Each of you has been assigned a specific question from the chapter to correlate with the question below. Make sure that you place the number of your assigned question at the top of your response so I know what angle you are coming from.
How do the concepts presented in your assigned question relate to our national viewpoint on ecosystem capital usage? What does this show us about where we are at as a society? Are we making positive preogress?
Responses are due no later than 11:59 p.m. this Sunday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I was assigned question number two out of the review questions for chapter eleven. My question asked: Under what conditions will a natural area receive protection? In answer to this question, a natural area will receive protection when human interaction will threaten to destroy and develop a given habitat. One example of this is development of wetlands. Scientist estimate that it would cost over one hundred thousand dollars to duplicate the water purification and fish propagation capacity provided by a single acre of natural tidal wetland. However some producers (and consumers) believe that it is more important to drain, re-fill, and convert the land into homes. Because this is a natural area, it would be protected, as developing this land would obviously be detrimental to the wetland and its inhabitants.
This question relates strongly to our national viewpoint on ecosystem capital usage. Most Americans (who could easily afford the cost) would happily buy a vacation home even if they knew it was developed at the expense of a wetland. I think this shows us that as a society, were not making positive progress, we’re regressing. General populations need to realize that continuing to develop land on important habitats will lead to less biodiversity by damaging and destroying important ecosystems.
My question was question 9, "Deesrcibe some of the findings of the most recent FAO Global Forest Resources Assesment. In particular, what roles do forests play in climate change?"
Some key things that I did find in the FRA report was that the rate of deforestation has slightly decreased. This doesn't mean we are actually conserving natural resources, because this report is much more accurate than ones in the past, meaning that several acres of forests were left uncounted. Not to mention, 10% of the world's forests are protected by law as national parks.
I did discover that forests play a key role in climate change. Since trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and disperse it into the soil, they are advantageous to keep around.
However, this still hasn't changed are national viewpoint on ecosystem capital with forests. We are not making positive progress because although we may not be consuming as many forests, we still are overpopulating the world. This means that CO2 levels can still increase becasue we do not have enough forests to level nout the Carbon emissions we produce as a society.
Overall, deforestation isn't the issue, it is reforestation and overpopulation.
9.) The FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment, as first established in 2000, has allowed scientists to evaluate the condition of forests. With improving technology, 2000’s report suggested that there were 3.86 billion hectares of the world’s surface covered by forest – over 400 million than estimated in 1995 evaluation. With increased accuracy of the technology in addition to an increase of national park designations, this report revealed improvement in the context of forest conservation.
As far as ecosystem capital is concerned, according to FAO’s definition of “deforestation”, logging isn’t necessarily considered deforestation, unless forests aren’t allowed to regenerate. Responsible and sustainable foresting practices allow for healthy management of a biome’s natural resources while still utilizing the resources’ economic value.
Forests are pivotal in the many contexts—including that of climate change. By offsetting negative toxins to improve air quality and providing valuable nutrients for healthy soil that generates native plants as well as serving as a biome for a wide spectrum of biodiverse life forms.
9.) The FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment, as first established in 2000, has allowed scientists to evaluate the condition of forests. With improving technology, 2000’s report suggested that there were 3.86 billion hectares of the world’s surface covered by forest – over 400 million than estimated in 1995 evaluation. With increased accuracy of the technology in addition to an increase of national park designations, this report revealed improvement in the context of forest conservation.
As far as ecosystem capital is concerned, according to FAO’s definition of “deforestation”, logging isn’t necessarily considered deforestation, unless forests aren’t allowed to regenerate. Responsible and sustainable foresting practices allow for healthy management of a biome’s natural resources while still utilizing the resources’ economic value.
Forests are pivotal in the many contexts—including that of climate change. By offsetting negative toxins to improve air quality and providing valuable nutrients for healthy soil that generates native plants as well as serving as a biome for a wide spectrum of biodiverse life forms.
I was assigned Question 3 – Compare the concept of ecosystem capital with that of natural resources. What do the two reveal about values?
In my case, these concepts have a very close relationship to how we view usage of the environment. Although the two terms are similar, they have a large difference in the connotations they carry, which translates itself over to how we perceive them. Yet, in truth, they come from radically different values placed on the environment, and a view of its function in the human world. Here in the US, we tend to prefer the use of natural resources, over that of ecosystem value, as it reflects our view of how the ecosystem is to be used. Here in the US, we see the environment as our God-given right, something that we can use however we see fit. The concept of natural resources fits into this, as it implies exploitative usage. It also implies that the ecosystem was simply designed to be used for ourselves and ourselves alone. Ecosystem capital, on the other hand, paints the ecosystem as part of a larger whole. It also implies that the ecosystem itself is not consumed, but we merely harvest the fruits of its labor, and leave the machinery of production alone. Finally, ecosystem capital suggests that the ecosystem has intrinsic value, which is a rebuttal of natural resources, where the environment has value only for human exploitation. Ultimately, the key difference is that ecosystem capital implies that the ecosystem is something to be protected and treasured, while natural resources implies that we should exploit the ecosystem until there is nothing left.
