On Wed, 12 Jul 1995 18:13:30 +0800 Kylie said:
In response to the question "should lawn practice be banned in these
regions?
> Yes and in WA too. It is the same here in West Aust. We have a
> major water shortage here but everywhere you look there are
> lawns, using our precious water. This is mostly to be seen in the
> wealthy areas - just going to show that the wealthy will use
> whatever they like no matter what the cost to others, usually poor
> others. So what has the right wing state government done to
> address the water shortage? They have put up the cost of the first 150 kl
> but not the cost of further kl.
> The effect of class yet again on the environment. (this last comment for
> the person who said that class has nothing to do with the environment or
> feminism).
>
>
> Respectfully,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where I was born and raised you had (and its still the case now) to
buy water to be trucked to your house and poured into your water
tanks (ours used to be corrugated iron but now we've gone up-market
and its concrete now... now that's progress). Anyway, it was $40-$50
a half-tank 12 years ago and now it's over a hundred. My mother's
always had a bore and we used to pump artesian water from
underground to help over the hot summers. The Council (which
consisted of well-off not quite wealthy, land-owners who incidentally
use our precious water to irrigate their crops) actually put a ban on
people putting down bores because they wanted everyone to pay for it.
Of course nobody gave a hoot about them and their laws, for Pete's
sake, we pay to have our shet pumped out of our septic tanks
(everyone's got them on their properties), we don't get mail service,
we don't get our rubbish collected, I don't know why my mother pays
rates. We don't worry about stupid lawns, in the summer they just
died, we didn't waste a precious drop on them. My mother's got a
good vege garden, she waters her veges either early in the morning or
late in the evening, she also recycles the water from the washing
machine and from the bath. When I see people watering lawns
(especially when it's raining... which happens a lot at Lincoln isn't
that right Stefanie?), it makes me cringe. Plant the lot in native
plants (native plants that have evolved to live in that environment,
that is).
Yours,
Nellie
P.S. Kylie's right, class has got a lot to do with how we treat the
environment.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 12 18:44:14 1995
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 20:48:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ecofeminist views on wolf reintroduction
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In trying to formulate an ecofeminist position on wolf reintroduction, I
would suggest we use Karen Warren's analysis of the "logic of domination"
to consider how we humans have already, historically, impacted wolf
populations (and the populations of many other species, particularly the
larger predators) and how the kind of thinking we continue to employ in
Western cultures will allow us to impact them further. Assumptions
that predominate in such cultures: Humans
are absolutely different from all nonhumans, including wolves (dualism);
humans are better, more valuable than nonhumans, and perhaps particularly
better than wolves if wolves are perceived as evil, bloodthirsty
creatures (hierarchy); humans are therefore justified in dominating
wolves, shooting them on sight (or at least certainly if they seem to
threaten, say, human-owned "livestock"), perhaps in wiping them out
altogether (logic of domination).
We humans have already wiped out ninety percent or more of the
populations of large predators such as the wolf and the grizzly from the
continental United States. If our population continues to expand, and our
level of consumption per capita continues unabated (or also expands)--if
we continue to think according to a "logic of domination" and assume that
all human interests must continue to be satisfied at the expense of
nonhuman interests--the last few percent will soon be gone as well.
Thinking about "living within the system" as it is now is a beginning,
maybe, but simply looking at the way things are now, with many ecosystems
and their nonhuman inhabitants down to the very last tatters, is to ignore
the long historical process of the human domination of nonhuman nature
that has already occurred. I think we humans (and of course, within the
human sphere, some human groups more than others) need to start taking
responsibility for this historical domination, and making an effort to
reverse the process. (Our early ancestors may have brought about the
extinction of many of the large mammals of the Pleistocene -- should we
feel "responsible" for that too? Maybe. But those early ancestors
probably weren't aware of themselves as moral agents--WE ARE.) Wolf
reintroduction, consolidation of large areas as grizzly habitat--these
are ways to begin undoing that long history of domination. So are reducing
our own birth rate and drastically moderating our consumptive lifestyles
(again, differentially among different human groups). I think an
ecofeminist position could take a strong stand on this sort of issue by
unpacking the idea of the human "domination of nature" and trying to
visualize what it might mean to undo such domination.
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 12 18:51:23 1995
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 20:55:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronnie Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RACHEL #450: The Big Problems, Pt. 1 [biodiversity] (fwd)
Thought I would forward this for those who have not seen it. The middle
section gives some of the figures about ecosystems that are already
90-99% gone, destroyed by human activities of one sort or another.
Ronnie
----------
Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 18:50:07 -0400
From: Peter Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RACHEL #450: The Big Problems, Pt. 1 [biodiversity]
=======================Electronic Edition========================
.. .
.. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #450 .
.. ---July 13, 1995--- .
.. HEADLINES: .
.. THE BIG PROBLEMS--Part 1 .
.. ========== .
.. Environmental Research Foundation .
.. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
.. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
.. ========== .
.. Subscribe: send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
.. with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It's free. .
.. Back issues available via anonymous ftp from .
.. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com .
=================================================================
THE BIG PROBLEMS--PART 1
As we wobble toward the 21st century, there can be little doubt
that repairing the environment will require effort and sacrifice
from nearly everyone.
The work to be done is substantial. To celebrate earth day this
year, William K. Stevens of the NEW YORK TIMES put together a
summary overview of our situation.[1] Mr. Stevens tried to be
optimistic. He pointed out that industry and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) say that the annual release
of toxic chemicals has been reduced 43% in the past seven years
even as the yearly manufacture of toxic chemicals increased 37%
during the same period.[2] (EPA has no staff assigned to
checking the accuracy of the "toxics release inventory" [TRI]
data that industry reports to EPA each year, so everyone has to
accept industry's 43% claim at face value. Furthermore, these
figures make us ask, where are the increased quantities of toxic
chemicals going if they are no longer being released directly
into air and water? Do they perhaps wind up in products that
eventually go down the drain or into the local dump?)
In any case, there is definite cause for celebration of some big
accomplishments over the past decade or two. Many incinerators
have been successfully opposed; many filthy dumps have been
closed; within the U.S., nuclear power has not experienced the
growth once predicted for it (though overseas is another story);
the air in many cities is cleaner than it used to be; the flow of
sewage and industrial waste into rivers and streams has been
substantially reduced.
But even as Mr. Stevens was trying to maintain an optimistic
spin, bits of gloom crept into his text: Two out of every 5
Americans still live in areas where the air is unhealthful (and,
though Mr. Stevens did not say so, those affected are
disproportionately people of color). Forty percent of the
nation's rivers and lakes are not fit for drinking, fishing or
swimming. Last year, EPA issued more than 1000 warnings against
eating fish in chemically-contaminated waters. (And many states
issued their own warnings, in addition.)
Mr. Stevens went on: Despite reductions in sewage and industrial
waste reaching waterways, "...scientists say that biological
quality [of rivers and streams] has continued to decline anyway
because of farm and urban runoff, destruction of streamside
vegetation, erosion, introduction of exotic species,
straightening of streams, and building of dams." (In other
words, the direct and indirect effects of what we traditionally
call "development.")
"People commonly equate environmental protection with conquering
chemical pollution," Mr. Stevens wrote. 'They say we've put a lot
of time and resources into reducing pollution and everything's
O.K.,' said Dr. James R. Karr, an aquatic ecologist who heads the
University of Washington Institute for Environmental Studies in
Seattle. But when the actual state of aquatic biology is added
to the assessment equation, he said, it 'doubles the proportion
of waters that are in violation of water quality standards.' In
other words, he said, 'the situation is not getting better.'"
Mr. Stevens went on: "As a result, freshwater fish and
invertebrates face particularly serious perils, and 362 species
of freshwater fishes have been extinguished or are endangered as
a result of human activity, said a broad group of scientists who
met at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City
recently to assess the dangers to biological diversity," Mr.
Stevens wrote.
"The fate of the American landscape and waters and the creatures
who live there is perhaps the biggest domestic environmental
problem on which the nation is not yet getting a good grip, a
number of experts say," according to Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Stevens then describes a recent report titled ENDANGERED
ECOSYSTEMS OF THE UNITED STATES: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF LOSS
AND DEGRADATION, available from the National Biological Service
(NBS), a research organization within the federal Department of
Interior. We obtained the report over the Internet,[3] and its
conclusions are stunning:
** 81 percent of the nation's fish communities have been harmed
by human actions, while 98 percent of the streams in the lower 48
states are degraded to the point they can't qualify as wild or
scenic rivers.
** 90 percent of its ancient or "old-growth" forests have been
lost.
** 95-98 percent of the virgin forests in the lower 48 states had
been destroyed by 1990; 99 percent of the virgin Eastern
deciduous forests have been eliminated.
** In the Northeast, 97 percent of Connecticut's coastline is
developed; 95 percent of Maryland's natural barrier island
beaches are gone; and almost all of Ohio's bottomland hardwood
forests are gone.
** In the South, 99.99 percent of Kentucky's native prairies have
disappeared; 98 percent of the Southeast coastal plain's longleaf
pine forests are gone; and 88 percent of southwest Florida's
slash pine forests have been eliminated.
** In the Midwest and Great Plains, 90 percent of the tallgrass
prairie has disappeared, as has virtually all of the prairie in
Michigan and Ohio, 72 percent of Minnesota's northern hardwood
forests, and 86 percent of Minnesota's red and white pine forests.
** In the West, 99 percent of California's native grassland is
gone, as are up to 90 percent of western Montana's old growth
forests and low-elevation grasslands; half of Colorado's wetlands
and 90 percent of Hawaii's dry forests and grasslands are gone.[4]
The NBS report was prepared by Reed Noss of the University of
Idaho's Department of Fish and Wildlife, the late Edward LaRoe
III of NBS, and J. Michael Scott, working with NBS's Idaho
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of
Idaho.
