Conflicting self vs. collective interest

Last week's ENR 2300 assignment required students to calculate their ecological footprint using and determine how their everyday decisions contribute toward the ecological impact that they have on the planet. There were some great essays where students wrote about their dilemma when it comes to self vs. collective interests. Sharing two of the exemplary essays.

Essay 1:  

Today, with a world heavily dependent on humans making sure their carbon footprint is reduced to a minimum in order to keep our planet in decent shape for future generations to come, the issue of self vs collective interest comes into question. Now some people think that their individual efforts alone are not enough in order to make a difference, but then again if each and everyone of us thought that way then no one would ever do anything to try and change the way our planet is losing it’s resources. It is important to believe that other people are making the same efforts, and that all that manpower combined will really make a difference. There are however limits to how much people are willing to sacrifice in order to become “greener”.  I for one realized that taking a plane back home for a fourteen-hour flight six times a year is a huge contributor to my carbon footprint. Does that mean that I am willing to stop going back and visit my family? Highly unlikely, my mindset will be that if I’m not on that plane someone else will be in my seat. Finding the right balance between those two elements is important though, and giving up some things that might seem unnecessary, like driving somewhere that is in biking or walking distance, recycling, and things of the sort is crucial because interdependence means that we will always need all the resources given to us by our planet, and they are running out faster than we had anticipated. However some external elements that we can’t control also play an important role, like pollution from outside sources. When thinking about other people that do not care about the impact negative actions has on our planet, it makes me realize that maybe I can make some sacrifices to compensate for what they have been lacking. Even though riding a bike somewhere might be inconvenient for me, specially when the temperatures are elevated, I think that taking that extra step proves to others and to myself that I can actually make a difference, and by leading by example maybe I will have convinced other people that they can make a difference too and take us a step closer to saving our planet. 

Essay 2:

Some examples of self and collective interests that conflict in my everyday decisions include: walking or riding a bike over driving to work or school, Carpooling or driving solo, turning off the air conditioning when leaving the house, or turning down the heat when going to sleep on a cold winter night. Some of these were concepts we discussed in class, but the ones most pertinent to my living condition is the riding bike to class over driving and carpooling.

            When balancing self and collective interests, interdependence and self efficacy go hand in hand. Then again, so does the issue of free riders. I believe sustainability will occur with less self efficacy and more interdependence. Working together for the common goal of making our limited resources sustainable is the only way we will see change.

 Currently the existing infrastructure makes it easier on free riders than in other countries to thrive; continue the cycle. I live with my brother, whom society calls a free rider. This directly influences my thoughts on how to address the free rider issue because I know how hard it is for some people to stand in the light of self efficacy. Addressing this issue is as complex as the current infrastructure.

Balancing self and collective issues requires the infrastructure to look at society as a whole rather than by class; and change the perspective on free riders and interdependence from a negative view to people that can influence the externalities just as much as the people at the top of the system. Externalities was a topic in my microeconomics class and according to dictionary.com, an externality is the impact of a decision or purchase by one party on others who did not have a say or whose interests were not considered in the decision. From my economics class, we learned that these externalities can be positive or negative. Pollution is an example of a negative externality. A positive example stated on dictionary.com includes purchasing a smart car or hybrid which in turn increases demand for mechanics that know the new technology, thus improving the situation for other owners of the same model.

According to footprintnetwork.org, if everybody lived like I do, we would need about 5 worlds to sustain the population. That’s just the basic information also, not the more detailed report. This influences the way I think when shopping for groceries, or shopping for a house later on in life. i.e; location for my house or style it will be, closer to the stores versus out in the country where I can grow my own produce, fish, and hunt for my meat products.

In conclusion, as the ocean fishers are faced with issues of over fishing or feeding their families, everybody is faced with similar issues in everyday decisions. This is especially depicted in the ecological footprint simulation we did as a part of the research. We are all faced with the decisions of self interest and the conflict of collective and environmental interests. It will take many people understanding the impact of limiting our individual behaviors, actions, and decisions in purchases on collective and environmental benefits.

