Monday, March 1, 2010

Researched argument essay RD

Ask any feng shue master, and they'll tell you that the key to living a happy life is all about balance. And really, they're on to something. A good balance in life lets you work enough to be productive and earn money to live, and still have time to use that money to be happy. So, what if we took this idea of balance, and applied it to the environment? No, I'm not talking about the 'I recycle, so I can drive a gas guzzling SUV' mentality. I'm talking about balancing the needs of the environment with the needs and wants of the human population. How on earth is this possible? Well, let's take a look at the subject of deforestation. Every environmentalist working so hard not to be ignored (though they often are) can tell you that cutting down trees is bad. But, the other side of the debate has its own voices. Industries that rely heavily on either the trees themselves, or what's beneath them (be it coal, land for cattle, etc.) will tell you that what they're doing is just fine, since the average person is benefitting from it. So, which side is the average person to take? Well, let's look to that feng shue master, and let's talk about balance. What we need is a good balance between the needs of the environment and the needs and wants of industry and the average person, that counteracts the effects of deforestation while still allowing economic growth and development within the community.

Before even considering any solutions, we have to know about the problem. So people are cutting down trees. What's the big deal? They're just trees, right? Who's going to miss them? Well, I could try to pull at your heartstrings and talk about all of the precious little animals that are using those trees as their home, and how they become homeless (or outright die) if their home is cut down. That may work to persuade some people, and it is true. There is a great deal of species loss associated with deforestation, both plants and animals (Britt). But, I said that I wasn't going to do that. So, let's talk instead about the effects on the soil of the deforested land. Trees, of course, have roots. Roots have the wonderful job of not only drawing nutrients from the soil to feed the tree, but holding soil in place (Butler). Think of straining pasta. The colander represents the roots, and the pasta represents the soil. When you put the pasta in the colander, and run water through, you might get the one piece of spaghetti that escapes into the sink, but for the most part, the pasta stays in place. If you take away the colander, though, you've just lost your dinner. It works the same way in nature. And, of course, once the area has lost its soil, it becomes barren, and much more difficult to do anything with (kind of like your kids who thought they were getting spaghetti for dinner, and end up with takeout because your colander disappeared).

Now, this begs the questions- how much soil is actually lost, and where does it all go? The answer to the first question is rather surprising. According to Rhett A. Butler in his article for mongabay.com, entitled “Erosion and it's Effects”, in Costa Rica, soil erosion accounts for a loss of
“about 860 million tons of valuable topsoil every year”, and that in Madagascar, the loss is even greater (Butler). That's a lot of topsoil! Now, where does it go? Well. It goes wherever the water goes. The runoff water goes into streams and rivers, and can wreak havoc with the fish in the streams, and even hydropower plants using that river for energy (Butler). While in the stream, the soil can cover (and kill) fish eggs and decrease the population, and even form new sandbars and other navigational nightmares in previously navigable waters (Butler).

Now, let's move on to what little soil is actually left in the area. Without the trees to provide shade, the sun gets to beat down on this newly exposed soil, and dry it out (Deforestation). Add to that, the fact that all that water that's running off with a lot of the soil isn't soaking in at all, and you've got two sources of soil aridity (Lavigne). According the the study, “Validation and use of a Semidistributed Hydrological Modeling System to Predict Short Term Effects of a Clear Cutting on a Watershed Hydrological Regime”, there was a significant increase in the amount of runoff, jumping from around 40% to around 63% (Lavigne). Basically, what they did in this study was they took one area and left it alone, and another area, and they clear cut it. Then, they measured the runoff in these two areas, and compared them (Lavigne).

Now, the sun beating down on an area does more than just dry it out. When you go and lay in the sun, you get all warm, right? Well the same thing happens to the deforested land. The thing is, though, that the trees used to regulate the temperature, shading during the day, and keeping heat in at night. Without the trees, it gets really hot during the day. That makes sense. But it also gets really cold at night. The temperature extremes increase, meaning that it gets hotter in the day, and colder at night. Many of the plants and animals in the area had adapted to live in the temperature regulated forest, and can't handle the new habitat. As such, they continue to die out, and contribute the the decrease in biodiversity (Deforestation).

