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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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