The Battle of the Wolves

Post by Crystina Bakus

First off, this topic really excites me. Since I am studying in the environmental field, this is a huge environmental topic that is most often brought up in any ENR class. I have always had an interest and desire to understand the misconception of wolves, and why we hate them so much. So in my spare time, I read articles, books, and watch documentaries on wolves, not just in Yellowstone, but all around the world. The reintroduction of wolves into national parks isn’t that much of an issue. After all, we have already reintroduced them.

Wolves are known for being a keystone specie, meaning without them, ecological downfall could occur in the food web. But now as I follow the events leading up after their reintroduction years ago, I see that the problem isn’t whether the environment can handle the wolves, but the humans. The ranchers have their own responsibility to keep their cattle fat and happy, in order to make big bucks to keep the business going, and their families fed. However, that’s exactly what the wolves are trying to do for their own family! They are doing the same as the ranchers; just trying to feed mouths and not just survive but thrive! Even though we live different lifestyles, I believe that wolves and humans have more similarities than we think.

For instance, I have just recently finished a book called The Custer Wolf by Roger A. Caras. In this book gives insight to the American Renegade: a wolf that tried to live by humans. The book is focused more on the wolf, how they learn, grow, their values, morals, and thoughts on the humans. It also accounts for the unusual slaughters that wolves seem to be doing. In one night the Custer Wolf killed almost 40 sheep in one night. None of them were eaten; they were just purely slaughtered for no apparent reason. However, I think that the wolf did have a purpose; it is a battle for territory. Wolves mark their areas by urine markers, tree markings, and howling. To the wolf, this is more than enough to keep the man out from his rangeland. However, men don’t care because legally they have to ownership to that property and thus go in and out of it as they please. Plus, we humans don't use urine and vocals to communicate our language; we prefer guns and bait. To the wolf this is a sign of disrespect and a challenge when men enter their clearly marked spot. Therefore I think that all these countless murders on rancher’s livestock have more to do than there is not enough food to go around. These attacks still happen today, not for the meat, but for the kill. I think that there is a giant missing link between wolves and humans. If we were to study, educate ranchers and everyone that the wolves cannot simply speak English, or take their case to court; we could learn to live together, instead of at each other’s throats. If we could put more energy towards attempting to understand the highly developed mind of the wolf then we could find a way to safely, and beneficially communicate what we want and what they want.  I think it is our responsibility as the more evolved species to try and communicate, coexist, and even learn from another worthy animal.

This book also mentions how incredibly intelligent the wolf is. For years, hundreds of men, professional trackers, and hunters came to kill the Custer Wolf and claim his pelt as well as his high bounty. However, for years, he learned, watched, and evaded the human race, while still living under his nose and taking what he wanted from him. The book mentions how a man once saw the Custer Wolf playing with a glass bottle for a long period of time, trying to figure out how the bottle stood up. For hours this wolf batted and moved the bottle in his mouth and paws until he finally managed to make the bottle stand up correctly. I think this is incredible. The fact that an animal can identify a foreign object, and not just pass by it, but figure out how it works is amazing. A bottle seems like nothing, but to a completely wild animal, this is a significant story that shows the wolf is capable of much more intelligence than previously thought. What right do we as fellow specie, have to keep the wolves out of their own habitat? Is it our ecological responsibility to judge whether an animal is good or bad for an environment? Especially an animal that is so highly intelligent? One who has the ability to feel love, pain, regret, and loss? Just like us? Wolves have families, mates for life, a great memory; they value things just like we do. I do not think that just because we have the ability to shoot them, means that we have too. I think it is time that we humans learn to coexist with nature, instead of always trying to fix it.

Ohio bill would curb fertilizer runoff

Sarah Tebbe shares a news article pertaining to agricultural runoff. That fits very well with the discussions in the past about structural fixes (regulatory) to some of today's wicked problems. The article is about a senate bill that is no silver bullet solution, but in the long run this little sacrifice the Ag members make to apply for fertilizer, will in turn be a positive benefit for the collective interest. 