Now, as you can see, deforestation is doing some pretty terrible things to our environment. This, of course, begs the question: If it's so terrible, why is it happening? There are many different reasons why it's happening, far too many to talk about here, but let's talk about a few of the main causes.

The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that most of the deforestation taking place is happening in some of the lowest income areas around the world (Freedman). Coincidence? I think not. The areas that are most affected by deforestation are the areas that don't have much else going for them. They need the wood from the forest for heating and cooking (Freedman). Clear cutting often occurs when looking for expensive hardwoods, like Teak and Mahogany (Freedman). Area is also cleared for cattle and other kinds of agriculture (Freedman). Another main source of deforestation comes from mountaintop removal coal mining. In his book, Lost Mountain, Eric Reece details how a mountainside is completely clear cut, and all of the trees are then burned (Reece). This process not only destroys entire mountainsides, but it releases huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing greatly to global warming (Reece, 33-34). He says, as he looks over the clear cut area on Lost Mountain, that “[t]his mountain has been scalped” (34).

Now that we understand a little better why all of this deforestation is taking place, we can try to find a solution. Here's where that compromise that we touched on earlier comes in. We can, by now I think, agree that something needs to be done with these deforested lands. What makes the most sense would be to reforest them right? We cut down the trees, and it's causing a lot of problems, so let's plant a bunch of trees. It makes sense. Sadly, it's a little more complicated than that. There's a lot that goes into a reforestation project. Simply put, “[r]eforestation is expensive, difficult to plan, and even harder to execute” says Ashley L. Camhi in her commentary on mongabay.com (Camhi). There are many factors that go into the planning of a reforestation project, such as the purpose of the reforested area (Camhi). Will it be used as a carbon sink, to help counteract the effects of global warming (Camhi)? If so, then fast growing, species that pull a great deal of carbon from the atmosphere would be ideal (Camhi). These may not necessarily be native to the area, so that must also be taken into account when planning (Camhi). What about logging? If the area is going to undergo logging, then completely different trees would be planted (Camhi). Then, of course, there is the question of whether or nor genetically altered trees could be used (Camhi).

Sadly, the hard part isn't over once you've decided what trees you're going to plant. You now have to protect the newly planted trees from parasites, weather, and weeds, and continued maintenance has to be provided (Camhi). This can also get pretty expensive. If the proper care is not provided, then the young trees will not survive, and the attempt at reforestation will have failed (Camhi). Another difficulty with any given reforestation project is the possibility that the nearest natural forest could be too far away for cross pollination and recolonization in the reforested area to occur (Toothman).

But, just because it's an expensive and difficult process doesn't mean that it's not possible to turn it into an economically sound investment. There are ways of using the forest in sustainable, yet still profitable ways. There are a couple of different examples of this sort of thing working. Take the Amuesha Indians in Peru- they do what's called “Strip Logging” (Reduced Impact Logging). What they do, is they log a strip of land that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 feet wide (Reduced). When that area is logged, they move on to another location that is far removed from the area just logged, letting that area grow back completely before they touch it again (Reduced). This allows the forest to recover the area before it gets logged again.

Another possibility is the process called “Sustainable Logging” (Sustainable Logging to solve Deforestation). This is practiced in the South Konawe district in Southeast Sulawesi Provence (Sustainable). For those of you like me, who have no sense of geography, this is in Indonesia. This process has actually increased profits from logging going on in the area (Sustainable) Logging in the area was mostly done illegally, and the timber was bringing in a much lower price than it should (Sustainable). A man named Silverius Oscar Unggul took a group of students who had just graduated from college, and went to Indonesia (Sustainable). While there, they learned about how the unemployed were using illegal logging to support their families (Sustainable). They showed them how to do legal, sustainable logging (Sustainable). By planting 10 seedlings for every tree that was cut down, they helped to keep the forest growing strong (Sustainable).But that's not the only thing that grew strong- their profits grew as well. According to Mr. Unggul, “Illegally felled timber fetched Rp 600,000 a cubic meter back then, but eco-labeled logs brought in Rp 6.4 million a cubic meter” (Sustainable). Rp is the abbreviation for Rupiah, which is the currency of Indonesia. So, as you can see, there was a definite increase in the value of their timber.

