TREES OF LIFE:FORESTS IN PERIL
  • home
  • Blog
  • About The Book
    • Bookstore
    • Press
  • The Author
  • Videos
  • Contact

February 28th, 2020

2/28/2020

0 Comments

 
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS III
 
Reviewing recent discussions on environmental ethics has been an eye opener and has encouraged the need to expand the public’s understanding of key environmental issues. We need to spend some time discussing sustainability and climate change.
In 1993 Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Prime Minister of Norway, held a Conference on Biological Diversity which was strongly influenced by a United Nations document entitled, “Our Common Future”. The report focused on the increasing amount of evidence that planetary systems required for life on Earth were under strain. The major issue raised was whether it is equitable to sacrifice options for the future to support current lifestyles, especially for the rich counties and sometimes lavish lifestyles of the wealthy. Bryan Norton suggested, the world faces a global challenge to see whether different human groups, with widely varying perspectives, can accept responsibility to maintain a non-declining set of opportunities based on possible use of the environment. He went on to state, “the future ought not have to face, as a result of our actions today, a seriously reduced range of options and choices, as they try to adapt to the environment that they face”. These discussions lead to the concept of what is sustainable development?       
The Brundtland Report defined “sustainable development”, as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Current sustainability in forest management is defined as a sustainable flow of goods and services from the forests, with no consideration for the elements forests provide that support 80% of all living creatures on Earth. With such a large percentage of life dependent upon forests, and the continuation of deforestation with population expansion, sustainability must focus on the health and diversity of the remaining forest cover. We must consider the concept of “needs”, particularly the essential needs of the world’s poor, and understand the limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment and its ability to provide for today and the future! In other words, our efforts to define acceptable sustainable development must consider the entire world population. It is unacceptable to focus necessary changes only on those whose life-styles are already demanding more than their share of environmental capital. The report also suggests, “the industrial world has already used up much of the Earth’s ecological capital”. Inequality and development problems are major issues we face worldwide. This information demands significant changes in the management goals for our remaining forested lands! The report states, “maximum sustainability can only be defined after considering the system-wide effects of exploitation on ecological capital”. It is no longer acceptable to manage forest communities for a sustainable flow of products from the forests. We must now focus on sustainability of our remaining forests and their health and diversity.
The warnings of environmental problems have become even more pessimistic with further studies. New data on increasing human population and its impact on humanity; particularly on the poorest people, loss of biodiversity, scarcity of fresh water, overconsumption of resources and climate change; has elevated our environmental concerns! When we discuss sustainable development, what exactly are we attempting to sustain? Are we to focus on the flow of goods and services for world markets that must be maintained, or is it current or some future level of consumption? How is climate change related to sustainability? What are the established facts about climate change?
Over the past 650,000 years, Earth has experienced 7 glacial advancements and retreats, the last one occurring 11,700 years ago. Data suggests we are still experiencing a retreat of the past ice-age, however current warming is occurring at a rate which is ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. From 1880 to present, the average temperature of the earth’s surface has increased by 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit, with most of the change occurring in the last 35 years. Since 1969 the ocean’s surface water temperatures have warmed by 4 degrees Fahrenheit, resulting in an 8-inch rise in sea-levels in the last decade. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the acidity of the surface ocean waters has increased by 30%. The warming of ocean water has a direct impact on the severity and frequency of storms that form over the water.
We live in a greenhouse like environment caused by the greenhouse gases that surround our planet. Concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbon and water vapor, prevent heat from escaping from the surface of Earth.  From 1750 to present, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased by 96% and NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency)  reports an increase of 43% from 1990 to 2018. By far, the most important anthropogenic gas is carbon dioxide which is responsible for 81% of the increased warming effect. NOAA reported in 2018, we released worldwide 37 billion tons of carbon dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere in that one year. Yes, the climate is changing and 160 years of weather data confirms the facts presented here, and documents the need for us to make significant changes in our life-styles if we want to provide for the needs of future generations!