This shows us that as a society, we still have much work to do. For, whenever it comes to a choice between our own needs, or those of the environment, more often than not, we chose our own needs, even though every such conversion results in a net loss in productivity. Unless we change this mindset, then we can never achieve sustainable development. In terms of achieving this, we are moving forward on some fronts, but on many, we still have much work to do. While it is a positive development that people are embracing the green movement, the problem is that the movement is more about image than substance. When it comes to actually meaningful choices, like limiting how much we drive, or building smaller houses, we balk at having too make such a choice. We must change our habits now, for while we still have time, we don't have forever.
19) In today's society, development is a key issue. Many companies want to create developments on previsouly untouched land so that people may live in these areas and so that they can get work. However, they have received various opposition that want to see the land protected from the developing companies. This battle has been raging on for many years, as a rising global population has put out need for more housing. However, those who oppose extra development argue that developers are destroying land that should be protected, and that this conversion to residential area will be very harmful to the entire ecosystem.
Although it seems as if the developers have the upper hand in this war of ideals, there is a way that the opposition can try to stay even; land trusts. A land trust can either be a private NGO (non-governemnt organization) that will accept gifts of land to be protected, or can involve arrangements with the owner of land, who has to give up development rights to the land but is still in possession of that land parcel. Land trusts are becoming more frequent every year as people rush to save land from developers. Trusts are used to preserve natural lands because they can keep the possession of the lands out of the hands of developers that want to convert the land.
Although the land trust sounds like a great way to save our natural environment, it also sends out a frightening message about our modern society. It demonstrates that we want to see more development, no matter the cost to the environment, and will not care if entire areas of land will be converted to residential/industrial districts, thus destroying/mutilating the ecosystem that was once there. In other words, our ecosystem capital use is so unsustainable, but we just don't care because our society "needs" the lumber from forests or materials from other ecosystems. We as a society hardly care about what the impacts of developing are to the natural environment, and this is why progress needs to be made with the land trusts. However, despite a little bit of progress with the Trusts, there is still a long way to go until society realizes that it needs the environment in order to survive.
1)What were the problems in the Pacific halibut fishery and how were they resolved?
The whole story of the Pacific Halibut Fishing Industry problem showed that people where going to try to obtain these resources no matter what the costs. Even if the fishing season was decreased, people would just fish that much more intensely during the open season. If the Total Allowable Catch was limited, the fishers would compete to the death to get as much of the TAC as possible. The “fishing derby” as it was called, lead to the deaths of crew, loss/destruction of equipment, and damage/destruction vessels because these fishers were going to try to catch anything they could in the limited time even if there was the worst storm imaginable going on. People believe that ecosystem capital is unlimited and/or that it belongs only to them. It is still a competive world, to the point where humans die frequently to provide for themselves and their families. The survival of the fittest philosophy is going strong throughout the world, and that only helps a few instead of all.
As a society, people are still very divided. A good example of this is the number of petitions for tax increases to help pay for schools and the even greater number of opponents to the increases. Most of the population wants to horde everything in for themselves. Then society complains about the homeless, too many programs being cut, and wondering why kids are dong so badly on exams and life in general. For all of society to survive, we must realize that sometimes we have to make sacrifices to help others, which will someday come back to use in a good form. The Pacific Halibut Industry allocated a certain percent of the annual TAC to each vessel based on their size and performance to ensure everyone could catch fish and make a living. Entry was limited and the season was extended to 8 months. Although this would seem like it would possibly limit some incomes, the restrictions actually increased the incomes of the fishers. They could sell their fish for higher prices because the fish were fresh, could go out whenever they wanted (in the best weather), and would lose less gear and lives. I’m sure there were several comments about socialism in terms of partitioning the resources out to everyone in proportional amounts, but look how well it turned out. To cap things off, the fishing stock actually improved, which allowed for an increase in the Total Allowable Catch. Although fish catchers are still monitored closely and very thoroughly regulated, both the fish and the fishers are prospering.
I believe that as a society we are making positive progress….. slowly. It is going to take some time for most of the population to learn that by conserving resources, they will make a huge profit in the long run because the resources will be sustained. Sustainability may seem like an easy thing to understand, but so many people are stuck thinking in the short term market. When society realizes the importance of sustainability AND acts accordingly, then we will really start making positive progress.
15)What two countries are pressuring the IWC to reopen commercial whaling, and what is their rationale for resuming the killing?