With practices like sustainable logging and reduced impact logging, it is easy to see how both the interests of the environment, and the needs of humanity can coincide. There is no reason whatsoever to destroy the environment to extract resources from an area, when you can still get the resources you need, while maintaining the health and viability of the environment. All that is needed is a simple compromise between the two needs.

Works Cited

Britt, Dorian. "Environmental effects of deforestation; The facts." Environmental Effects of Deforestation. Google sites. Web. 7 Feb. 2010. .

Butler, Rhett A. "Erosion and its Effects." Mongabay.com. 18 Feb. 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. .

Camhi, Ashley L. "Reforestation: Challenges and Opportunities." Mongabay.com. 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 06 Feb. 2010. .

"Deforestation." National Geographic. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. .

Freedman, Bill. "Deforestation- Causes of Deforestation." Web. 21 Feb. 2010. .

Lavigne, Martin-Pierre, Alain N. Rousseau, Richard Turcotte, Anne-Marie Laroche, Jean-Pierre Fortin, and Jean-Pierre Villeneuve. "Validation and Use of a Semidistributed Hydrological Modeling System to Predict Short-Term Effects of Clear-Cutting on a Watershed Hydrological Regime." Earth Interactions Vol. 8.1 (2004): 1-19. EBSCOhost. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. .

Reece, Eric. Lost Mountain: a year in the vanishing wilderness: radical strip mining and the devastation of Appalachia. New York, New York: Berkley Group, 2006. Print.

"Reduced Impact Logging." Mongabay.com. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. .

"Sustainable logging to solve deforestation." DFID. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. .

Toothman, Jessika. "Can we replant the planet's rainforests?." 23 June 2008. Web. 07 February 2010. HowStuffWorks.com.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Food, Inc. reaction, pgs 183-218

There were a number of differing approaches that each of these authors used in their section. In “Declare your independence,” the author uses a very angry, argumentative tone. You can tell that he's trying to make you angry. Personally, I don't respond well to that type of argument. I feel that when anger is used to convey a message meant to persuade me, I find myself wanting to double check all of their facts, as if their anger makes them less credible. As such, I didn't respond too well to the first selection. Putting aside that angry tone, though, everything the author says is very well laid out, and very persuasive. It's just that tone that I don't like. Along with making me feel like he's less credible, it makes me feel like he's yelling at me, and I don't respond well to being yelled at.

Conversely, the segment entitled “Questions for a farmer” was repetitive and boring. I feel that the repetitiveness of the questions could be handled a different way. I know that you have to ask the same questions, but instead of asking the reader to read through an almost identical answer (which I didn't, by the way), say something like “see answer for question X” and then add in the additional information where needed.

Argument Outline and Works Cited

Outline

Opening paragraph
introduce ideas
Possible thesis: “A balance between industry and the environment has to be found, one that is able to counteract the effects of deforestation, while still providing economic opportunities to the community.”

segue into need for reforestation

Need for reforestation
soil degredation
erosion
biodiversity issues

Economic causes for deforestation
Low income areas
in tropics, wood is used for energy
Search for valuable hardwoods
agriculture (cattle ranching and farming)
Mining

segue into solutions
economic compromises
sustainable forestry
example in Indonesia
Amuesha Indians



Updated Works Cited

Britt, Dorian. "Environmental effects of deforestation; The facts." Environmental Effects of Deforestation. Google sites. Web. 7 Feb. 2010. .