It is in direct light of reducing the amount if harmful algal blooms that are seen in our Great Lakes and Grand Lake St. Mary's. This could also be considered an externality as well as a structural fix. We may not be aware of the negative outcomes from this new bill on the farmers economy, but as for the environmental issue, the runoff and stormwater issue has become more pressing issue demanding community efforts and cooperation to find a solution or set of solutions.

Link to the complete article: http://www.agprofessional.com

Overpopulation

Crystina Bakus share her insights from an article she recently read on one of the menacing global problems-- Overpopulation.

I chose this article specifically because of how serious an issue overpopulation is. The world is already over 7 billion people, yet all around the world we still have the problem of food, shelter, clean water and energy to sustain the population. This article breaks down several points such as air quality, water quality, food, shelter, and the rights that people have to live.

In the food paragraph, the article states that one billion people, one out of every seven people alive, go to bed hungry. To me this is astonishing. I have never been so poor that I had to go to bed without a meal. I am very fortunate enough to be able to eat when I am hungry. I can’t imagine living in conditions where you don’t know if you are going to be able to eat, let alone what quality the food is. I wonder if people in developed countries such as the USA or the UK had this problem, how the world would be different. If we would have already ended the world food crisis if people in higher power felt the same affects as the less fortunate. Another shocking fact that the article states is that every day, 25,000 people die of malnutrition and hunger-related diseases; and that almost 18,000 of them are children under 5 years old. This is scary to think about. I know that we have food insecurities, wondering about GMO’s, and where our food comes from, how we are pushing for organic foods, but the fact that there are still people today in our modern world that suffer from malnutrition and hunger diseases is sad. We should be able to take care of our own species.

Another global problem is water shortages. Without water we can’t even have food to stop the world hunger crisis. The article said that about one billion people lack access to sufficient water for consumption, agriculture and sanitation. This is frightening. I understand how people in lesser developed countries could have problems with getting water to towns, but one would think that with all our inventions, and ability to purify water, and transport it in so many ways, we could offer help to the rest of the world and solve the water crisis, before it is too late and wars begin to happen. Along with fresh drinking water, the world’s ocean water is also having problems. We are straining our Oceans' ability to breed the fish we eat, to sequester carbon, and to replenish the air. Now even some of the fish people didn't consider suitable for eating, are too rare to fish commercially or recreationally.

Another area that the article talked about was the world’s topsoil. Since my specialization is soil sustainability this interested me. The article talks about how the earth's topsoil is becoming limited. Topsoil is now limited to only a few inches below the ground, much less than what it was before. This limits the amount of nutrients; water movement and proper aeration that is required for most large scale farming. With this depletion of natural minerals in the soil, farmers have had to add pesticides, herbicides, and many different fertilizers in order to meet the required bushels per acre. Even factors such as water, air and mechanical erosion affect the topsoil loss and nutrient depletion.

This article brings up a lot of issues that the world is facing today. These problems are not just affecting one country; they are everywhere, in every city, town, and community. Before we decide to add a couple more million, or billion of people to the world, the world should really try and work together to try and make the world a more secure, and healthy place where everyone can be self-sustaining, and not go to bed hungry.

Article reference: http://www.howmany.org/environmental_and_social_ills.php

The Great Barrier Reef

Crystina Bakus, an Environmental Science major in ENR 2300 shares her experience from her study abroad program in Australia in 2012. Her post is along the lines with ongoing discussion in class on global fishing scenario and its impact.

I studied abroad with OSU last Summer 2012. We spent a large portion of our course work on the Great Barrier Reef. I learned a lot about how fragile the ocean is, and how hard it is to try and contain all the factors that can affect it negatively.

As we talked in class, overfishing is a huge problem on the reef.Increasing demand for food fish and tourism curios has resulted in over fishing of not only deep-water commercial fish, but key reef species as well. Overfishing of certain species near coral reefs can easily affect the reef's ecological balance and biodiversity.

