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 Saturday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
My review question was # 19: How do land trusts work, and what roles do they play in preserving natural lands?
First off, a land trust is where land is purchased and held by various private organizations specifically for the purpose of protecting the region's natural environment and the biota that inhabit it.
Land trusts are beginning to be a vital link in the preservation of ecosystems. Since land trusts are not in the hands of the government, it cannot be misused in a way that does not preserve the land being "protected." If the public is working to protect the land, then the public will be able to ensure that is stays protected. Land trusts show that people want to make an effort to decrease deforestation and habitat degradation, granted it is a small amount of effort, it is still there. I wouldn't necessarily say that we are making positive progress, but we are definitely lessening the negative spiral that we have gone into. As you said in class, we're still going to hit the tree, it just depends on where and how hard.
My review question was #8: When are restoration effeorts needed? Describe efforts underway to restore the everglades
You can pretty much tell when a restoration effort is needed in an ecosystem by seeing that the soils have been disturbed, pollutants have acumulated onto the land, and because important species have disapeared because and exotic species have taken dominance. These factors cause in change in the enviroment and take a long time to reverse, and alot of time and effort to decontaminate.
Today the largest restoration project underway is in the Florida Everglades, and the CERP (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) is speding 7.8 billion dollars half being funded by the State of Florida, will expect to take up to 36 yers to restore. The evergaldes are a network of wetlands and landscapes and are now reducing to half the original size draining, while containing endangered and thretened species, and is home to 16 wildlife refuges and four national parks.
Like i said before restoration is a long procces and takes double the time to restore than create the problem.
My review question was # 15:What 2 countries are pressuring the IWC to reopen comemrcial whaling and what is their rational for resuming the killing.
Firstly, the two countries are Norway and Japan. Norway resumed whaling, citing the county's right to refuse to accpet specific IWC relings. They based their decision on informatin submitted by the Scientfic Committee of the IWC, which judged the minkee population to be nemerous enough to absorb a sustainable exploitation. Japan on the otherhand is harvesting whales for "scientific purposes," though it then ends up in commercial markets as a gourmet meat.
I would say that whaling is a classic example of our lust for profit and luxury. We don't need to harvest whale meat. However, because it is thought of as a rare commodity, we are willing to pay lots of money for it because of its exclusivity. We are therefore fueling the distruction of these animals by making it profitable to hunt them. Granted, many contries are starting to become environmentally aware, it's not to the extent to where we can finally curve the loss of ecosystems and biodiversity. Until we are willing to give up the luxury we are used to, will continue on this downward spiral.
I did question 5. Differentiate between consumtive use and productive use. give examples of each.
It helps first define usage into
two categories, consumptive and productive use of a material. Consumptive being we use that material to help sustain ourselves through food, shelter, clothing, and fuel. We directly use those resources to help us function. While the productive use is when we harvest or collect that resource and than sell it for profit on the market, so as to benefit our collective amount of sums. Like for creating products for people to buy for a price higher than what was needed to make it. To me productive use is a new invention by humans as an idea that certain commodities possess value, and with the implimention of money as a widely accepted value, we are allowed to transfer worth by paper. Its wierd to think that what drives us to productive use of materials is a nonexsistant state of mind. We choose to use money as a source of focus, to help stablize our own socities rules. I think it can benefit us so as to have order in our society. Although i think that consumptive use is that of productive use because gaining profit in our society is how we are allowed to obtain our food. In some places people grow their food but here we merely pay for it.
2. Under what conditions will a natural area receive protection?
In the book it states that, a natural area will recieve protection only if the value a society assigns to services provided in its natural state is higher than the value the society assigns to converting it to a more direct human use.
Tidal wetlands provide a number of valueable services, worth more than $100,000 a year for just an acre. Services, such as, water purification and fish propagation are lost when wetlands are converted in to vacation homes. We aren't making very much positive progress because we are more concerned about material things rather than our environment and those natural resources provide so much for our economy. The eight terrestrial and aquatic systems provide all our food, much of our fuel; wood for lumber and paper. I don't think that people understand how important ecosystems really are and how much they contribute to our economy.