Butler, Rhett A. "Erosion and its Effects." Mongabay.com. 18 Feb. 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. .

Camhi, Ashley L. "Reforestation: Challenges and Opportunities." Mongabay.com. 23 Nov. 2009. Web. 06 Feb. 2010. .

"Deforestation." National Geographic. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. .

Freedman, Bill. "Deforestation- Causes of Deforestation." Web. 21 Feb. 2010. .

Lavigne, Martin-Pierre, Alain N. Rousseau, Richard Turcotte, Anne-Marie Laroche, Jean-Pierre Fortin, and Jean-Pierre Villeneuve. "Validation and Use of a Semidistributed Hydrological Modeling System to Predict Short-Term Effects of Clear-Cutting on a Watershed Hydrological Regime." Earth Interactions Vol. 8.1 (2004): 1-19. EBSCOhost. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. .

"Reduced Impact Logging." Mongabay.com. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. .

Stock, Joslyn. "The Choice: Doomsday or Arbor Day." Deforestation. 1998. 23 May 2007. Web. 7 Feb. 2010.

"Sustainable logging to solve deforestation." DFID. Web. 21 Feb. 2010. .

Toothman, Jessika. "Can we replant the planet's rainforests?." 23 June 2008. Web. 07 February 2010. HowStuffWorks.com.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Food, Inc. Reaction II

In these sections of the book, I learned quite a bit about several different subjects- the ethanol fuel business, the harmful effects of pesticides, the food industry's affects on global warming, and what the average person can do to help against global warming. During this reading, a few things stood out to me.

The first was my surprise at the amount of CO2 emitted by ethanol fuels. When you hear about ethanol in the media, it sounds like this wonder replacement for fossil fuels- it's made from corn, so it's renewable. I was surprised to hear that it takes so much corn to make the fuel that it's not a feasible replacement at all, yet the corn industry has so much political sway that the government keeps funding them. My dad has been saying for years, and I agree, that there needs to be a major change in the way campaigns are funded in the US. If politicians couldn't receive money from any industry, then that would be one way for the government to cut out the donations from private interest groups that keep trying to get certain people elected, thereby keeping sympathetic people in office. I'll get off my soap box now, but this is just one more reason to push for campaign reform.

Another thing that stuck with me was the amount of pesticides that children consume when they're most vulnerable. Reading that section makes me want to grow my kids food myself, just so I know that they're not being exposed to these carcinogens. I've lost two grandparents to cancer, and I'm not about to loose my kids, too. Luckily, that's a long way down the road from now, so I have plenty of time to think about it, but now, one of the main criteria for buying a house will be whether or not there's enough room for a subsistence garden.

This leads right into the final thought that's stuck with me from this reading, and that is establishing a personal garden. For a while, I have been wanting to grow herbs in a window box in my apartment, but I have not had the time to get started. The last section makes me want to head out to Lowe's and get the things I need to start one (curse being snowed in, and on a college budget!). I wish there were more I could grow at this time, but living in an apartment, and having so much of my time taken up by classes and homework, I don't have time to grow anything in the Community Garden here in Athens. But, that doesn't stop me from making plans, and enjoying the harvests from my dad's vegetable garden. I completely agree, by the way, that food from a family garden is the best you'll ever have. Not only did I have the freshest tomatoes ever, but there was a sense of pride (that's not really the right word, but it's the closest I could find... Maybe accomplishment? I'm not sure..) that goes along with eating home grown food. Personally, I can't wait until I can have my own garden.

Researched Argument Essay Assignment stance

There are many opinions about the process and use of reforested land. It is my personal opinion that the land should be returned to its original state as much as possible. As for the use, the most logical and even handed approach that takes into consideration both the extreme environmentalists and the economy of the area would be to allow sustainable logging in these reforested areas. Even aged practices should not be allowed, but selective logging can be sustainable, if it is done correctly. I feel that this approach is the most balanced, and the most achievable, goal to be set for these areas that need to be reforested.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Food, Inc. Reaction

The book, Food, Inc. is proving to be a very interesting, and informative read. Sadly, I have not had a chance to borrow the movie from the library, so instead of comparing the two, I will simply react to the book, and once I have seen the film, I shall edit and compare the two.

