an extremely informative article that compares the perspective of SFM from the government and from non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Read through the report, and summarize briefly whether you think Canada is already on track, or whether we need to get in the game.

Mmmmm... genetically modified... /drool

As with many of the topics dealt with in the environmental sciences, people feel very strongly about the topic. Food is definitely at the top of the list (or bottom, if you're Abraham Maslow), and when people start monkeying around with what we eat, well, emotions tend to run a little high.

Combine a natural sense of precaution with a healthy dose of politics, and you have something of a sense of what's going on in Europe. Currently in Europe, if any food contains genetically modified food, it legally must be labelled to let the consumer know (sort of). Its not just a fear of something bad in the food, either. The idea that agriculture is slowly being taken over by faceless corporations is also a fear that has gripped many advocacy groups that are firmly against genetically modified foods, and any advantages they might offer. And now the debate is making its way into Canada slowly but surely.

Books are being written on the subject. Blogs are created solely to bring you the latest news on GMOs. And in Canada, the debate has even hit the courts where Monsanto Canada, Inc. has sued a farmer for collecting and using round-up ready canola seeds.

So what do YOU think? Should we be labelling our food here in Canada to let us, the consumers, know whether our food contains any 'frankenfoods'? State your opinion, and reference your blog with links to a minimum of 4 sites to support your opinion. Discuss at least one specific genetically modified food in your argument.

What can YOU do?

So, we've spent this unit discussing the atmosphere as a resource, and some of the problems associated with our use of it as a dumping ground for our various activities.

The Kyoto protocol is an international agreement towards reducing GHG emissions, but the point was made during the debate that each country's goals are just that: GOALS. Kyoto leaves it up to each country the process by which they meet their goals, whether through actual reduction of GHGs, or through the purchase of emission credits.

But what can WE do? How can we as individuals make an impact on GHG emissions? Although we are each responsible on average for emitting only about 5 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year, can't we reduce this at all?

Research as many ways as possible people can reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by modifying their personal lives. Consider not just your own actions, but the actions of people around you... your friends, relatives, co-workers, and so on.

Ozone Hole Causes Global Warming!?

Waaaaay back in August, 2006 (ok, it wasn't that long ago, but sometimes it seems like a long time ago), David Suzuki himself wrote an article that you can find on enn.com, or you can just click here.

In the article, David (I like to think that if I met Mr. Suzuki, we could be on a first name basis) waxes philosophic on the purpose of focus groups, and in particular, one focus group that investigates how well the public understands global warming and climate change.

So how well do you know climate change? Is your understanding on par, above, or below the average joe? Check it out!

p.s. this is not for a blog entry, but for your own interest.

p.p.s No, Emerson, I'm not going to use the Suzuki picture you'd like me to use.