The facts are clear, global warming and climate change are real, and we must recognize that deforestation plays a critical role in both issues. Forests provide shade that keeps the surface of planet Earth cool, slows and redirects wind and is the largest storehouse of carbon dioxide. The most important anthropogenic gas is carbon dioxide which is responsible for 81% of the warming effect. We have destroyed over half of the forest cover that once existed on Earth, and are deforesting the equivalent of 22 soccer fields every minute worldwide. Forests are the major storehouse of carbon dioxide where it is converted to sugar for plant growth and through photosynthesis, oxygen is released back into the atmosphere.
It is true that a small part of the changes which are occurring, are the result of natural Earth systems, but it is apparent that population growth, the industrial revolution over the past 200 years, and deforestation have significantly accelerated the destruction of our natural world. The question is; are we willing to find solutions that will prolong life on Earth, or will we ignore the facts, continue our over-consumption of Earth’s resources and allow our future generations to suffer with the limited carry-capacity of Mother Earth? The problem is not lack of facts, but rather lack of courage to make the required adjustments!               
         

0 Comments

February 07th, 2020

2/7/2020

0 Comments

 
 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS II
 
Australian philosopher, Richard Routley, suggested in 1973, that anthropocentrism, which he called “the dominate western view”, was in effect “human chauvinism”. This view, he argued, is just another form of class chauvinism. He went on to recognize that natural things have intrinsic value and require respect. Holms Rolston III in 1975, argued that the deliberate destruction of a species would show disrespect for the very biological processes which make possible the emergence of individual living things. In 1972, Christopher Stone professor of law, proposed that trees and other natural objects should have at least the same standing in law as corporations. Stone reasoned that if trees, forests and mountains could be given standing in law, they could be represented in their own right in the courts.  The late 1970’s focused the attention of philosophers and political theorists firmly on the environment. Environmental ethics was providing a deeper understanding of the natural world and the human dependency we have on this world. These new debates raise serious questions about the adequacy of the management principles of “preservation” and “conservation”. Neither system is capable of meeting the human demands for the future! Earth is crying out for help from the dominant species!
Feminist theories began to influence environmental ethics and concerns about the natural world in the mid-1970’s. Susan Collins in 1974, argued that male-dominated culture or patriarchy is supported by four interlocking pillars: sexism, racism, class exploitation and ecological destruction. In 1989,Ynestra King suggested human exploitation of nature may be seen as a manifestation and extension of the oppression of women, as it is the result of associating nature with the female. Feminism theory argues that the “logic of domination”, dictates that those on the superior side (men, humans and rational beings) are normally entitled to dominate and utilize those on the inferior side (women, irrational thinkers and non-human species). It has been suggested that the projection of domination requires the suppression of our own human nature. We must replace domination with stewardship! Some have argued that a flourishing human life requires the moral capacities to value, love, respect and care for the non-human natural world as an end in itself.
Despite the variety of positions in environmental ethics developed over the last thirty years, environmentalists have focused mainly on issues concerning wilderness and the reasons for its preservation. Concerns over humanity’s requirements from our natural world demand much boarder considerations. Will designating a few acres as Wilderness provide any real value to future generations? The first 65 years of management of the national forest system lands, by the Forest Service, focused on Gifford Pinchot definition of forestry, “growing trees as crops”. The late 1950’s early 60’s saw a rise in several environmental preservation groups, which initiated pressure on the U.S. Forest Service to set aside areas where timber harvesting and road access would not be allowed. The Agency’s long history of supporting timber industry, created a lack of trust by many within the preservation community, thereby resulting in elevating the issue to the political arena. This resulted in the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the start of a nationwide effort to identify and designate 447 areas (36,106,078 acres) of national forest system lands as “Wilderness”. A discussion of the value and need to preserve Wilderness raises a number of concerns; does the experience of wilderness change or enhance people’s valuations of nature and the natural world, is a wilderness experience available to most people or only the more affluent, what impact does mass human access to the wilderness have on these areas, does aesthetic appreciation for nature truly enrich or re-enchant human life and what results will the  aging of these areas have on the ability to provide the life sustaining elements required for the future. Hugh Stretton in 1976, argues the enjoyment of wilderness by “natural aristocrats” and more generally the life styles of many people in the affluent countries, seems implicated in the destruction and pollution which has provoked the environmental problems in the first place. Others believe just knowing wilderness areas exist provides an aesthetic peace of mind about the natural world. Is this simply a means of feeling good about and justifying our alienation from the natural world due to industrialization and urbanization? 
What does all this mean as we search for a desirable future for humanity? An expanding worldwide population and more affluent life-styles for people in developing countries will stress Earth’s ability to provide food, shelter and energy. More tillable acres of land will be required, thereby requiring continued deforestation. The ability of our remaining natural world to supply the life-sustaining elements, only it can provide, will reach its limits. When will this happen? Possibly sooner then we expect!
Next time; Environmental ethics – Sustainability and Climate Change               
0 Comments

    Archives

    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.