My favorite segment so far has been the story about Stonyfield, and Mr. Hirshberg's success in the organic food industry. I found his mission statements to be quite interesting- balancing sustainability with profitability, without sacrificing too much of either. It is an interesting concept that not many people realize. I, myself, did not realize how profitable sustainability could be, at least in his case. His story was an engaging one, though that could be the starving artist's daughter in me feeling for another small business owner who's struggling to make ends meet until he successfully found his niche in the economy. Nevertheless, I found this to be an engaging testimony. First, his ideals about the origin of his food, and then his efforts to make his ideals a reality are commendable. Then, his struggles at the beginning of the organic movement are so conceivable and real that it's difficult to not be inspired by them.

But that's really the whole point of the book, isn't it? To get people to change the way they think about the food that they consume on a daily basis? In that regard, we'll see how much it affects me when I make my next Kroger run. I certainly know that I'll be thinking about where my meat and dairy come from, though I don't know if my budget will allow me to switch over to 100% organic foods. Still, should the opportunity present itself, I would do so in a heartbeat. In that, at least, the book is successful.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Reaction to the film "A forest returns"

This was a very interesting film, and I'm glad that it was screened in class. I had no clue that the Wayne National Forest was created by the government. That's just one more thing we can thank Roosevelt for. It's hard to imagine that this beautiful forest didn't exist seventy years ago. The gentleman who was narrating (sadly, I have forgotten his name, as I am wont to do...) was a very good narrator, since he lived during the time where the forest was being planted. He seemed like a very sweet, interesting old man, and he gave an open, friendly face to the park. After seeing this video, I have the desire to go hiking in the Wayne National Forest again, so you can bet that the first nice day we have that I don't have a lot of homework, I'll be out playing in the woods.

Research prospectus introduction and Works Cited

The issue of deforestation has been debated in environmental circles for quite some time. The debate has ranged across several different topics, including but not limited to: clear cut logging, slash and burn agriculture, acid rain among the causes, climate change, carbon emissions, decreases in biodiversity and mass extinction, and soil aridation and erosion among the effects. The topic of deforestation is so vast, that it would, and has, taken many studies across many disciplines to even begin to scratch the surface of the issue. Therefore, the subjects treated will be the effects, specifically aridation and erosion of the soil, caused by deforestation. The geographic location will be focused in the Americas, though studies from other regions will be discussed as well.

According to NationalGeographic.com and their online article entitled “Deforestation”, the loss of trees and forested areas is a loss of habitat, and this loss of habitat is responsible for species loss. According to this article, “seventy percent of Earth’s land animals and plants live in forests”. This means that the loss of habitat affects seventy percent of land animals. The loss of the trees and other forest greenery do not just provide homes for these animals. They help to regulate the temperature and soil of the area. Once these regulators are gone, the area becomes more arid, and more chaotic in its temperature. This is due to the fact that the shade provided by trees and other forest greenery keeps the sun off of the soil, and keeps it moist. Once the trees are gone, the sun dries out the soil, making it much more arid. The loss of the shade also causes fluctuations in the temperature, since “removing trees deprives the forest of portions of its canopy, which blocks the sun’s rays during the day and holds in heat at night” (Deforestation).

The sun is not the only thing affecting the aridity of the soil. The study discussed in the article “Validation and Use of a Semidistributed Hydrological Modeling System to Predict Short-Term Effects of Clear-Cutting on a Watershed Hydrological Regime” show that there is a significant increase in rainwater runoff in deforested areas. The annual runoff of an area where 71% of the plants and trees have been removed is 63%. The annual runoff for the control (an area that has not undergone deforestation) was 40% (Lavigne, 2004) This means that there was an increase of 23% in the rainwater runoff, meaning that there is now 23% less water remaining in the area.