Japan and Norway are pressuring the IWC to reopen commercial whaling because both countries consume the whale meat of the minke whale. Japan tried to be sneeky by telling the commission that they needed th whale for scientific purposes. They also ensured the IWC that the whale population was so numorous that it could support sustained exploitation. Japanese vessels, however, have killed hundreds of whales of other species.
The question used the ecosystem capital usage of the minke whale to express national viewpoints. Both Japan and Norway found nothing wrong with the exploitation of the resource of whale meat, other countries however strongly dissagreed saying that it is wrong to kill such a large and unique mammal. If the population of whales is sustained at a high level then there is no reason those countries can't catch and consume that whale. Apparently some countries aren't taking advantage of the ecosystem capital of whales, but on the other hand income is made for whale watching tours. As far as whaling I would say that the US has progressed as far as it will go only because the majority of the population most likely wouldn't purchase or consume whale meat despite how abundant it is. For other countries, who would consume whale meat, they should be allowed to hunt the whale species of abundance and increase their ecosystem capital usage.
QUESTION 4: Compare and contrast the terms conservation and preservation.
Conservation is the idea of managing and regulating the amount of natural resource use so it does not exceed the capacity of the species or ecosystem to renew itself. Conservation creates the ability of sustainable practices, although it is usually not carried out this way.
Preservation, on the other hand, is zero use of a resource, regardless of how much humans may gain from its use. For example, a second growth forest can be conserved, by cutting down trees but only at a rate that allows the forest to recover. An old growth forest must be preserved and not cut down at all.
Conservation and preservation are directly related to ecosystem capital usage. For a very long time, humans were governed by the idea that they could use all that the land had to offer, and it wasn’t until situations like that of Easter Island where people used the land’s resources until there was nothing left that people discovered they must begin to live sustainably. Despite the fact that natural resources WILL run out if they are not used right, many people have yet to fully realize that. This is why thousands of acres of irreplaceable rainforests are being cut down every day. Humans would rather completely fill their desire for something now, instead of using less and keeping the environment healthy, while also creating the opportunity for resources to be left over for the future.
In general, I think the national viewpoint on ecosystem capital usage is that it is there for “the taking.” For example, millions of people wanted to begin off shore drilling for oil in Alaska, even there it was proven that there was hardly any oil there, and that drilling for the oil would be EXTREMELY harmful to the environment. The majority of the time that we have the opportunity to choose between our needs and the needs of the environment, we choose our own needs. Although as a society we have taken baby steps towards protecting the environment, like making old growth forests into national parks, there is still a lot of work to do. Although a large amount of people are embracing the “Green” movement, resources are still being totally exploited for a nation’s own gain.
12.) Having access to fish is a large part of many people's diets, cultures, and lifestyle
(fish account for 15% of total human protein consumption). Fisheries from all over spend long periods of time out at sea catching immense amounts of fish to help supply the large demand.
Fisheries provide the employment for at least 200 million people, and restrictions on where these people fished used to be almost nonexistent. Before the mid-1970s, there was only a 12-mile limit against fishing off the coast. However, we have made drastic improvements, as the limits were extended to 200 miles offshore by the Magnuson Act of 1976.
This definitely shows an improvement in how we use our fish resources and reflects our society in a positive way. By seeing the measures taken, you are able to see that when such a problem might arise, we will do our best to try and solve it. Although we didn't accomplish solving global warming, this small step is just one of the many that can be taken in hopes of reaching sustainability.
13)The objective of the Magnuson Act was to place the jurisdiction of fisheries in international waters in the hands of specific countries. Because of this, some fishing areas were able to recover, but unfortunately other nationally based fishing fleets moved in to take advantage of fisheries. Though this Act was progressive for its time (1970s) it did not do enough to protect the fish. As a society, it shows that while some are trying to make a difference, corporations are still all about money. Nationalized fishing companies saw an opportunity, and they did not hesitate to take it. The United States is a capitalist nation, so businesses have a kill or be killed attitude, even if it means damaging a valuable ecosystem. The Sustainable Fisheries Act took the Magnuson Act and made it stronger by making it illegal to overfish any areas. It states that “depleted fish stocks must be rebuilt and maintained at biologically sustainable levels.” So far, it has been very successful. This shows that people are starting to understand the importance of balance and sustainability. The act is definitely a huge step in the right direction. Since companies will do whatever they can to make money, it is very important to set boundaries.