My review question was #3: Compare the concept of ecosystem capital with that of natural resources? What do the two reveal about values?
Ecosystem capital is the sum of goods and servies provided by natural and managed ecosystems provided free of charge and essential to human life and well-being. Natural resources are features of nautral ecosystems and species that are of economic value and that may be exploited. Also, features of particular segments of ecosystems, such as air, water, soil and minerals.
The concepts in my assigned question relate to our national viewpoint on ecosystem capital usage because of the values that they hold. Goods and services should be provided free to people because they are neccessary for survival.Even though natural resources are worth lots of money and can be bought and sold they shouldnt be out of reach or contaminated for those who really need them. Our natural resources are very valuable and we cant treat them as if they were nothing. We need to appreciate them, care for them and not take them for granted. This shows that as a society we are not doing our job. Many species are on the verge of extinction and we are not taking care of our natural resources the way we should. We dump whatever we want to get rid of into bodies of water, we log huge patches of forest and dont re-seed, and we throw garbage wherever. I believe that we have ideas that could begin to move us in the right direction but as of now we are too focused on the economy and not making any progress towards a healthy
ecosystem.
Question 19:
Because it is known that the emission of CO2 increases with the reduction of forest, it would be expected that the timber industry would make an effort to slow down, or atleast replant trees to make up for those chopped.
Because there are not constantly international requirements to replant trees, in the long run, this will have detrimental effects on the environment (climate change), unless ways change.
We (society) might not be doin so hot in the future.
-Ian FOx, Period 7 * :) $$$$$
My Question was number five i think, well thats the one I did at least, so here it is...
First for the definitions...The productive and consumptive use of materials. Productive is when we collect/harvest resources and then in turn sell them for a profit as a means of benefiting collective sums. This is like when people create a product and sell it to the consumer for a price that is higher then is actually necessary. While consumptive is us using a material or substance to benefit or sustain one's own person, ex. clothing, shelter, fuel, and food. These resources are used to directly sustain our persons and encourage our continued function. So pretty much with productive use is, is humans saying a certain thing has a certain value so there, all wrapped up in a common currency system, which relies on the standing behind a piece of paper that we believe to be worth something only cause we say it is. We choose to use money as a way of backing our societal beliefs, and create barriers between unnecessary social classes, and to support our twisted fantasy of being better then our neighbors. However wrong it may be though, it proves to hold a benefit to us if our society has order. Yeah no we kind of cheated on being productive, we just consume for the most part, we buy and not grow.
I was assigned question #17: Contrast the different levels of ecosystem protection given to the different categories of federal lands in the United States.
The two most protected lands in the United States are that of National Parks and Forests. Regarding the National Parks, the intent is to protect areas of great scenic or unique ecological significance, protect important wildlife species, and provide public access for recreation and other uses. This conservation proves progressive as it outlaws harvesting and industry action, however, the appeal to tourism it obtains can be detrimental to the protection. Often times habitat destruction occurs due to the large use of motor vehicles within the parks. The national forests, on the other hand, face a different problem. Their primary goal was to use the forest through a combination of extraction of the resources, recreation use, and the protection of watersheds and wildlife. However, the output has exceeded the input and the extractive uses are being exploited. Regardless of the tribulations that have occurred, the protection of the natural wildlife is indeed a progressive act. It is important that we do what we can to preserve it while it is still thriving.
Ok, I don't remember my number, I only wrote the question, but that's probably easier anyway.
"what is deforestation, and what factors are primarily responsible for deforestation of the tropics? Describe some encouraging trends in forest management in the devloping countries"
Deforestation by definition: The cutting down and removal of all or most of the trees in a forested area.
on the topic of what is responsible for the deforestation in the tropics, there are quite a few things.
a) tropics have many diverse species which have shown much instrumental value in medicine and culture.
b) in the tropical areas, often, soil quality is low (by nature or bad farming technique) - so forests are cleared to provide new land for farming with new soil.
c) placement takes a large part in it, you obviously play with the hand you are dealt. typically, rainforests are thick/lush/and abundant - use 'em right?
encouraging trends in forest management include: acknowledgement and protection of endangered species, better farming methods (cycling of crops, etc.), and the increased occurence and relevancy of conventions (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity, or CBD) and organizations (e.g Forest Stewardship Council FSC, or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative SFI).