With all of this runoff, there is, of course, erosion. According to the online article, “Erosion and its Effects” by Rhett A. Butler, when the trees are removed, the roots that held the fertile topsoil in place die out. The soil is then carried away by the rain. This is especially true in areas with heavy rainfall, like the tropics. This means that “Costa Rica loses about 860 million tons of valuable topsoil every year” (Butler, 2009). In other areas, this loss is even greater, such as in Madagascar, which loses about 400 tons per hectare (Butler, 2009).


Works Cited

Butler, Rhett A. "Erosion and its Effects." Mongabay.com. 18 Feb. 2009. Web. 30 Jan. 2010. .

"Deforestation." National Geographic. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. .

Lavigne, Martin-Pierre, Alain N. Rousseau, Richard Turcotte, Anne-Marie Laroche, Jean-Pierre Fortin, and Jean-Pierre Villeneuve. "Validation and Use of a Semidistributed Hydrological Modeling System to Predict Short-Term Effects of Clear-Cutting on a Watershed Hydrological Regime." Earth Interactions Vol. 8.1 (2004): 1-19. EBSCOhost. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. .



*note: The works cited is not yet complete, since one source that I will be consulting is microfiche, and I have not as yet had time to get to the library, so this may be edited and expanded within the next week.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Commentary on David Maywhoor's presentation

Monday's presentation was interesting, to say the least. It is clear that Mr. Maywhoor is accustomed to giving speeches to audiences such as our class. He was clear and concise. All of his information seemed to be credible and backed up by research. I think I would have liked his presentation more, however, if he had gone into more detail than he did. It felt that, while all of his information was credible, there wasn't a whole lot there. Personally, I'd like to know more than what you can fit into the title of an article. Nevertheless, I do at least partly agree with the BFC's stance on some of the issues Mr. Maywhoor touched on- specifically the logging in state forests. I think that perhaps instead of no logging in State Parks, selective logging should be practiced, as a compromise to those who want no logging, and those who would like even more logging. Over all, the speech was interesting, and somewhat informative.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Exploration of paper topic- Deforestation

Deforestation has many causes- slash and burn agriculture, clear cut logging, acid rain, mountain top removal coal mining, to name a few of the more well known causes. Many of these causes have alternate methods that could be used- such as clear cut logging. If the logging industry were more selective about the trees that were cut, and the reforestation work given a greater importance, then there wouldn't be such a problem. However, the clear cut logging is easier and cheaper, and companies are often not willing to do more than the absolute minimum required by the Federal Government.

Deforestation has many ecological side effects. It affects the atmosphere when the trees that have been cut are burned (as in slash and burn agriculture and mountain top removal coal mining), releasing large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. Trees are very efficient at sequestering carbon, so when they are burned, all of the carbon that they have removed from the atmosphere is then released in the smoke. CO2 is one of the many greenhouse gases, so the link between deforestation and global warming is pretty evident. Deforestation also effects the water cycle. Trees play an important role in regulating the flow of water. The roots allow rainfall to sink deeper into the soil, reaching the slow moving water table. If the water does not reach the water table, it will move on the surface, at a much higher speed. This can cause flash flooding and mudslides, along with soil erosion.

Edit: 1-26-2010

Further research into deforestation shows that there are many more sources pertaining to Brazil and the Americas than to any other area. It is logical, then to narrow the focus of my topic to the Americas. I will look at the aridation of the area, and the effects on the quality of the soil. This should give me enough room to work with, but also be specific enough that it shouldn't be too difficult to find relevant sources.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Lost Mountain pgs 162-243

