This friend speaks my mind. If you use the current calculators for water, carbon, or ecological footprint that are available on line, a college first year student sees the connection. I realize those calculators are sloppy and in many ways incorrect, but if I want to teach students about their impact on the world, I will use those calculators as a starting point. If we all lived on our own however many acre plot, it would not change the fact that humans use a disproportionate amount of resources whether in cities or in rural communities in developed countries. At the end of the day, the human footprint, a substitute for habitat loss, is not about cities, it is about the economic and political systems humans create and perpetuate. I think that ecologists should be activists, in our own lives, in our research, and in our classrooms where many of us labor to have the opportunity to do the research that beckons us. Cheryl Swift James Irvine Professor of Biology Whittier College Whittier, CA 90605 562-907-4273
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Gene Hannon Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 3:55 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! Rob, I think we all agree with the importance of habitat preservation (species conservation, preserving ecosystem functions, etc). And I think we all are on the same page about the disproportionate "tax" on the environment that urban areas have compared to rural areas (or for that matter: developed countries vs less developed countries). Furthermore, I think we can all agree that there is a lot of hype related to most issues -including global climate change. But I feel it worth saying that it might be unproductive and imprudent (in my humble opinion) to make this problem into one of a false dichotomy: into either human habitat destruction or human climate warming. They are both worrisome. And they are both symptomatic of the same problem -a non sustainable life style (economy, or what have you); by me, you, us, them. Furthermore, while there are lots of anthropogenic (as well as non-anthropogenic) processes that result DIRECTLY in habitat destruction NOW, why not be concerned about those effects that will indirectly (and or directly) result in habitat destruction later? Such as our carbon foot print. But perhaps this is all circular. I guess I see this as a spin off of the chicken and the egg argument. If we truly did stop habitat destruction it probably means we are living sustainably, which might then cause carbon in the atmosphere to drop to or below 350 ppm (or some ideal value: see 350.org). Or we could save habitat, not live sustainably, and have weather patterns change ecological patterns and processes in a way that will result in those saved habitats being for a collection of species that are different than originally intended. Or we could destroy habitat, to make carbon neutral bioenergy, to "live sustainably" so that carbon in the atmosphere goes back down to 350 ppm, but species diversity and ecosystem processes still go to pot because we have destroyed habitat (i.e. the means does not justify the end in this scenario). ETC. So really, it is not so much what the impending or most dire problem is per se, but whether our actions result in a sustainable and equitable society for us as well as a viable habitat for the rest of the planet .... But I suppose I am preaching to the choir. -Gene On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Robert Hamilton <rhami...@mc.edu> wrote: > Don't know if you want to post a contrasting view, but I'll offer one > up. > > No question that human generated CO2 is causing global warming, in my > opinion. There is, however, no evidence of a deleterious effect, > especially given the fact that the climate does and will change one way > or another anyways. Models predicting catastrophes have been overblown > to a degree that is embarrassing to an informed scientist, and results a > in classic "boy who cried wolf" type loss of credibility for informed > scientists. > > With respect to our ecological impact, habitat destruction is the #1 > negative human impact, and the overall ecological footprint is the real > issue, not just the "carbon footprint". There is no activity we engage > in as humans that is worse than the building of modern cities, > especially when you factor in the type of agricultural practices needed > to support those cities. The carbon footprint approach also strongly > discriminates against those living in poorer, more rural areas, singling > out the activities that support the economies in those areas as the > major problem, as opposed to the much more destructive activities of > people who live in urban areas, particularly modern urban areas. It's > obvuiously more politically prudent to attack the weak. > > There is an issue with global warming, but it is relatively minor, as > far as we know at this point in time, and it appears to be just another > way of deflecting the real issue, habitat conversion. Allowing people in > large modern cities to feel good about themselves re environmental > issues while continuing on with the most destructive of lifestyles. > > I recall reading many months ago about Leonardo DeCaprio wanting to buy > a tropical island and build an eco friendly resort being presented as > evidence of some sort of environmentally responsible act. Ridiculous, of > course, but one of the best examples of the sort or poor thinking that > drives a lot of the pop culture based environmental movement. > > Rob Hamilton > > > > "So easy it seemed once found, which yet > unfound most would have thought impossible" > > John Milton > ________________________________________ > > Robert G. Hamilton > Department of Biological Sciences > Mississippi College > P.O. Box 4045 > 200 South Capitol Street > Clinton, MS 39058 > Phone: (601) 925-3872 > FAX (601) 925-3978 >