This question relates perfectly to the national viewpoint on ecosystem capital usage: mine is about deforestation. Deforestation is blind and careless clearing of forests for anything from malls to agricultural lands. From this, one can assume that society is thinking in the now and not in the future. Why? Because, as much as anyone might enjoy a new mall - the generations after who will be experiencing devestating effects from the lack of forests (greenhouse effects principally) might prefer some trees. In short, I don't think we are making positive progress at all, awareness is finally starting to seep into people's heads - but this is only because they are experiencing first hand the problems that sprout from their mistakes. This all essentially leaves modern scientists and those of us enlightened enough to know the difference as "cassandras" so to speak - predicting the somewhat evadable, only to be disbelieved.
My review question was #18: Describe the progression of the management of our national forests during the last half century. What are two current issues, and how are they being resolved?
Following World War II there was a rapid rise in timber sales to meet the housing boom. In the 1970s, a drop in sales reflected the rise in environmental concern. After increased logging through the years of Reagan and Bush's presidency (1981-1993), a steep drop resulted from the beginning of Clinton's administration and a renewed environmental concern. Recently National Forest Services have seen a growth in forests that have exceeded harvests in both private and national forests which show that the forests are being managed sustainably.
During Clinton's administration, Mike Dombeck, Chief of the Forest Service declared a halt in the building of new logging roads because it contributed to the destruction of forests and streams. Many members of Congress objected to action and believed that this would halt timber harvests.
Due to forest fires that set new records between the years 2000 and 2002, the Bush administration announced a "Healthy Forests Initiative". This was used to prevent future fires by reducing "fuel load". It gave logging companies incentives to thin fire prone forests. Though 99% of the Forest Service thinning projects proceeded without challenge, critics view it as a plan to reward timber companies for their support politically.
Sorry this is late, but I guess its better late than never. My Question was number 4. "Compare and contrast the terms conservation and preservation".
To start off, though both terms sound alike they are different. Conservation of something is to manage or regulate use of it so that we do not exceed the capacity of a species or system's ability to renew its self. The object of preservation on the other hand is to ensure continuity of a species or ecosystem regardless of their potential utilities.
I believe that the U.S. and most other nations focus more on conservation rather than preservation. This is not a good thing or a bad thing, but instead I believe it is just easier to conserve something especially if it retains the ability to renew itself. Preservation is more difficult because it often precludes any use of the species or ecosystem. The book gives a good example of the too. "It is impossible to conserve an old growth forest. You can conserve a second growth forest, by cutting down enough trees for profit and use, but leaving enough for the forest to quickly recover itself. It is possible though to preserve an old growth forest though by not cutting down any of the trees at all."
I believe there are certain ecosystems such as the ones in Alaska, Northern Canada, and the Redwood forests of Northern California that should be preserved because they are still pristine. Other ecosystems though such as the oceans have already been affected by humans meaning that we can more easily conserve them and we also depend heavily on them as a source of food and transportation. I think that whatever is still pristine we should try to preserve and everything that we are already using we should try to conserve in sustainable ways. I think that they are both equally important, but that the U.S. and the rest of the world should begin to focus on preservation of healthy ecosystems before they disappear.
My review question was #3: Compare the concept of ecosystem capital with that of natural resources. What do the two reveal about values?
This question relates to our national viewpoint on ecosystem capital usage because our ecosystem capital directy correlates to natural resources. According to how much of our natural resources we can exploit, this determines our ecosystem capital usage. Today, we aren't in good shape in terms of our ecosystem capital usage. As our population grows and grows, the more of our natural resources we exploit. Our planet doesn't have enough resources for us to use. If we want to start having positive progress, we'll have to either stop the great increase in population or limit our usage of resources-- both are really difficult.
Post a Comment