According to Wendell Berry, there is a difference between 'rational' thought, and 'sentimental' thought. Rational thought can be viewed as a completely logical way of thinking where everything has an assigned value. It is the way of thinking that governs our current economy. It is what tells us that in order to receive good grades in school, we must put in the time and effort to learn the material that the teachers are trying to teach us. 'Sentimental' thought is just the opposite. It is the way of thinking that sees more value than just the dollar worth in everything. It is subjective, and value varies according to each person's own world view. It is the the way of thinking that does not need the satisfaction of good grades to study material covered in class. The 'sentimental' way of thinking sees learning itself as the ultimate goal. Reece gives some wonderful examples of this difference as well. An example of the rational mind is mountaintop removal strip mining. The mountain is in the way of getting to the coal. Getting the coal means earning money. Earning money is the ultimate goal. Mountaintop removal strip mining is the fastest way to eliminate the mountain as an obstacle to the ultimate goal. An example of sentimental thought was the compromise between complete wilderness in the mountains, and their use for logging in sustainable ways, hunting in the woods, raising mushrooms, gathering herbs, etc. All of these activities have the potential to earn money. They all fit in with the current economy, but they are also eco-friendly.

“Several hundred feet away, what's left of the summit now stands isolated, like a butte rising suddenly in the Arizona desert. It is almost completely inaccessible, circled by a hundred-foot highwall on three sides. Back here on the eastern bench, I watch the dozers work for a while. It takes a thousand years to build twelve inches of topsoil on these steep slopes. But it will only take the dozer driver a few hours to scrape it all away.” (pg 185-186)

In this quote, an analogy for the entire process of mountaintop removal can be found. This one process (removing the topsoil) can be compared to removing the entire mountain. It has taken an inordinate amount of geological time to create and sculpt these mountains, yet it takes only one single, human year to completely destroy the entire thing. This quote makes me think of the fall of Rome, oddly enough. The saying is true- Rome wasn't built in a day. But take a look at Roman history- it doesn't take all that long for the Romans to make their own civilization come crashing down around them. Frequently, Reece mentions the Mayan people, and their similar fate. Lucky for us that they couldn't actually destroy mountains, isn't it? It makes me wonder what on Earth the next era's people will be saying about this, and how blind we are to the plight of our own planet.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Lost Mountain pgs 85-162

The most striking thing I found in this section of reading was the very last sentence we were asked to read. "It doesn't look like such a harsh way to live, does it?" This was a quote from the ecologist, Richard Olson on the subject of an ecologically sustainable living environment. I have to agree. Given the chance, I would love to live in a place like that, where I knew that I was not harming the environment. This is a very clever way to end the chapter, because it gives the reader a profound emotional response. It makes the reader question, even if only for the time that it takes to turn the page to the next chapter, how simple it would be to live an eco-friendly lifestyle. This sentence has this power because of the placement. When reading, an importance is placed on the first thing that is read, and on the last. If I were to write a list of twenty words, you might remember the first two or three, and the last two or three. the ones in the middle would be forgotten almost as soon as they were read. For an author, this means that the way you start out and end your chapters is even more important than the content found in the middle. That makes this type of ending sentence all the more powerful, all the more effective.

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Lost Mountain response, pgs 1-85

Eric Reece writes a very compelling, and wholly depressing tale of the mountaintop removal mining of Lost Mountain. In his account, you see the monthly changes of this mountain, and the effects this type of mining has on the people living near it. He uses many different arguments to support his view of mountaintop removal mining, all of them delivered in poignant stories told to him by natives of the Appalachian mountains. One of his major arguments is the importance of the old forests that have existed in these mountains since before the glaciers carved out lakes and valleys in the northern parts of North America. According to Reece, these forests are invaluable because they are the most diverse forests found in the United States and North America. The biodiversity of these old growth forests can be compared to that of the Rainforests. There are many species that are on the endangered species list, and many trees that cannot be found elsewhere. When mountaintop removal mining comes through, these forests are cut down, and burned. When the mountain has been leveled and drained of its coal, none of these species are able to come back, and instead foreign grasses are planted because they're the only plants that are able to survive in the wastelands caused by the mountaintop removal.