An ecosystem is a community of species in a specific area. An
ecosystem can range from a very large territory defined by
specialized plants, such as hardwood forests or sagebrush, to a
much smaller area defined by varied plant and animal life, such
as a fen or wetland.
"Loss of biodiversity is real," the authors said, adding that the
general public is aware of damage to tropical forests but less
familiar with losses of woodlands, swamps, and grasslands.
Regionally, 58 of the troubled environments were in the
Southeast, 37 were in the Northeast, 23 in the Midwest and Great
Plains, 11 in the Northern Rockies, 10 in the Southwest, 17 in
California, and two in Hawaii. "The extent to which various
ecosystems have declined in the United States --despite
uncertainties and unevenness in the data --portrays a striking
picture of endangerment," the NBS report says.
"Our results indicate that more biodiversity has been lost than
is generally recognized in environmental-policy debates. A
continually expanding list of endangered species seems inevitable
unless trends of habitat destruction are reversed soon through a
national commitment to ecosystem protection and restoration," the
report says.
Rutgers University biology professor David Ehrenfeld has a
different take on it. A national commitment to ecosystem
protection will be necessary, he says, but not sufficient. "The
ultimate success of our efforts to stop ruining nature will
depend on a revision of the way we use the world in our everyday
living when we are not thinking about conservation. If we have
to conserve the earth in spite of ourselves, we will not be able
to do it," he says.[5] The destructive changing of nature
ceases, he says, "when people who are not actively trying to save
the world play and work in a way that is compatible with the
existence of the other native species of the region. When that
happens--and it happens more than we may think --the presence of
people and the changes they bring may enhance the species
richness of the area, rather than exert the negative effect that
is more familiar to us," he says.
An alternative, Mr. Ehrenfeld says, "is a transformation of the
dream of progress from one of overweening hubris, love of
quantity and consumption, waste, and the idiot's goal of
perpetual growth to one of honesty, resilience, appreciation of
beauty and scale, and stability --based in part on the inventive
imitation of nature. We have already had examples of what this
alternative can be like: the CHINAMPAS, or swamp gardens, that
were the glory of pre-Columbian Mexican farming and which might
again sustain the Mexican people; the city of Florence in the
Renaissance and the city of Toronto before the building boom of
the 1970s and 1980s; the hedgerows of post-Elizabethan England;
old Jerusalem and the terraces of the Judean hills; and the
ingenious multicrop gardens of tropical west Africa, to name a
few. The changes that people inevitably work on the earth do not
have to be destructive ones."[5]
"If this alternative way of living grows and prospers, I doubt
that it will do so by some master plan or protocol," Mr.
Ehrenfeld says. "Instead, it will be advanced by countless people
working separately and in small groups, sharing only a common
dream of life. They will tend to be flexible, inventive, and
pragmatic, and most will have practical skills--carpentry, the
building of windmills and small bridges, the design and repair of
engines and computers, the recognition and care of soils, the
ability to teach.... They will devote their first energies to the
places where they live. They will come to authority not by
violence but by their evident ability to replace a crumbling
system with something better. And they will share an awe for a
power nobler and larger than themselves, be it God, nature, or
human history."[5]
--Peter Montague
===============
[1] William K. Stevens, "Earth Day at 25: How Has Nature Fared?"
NEW YORK TIMES April 18, 1995, pgs. C1, C5.
[2] Mr. Stevens gives the 43% figure; we calculated the 37%
figure from data on U.S. synthetic organic chemical production,
1967-1988, appearing in Table 77 of Appendix E in the President's
Council on Environmental Quality's report, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1970-1990 (Washington, D.C.: President's Council on Environmental
Quality, 1991); during 1967-1988, annual U.S. chemical production
increased at the rate of 4.5% per year. If that growth rate held
during the last 7 years (probably a good assumption), those years
saw a 37% increase in annual output. For a primer on such
calculations, see REHW #197 and #199.
[3] To receive an ascii copy of this report via E-mail, send
E-mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the SUBJECT line, put these
words: send ecosystem ms. (Omit the final period, and leave the
body of your message empty.) You can also get a copy of this
report in Wordperfect format, including graphs and other
illustrations, by anonymous ftp to: ftp.its.nbs.gov; from the
subdirectory /pub/nbs-series, download the file
ecosystem.manuscript; make sure your ftp client is set for binary
transfer. The Wordperfect version is 2.7 megabytes. Thanks to
Sue Maret for alerting us to this report.
[4] This summary of the NBS report appeared on the Gannett News
Service wire July 1, 1995, under Ken Miller's byline.
[5] David Ehrenfeld, BEGINNING AGAIN; PEOPLE AND NATURE IN THE
NEW MILLENNIUM (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pgs.
175-194.
Descriptor terms: toxics release inventory; tri; epa; water
quality; water pollution; air pollution; human health; fish
advisories; development; species loss; extinction; national
biological service; nbs; forests; wildelife; barrrier islands;
prairies; grasslands; biodiversity; endangered species; david
ehrenfeld; william k stevens; new york times; mexico; italy;
africa; england; jerusalem;