Along with the overfishing, and as said in the video we watched in class, there are many destructive fishing methods.Fishing with dynamite, cyanide and other methods that break up the fragile coral reef are highly unsustainable.

One thing that people don’t think about in terms of environmentalism is environmental tourism. Tourism generates vast amounts of income for host countries. Physical damage to the coral reefs can occur through contact from careless swimmers, divers, and poorly placed boat anchors. Hotels and resorts may also discharge untreated sewage and wastewater into the ocean, polluting the water and encouraging the growth of algae, which competes with corals for space on the reef. 

Another outlier is coastal development.The growth of coastal cities and towns generates a range of threats to nearby coral reefs. Sensitive habitats can be destroyed or disturbed by dredging activities to make deep-water channels or marinas, and through the dumping of waste materials.

One of the big environmental issues is obviously, pollution.Coral reefs need clean water to thrive. From litter to waste oil, pollution is damaging reefs worldwide. Pollution from human activities inland can damage coral reefs when transported by rivers into coastal waters. Do your bit - do not drop litter or dispose of unwanted items on beaches, in the sea, or near storm drains.

Another thing that people don’t think about that affects the reefs health and ecosystem is the global aquarium trade.It is estimated that nearly 2 million people worldwide keep marine aquariums. The great majority of marine aquaria are stocked with species caught from the wild.

Coral Bleaching is also a huge problem that is caused by so many human interactions and environmental issues.Coral bleaching occurs when the symbiosis between corals and their symbiotic zooxanthellae breaks down, resulting in the loss of the symbionts and a rapid whitening of the coral host Mass coral bleaching generally happens when temperatures around coral reefs exceed 1oC above an area's historical norm for four or more weeks.

Along with global warming, rising sea levels are an issue.Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased even at depths of 3000m. With this increase in rising sea levels, the sunlight cannot reach the coral, which need to perform photosynthesis.

Along with pollution, ocean acidification was also a huge topic to talk about in Australia. The rising pH levelswill have negative consequences, primarily for oceanic calcifying organisms such as coral reefs. With this rise in pH, crustaceans can’t produce hard shells; coral reefs cannot support themselves and provide shelter and homes for the marine life.

Coral Disease is also a huge issue that not many people are aware of.During the last 10 years, most diseases occur in response to the onset of bacteria, fungi, and viruses. In Australia at the Sea Turtle Hospital, the main disease they were concerned about is currently Fibropapilloma, which is a herpes-like virus. This disease is caused by pollution in the water.

Also, things like invasive species, and strong predators like the crown of thorns starfish are causing a huge problem in the food web.The Crown of Thorns Starfish is a voracious coral reef predator. Populations of the COTs have increased since the 1970s and large outbreaks of starfish can occur wiping out huge tracks of coral reef. I remember in Australia this was a huge issue, because not many other animals can, or are willing to consume the crown of thorns starfish. This is a specific example of a disruption in the food chain and ecology of the whole reef.

            The Great Barrier Reef is a prime wicked example. There is not one way to fix the reef’s problems, because there is not just one factor that is causing the decline of the reef’s health. The issue of global warming, which gives problems to rising sea levels, bleaching and other things discussed above, isn’t caused just by the country’s problems. It’s a global issue that is directly affecting a specifically fragile environment. Although it is not Australia that caused the decline in the reef’s health, their country has taken a huge initiative to save one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Australia as a country takes pride in it’s natural beauty and have made many laws and regulations in order to try and sustain the reef. These include specific zoning between law scale fisheries, local fisheries, tribal rights for the Aboriginals, the tourism industry, and public fishing. Australia’s government even funds extensive research in order to collect as much data as possible to try and find out what they can do for the whole of the reef. No system is perfect, but I think that the United States, and the whole world could learn from Australia’s concentration in trying to become a sustainable country, and take responsibility for something that isn’t necessarily their fault.

Article link: http://www.icriforum.org/about-coral-reefs/status-and-threat-coral-reefs