I had question 10 from chapter 11. Even-aged managment is when trees of about the same age are managed until they are ready to be harvested, then cut down and new trees are planted in their place. Uneven-aged management is when trees of differnent ages are planted until they are ready to be harvested but the trees do not need to be replanted because the trees that are already there provide seeds. Some principles of the sustainable forestry Initiative are: 1. sustainable forestry which is when you manage reforestation, growing, nurturing and harvesting of trees for the conservation of soil, air and water quality. 2. responsible practices which is to promote sustainable forestry practices that are environmentally and economically responsible. and 3. continuous improvement which is to continue to improve the practice of forest management and monitor, measure and report the performance of the association's members in achieving their commitment to sustainable forestry. This shows us that people are taking the initiative to protect the resources we have now so that we can continue to have them in the future. It demonstrates the fact that many people are being responsible human beings and taking care of what little resources we have and keeping them available but at the same time being environmentally and economically freindly.
Question #12
The depletion of fisheries is a global problem that can only be solved on a global scale. Across the world, countries have applied the same fishing policies with little regard for the likely results. Fishing is pursued at full efficiency and speed until supplies of valuable fish drop below sustainable levels. Then, like on Georges Bank, fishers switch to exploiting the less valuable species. Finally, the fishing industry and government will realize the crisis in fish levels that they have created and slap on a "band-aid" solution, such as cutting the fishing fleet in half for a handful of years. When fish levels have risen again, things will inevitably shift back. There have been signs of progress, such as the original Magnuson Act and the more recent Sustainable Fisheries Act. In general, each step in the right direction is taken globally, not nationally. There are exceptions - the IQ system of the Pacific Halibut fishery is a sustainable approach applied by part of the U.S. that has not caught on worldwide. But because overfishing is such a large scale problem, all progress made must be made the world over.
14.) Fishing, and fish are a huge people's lives, and 15% of people use it for their main source of protein.
Due to this large demand, fisheries all around the world spend an emense amount of time out to see. Fisheries provide the employment for at least 200 million people, and restrictions on where these people fished used to be almost nonexistent. Before the mid-1970s, there was only a 12-mile limit against fishing off the coast. However, we have made drastic improvements, as the limits were extended to 200 miles offshore by the Magnuson Act of 1976.
This definitely shows an improvement in how we use our fish resources and reflects our society in a positive way. By seeing the measures taken, you are able to see that when such a problem might arise, we will do our best to try and solve it. Although we didn't accomplish solving global warming, this small step is just one of the many that can be taken in hopes of reaching sustainability.
Question #3 Compare the concepts of ecosystem capital with that of natural resources. What do the two reveal about values?
Ecosystem capital and natural resources are closely related but very different too. Natural resources are the goods that nature gives us and that can be exploited and ecosystem capital are the goods that nature gives us that some beleive every human should have access too for survival. What these things have to do with values is sometimes people will exploit the ecosystem capitial which is turned into natural resources when whoever takes advantage of it. So it is the values of the person either they gain from the evironment or the evironment is just here for our use.
So in our capitalist society we have work to do. Profit comes before many things including the enviroment. We need to think for the future of our environment or else we might destroy it.
I was assigned question #2- Under what conditions will a natural area receive protection?
The answer to this question is very simple, but it also reflects large municipal problems relating to how we use our resources. First, most natural areas are viewed purely for their economic value. How can it help us improve society or production? Well this has got to stop because we are eating away our ecosystem capital and very few things are stopping such a thing from happening. Only if a land contains endangered species or a vital ecosystem (which is seldom protected anymore.) Almost no attention is given to lands otherwise, which leads much of the U.S. government and it's citizens for that matter, to believe that we can destroy natural areas until they reach critical numbers, then restore them again. We are wrong. This is not a feasible plan for two reasons. 1.) It encourages companies and countries to do this, thus setting a precedent of environmental unsustainability 2.) It is harmful for the environment and can take years to replenish.
Overall, this shows what a hole what have dug ourselves in terms of sustainability and wildlife protection. Valuing natural areas only for their market value, and not for the sake of biodiversity, survival, etc. is going to make it harder for our future generations to fix, which is not equity by amy means. Society is not making progress towards sustainability and until people smarten up about how and what they buy, and it's impact we will continue to struggle and watch our planet do downhill.
6) Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is the highest possible rate of use that a system can match with its own rate of replacement or maintenance. Or in laymens terms, the amount an ecosystem or land can produce and be used while still keeping at a sustainable rate and level. Some factors that may complicate the application of the MSY are issues like pollution, overpopulation, and expliotation of resources.
MSY relates to our national viewpoint of capital usage in that obviously we can only use so much to keep the environment at a sustainable rate. Though it seems many people forget about this often. As with fossil fuels for example, it takes millions of years to create them, yet we are using them up at an unbeatable rate, extremely exceeding the maximum sustainable yield. Yet we have also created many laws and regulations to stay in relations with the MSY of our resources. For example, the logging industry here in the northwest is limited by the MSY in how much they can harvest, the location, and whether or not to replant the land.If we want to be truly sustainable though, we should always stay within the maximum sustainable yield when dealing with any resource.
Post a Comment