For me, this kind of abuse of our earth is a crime. Such blatantly harmful and unsustainable methods should never have been made legal. These mountains have existed since far before recorded history. What right does humanity have to destroy them for a temporary source of energy when there are other methods of power available, not to mention the impact this type of mining has on the humans, animals and plants living in the area. This abuse needs to stop, and soon, before the entire mountain range is destroyed.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

This is Reality vs. Amerca's Power

These two sites illustrate the controversy centered around the use of coal to create electricity, and the coal companies' claims of 'Clean Coal'. According to the coal companies, their carbon emissions have been decreased by 77% through the use of 'Clean Coal Technology'. Environmental activists, such as the ones hosting the website thisisreality.org, this technology does not exist, and there is no such thing as clean coal.

This is Reality opens up to show an animated canary flying into a statement about coal, and dying. The color scheme is dark, with white text on a black background. The only other color is the yellow of the canary. To progress further into the site, you either select “click here for more reality” which initiates another animation of a dying canary, with another statement about coal, or you click on the link “The Facts” at the bottom of the page. Should you choose the canary route, each time you click on the 'more reality' link, you get the same animated bird killing itself on these single word statements. This can get rather old, rather quickly. If you choose the “The Facts” link, you get the same list of statements, except in list form. These statements are rather broad, and authoritarian in nature, but simple to understand. These statements, like “Burning coal is the dirtiest way we produce electricity” and “There are roughly 600 coal plants producing electricity in the U.S. Not one of them captures and stores its global warming pollution”, are very straightforward, and easy to understand, but they leave no room for error. They show absolutes. This is a very binary way of thinking. It's all black and white. Either it's clean, or it's not. There is no in between. This site uses a lot of imagery to get the point across. First off, there's the canary. Canaries were used in coal mining to test whether or not shafts were safe for miners. This imagery translates into the 'clean coal' debate quite well, tacitly showing that no coal is safe, not even the supposedly 'clean' coal. The repetition of this theme helps to reinforce the dangers of coal, as per this site. The color scheme is also representative of this danger. The black background makes the site feel dark, and somewhat mysterious, like they're letting us in on a secret. The yellow of the canary and the text feels like the 'caution: wet floor' signs to warn people about dangerous footing, as if to say that 'Clean Coal' is 'dangerous footing' for the environment. The target audience for this site is most likely a younger audience, say college age. They are typically very active in the environmental cause, and are susceptible to this 'shock and awe' type of campaign.

America's Power, however, shows a very different type of format, and a very different view on 'clean coal'. The window opens up to bright colors, set on a white background. The colors are not primary, child-like colors, but more mature feeling. The whole website has a well organized, if busy, feel to it. The overall feeling is 'clean'. There are many links on the front page, taking you to all sorts of pages that all say the same thing- Coal is clean, and powers most of the United States' electrical needs. It stresses the economic benefits of coal, as well as it's abundance in the United States. The site claims that in the United States alone, there is enough coal to last for the next 200 years. A careful look at the organization of the information reveals that the ecological facts about coal are very sparse on the site, and buried down at the bottom of the page. The site also had interviews with people who are involved with coal production from the mine to the plant, talking about their jobs. This was done to give the industry a friendly, human face. It is a lot easier to believe a human face saying facts, than those same facts in a list. This is an attempt at credibility on the part of America's Power. The target audience for this site would be between 50 and 60 years old. They are comfortable using the Internet (for the most part), but are more accustomed to reading out of a newspaper. This site has the definite feel of a newspaper. The sponsor for this site is the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, so they are biased in favor of 'Clean Coal'.

In all, neither of these sources, by themselves would be completely reliable. The shock and awe tactics of This is Reality and lack of actual research presented within the site makes me cautious about trusting them. The site, America's Power, is also not completely reliable because they have a vested, monetary interest in the success of 'Clean Coal'. How can you trust someone to remain objective if they stand to gain from the success of the topic of debate