PDS AP Environmental Science 5th Period 2010-11

Well, the first test is behind us… I was sharing some info about hunting and “the commons” on the review day, and that got me thinking a bit more about the Tragedy of the Commons from the the first unit (see previous student post on The Tragedy of the Commons).

Mr. W

As I shared with you, I took a trip to Laurinburg, NC (my hometown) for the opening day of dove hunting season.  Mourning doves are migratory game birds meaning they can cross county and state lines.  Even though the hunt was on private land, the birds are considered a  public resource and so, regulated by the government to prevent a “tragedy.”  So, yes, they represent a “commons” of sorts.

So, how does the government regulate this resource in the public’s interest? First, one must acquire a license to legally hunt the birds.  So, the number of people who can “harvest” the resource is limited to those who will pay the fee.  Second, there is a season established for the hunt.  A hunting season limits the amount of time people can harvest (and typically protects the birds during mating season).  Third, daily “bag limits” establish a quota for the number of birds one can legally harvest per person per day.

Do all these regulations prevent abuse of the resource (birds)?  No.  Abuse occurs by people who have no license (poachers), hunt out of season, and kill more than the legal limit.  Regulations do little good unless there is some enforcement.  So, some of the funds from the purchase of licenses go toward paying for wildlife officers who can arrest or fine offenders.

Speaking of funds, many hunters join conservation organizations like Ducks Unlimited.  These organizations use donations for projects like habitat protection or improvement.  Hunters often get a bad rap, but those that hunt within legal limits and give back through conservation groups help encourage sustainable use.  Is it hard to think of a hunter as a good steward?

hi so i wasnt here friday either and i dont really understand the whole Voluntary Cooperation, Government Regulation, and Privitization thing. I understand what each one means, but I was wondering if there was a way to use all three at the same time? like is there some kind of limit to how much the goverment can regulate on private land as opposed to public? The essay link from that class day didn’t really answer the question for me. Thanks

Hey guys, I missed Friday when we did the Tragedy of the Commons exercise, but I still don’t believe that I am understanding the concept well enough. I am confused about the part on when the villagers take the fish, but it is ok since it’s a sustainable resource, but wouldn’t the high rate of each villager taking the fish make the fish an almost unsustainable resource? And what does the mint have to do with anything?

In class we talked about the values/ justifications for protecting resources.

For ecological, we said “it has a place in the ecosystem.” First of all what is “it” and where does ecological fit in the lineage of environmentalism( ex. romanticism)?

Alright so i’m not understanding where the social concerns fall on the scale thats economy-ecology, and also whats the enviromental justice part of it mean?

Can someone explain biocentrism to me?

The book says its a view that considers the human and nonhuman views, but how can one view consider them both because they are so opposite sometimes?

The book gives an example saying a biocentrist would oppose a mining proposal if it hurt the living things in the area, even if it would create jobs and generate economic growth and not hurt human health. But doesn’t the fact that they oppose something that would help humans (create jobs and generate economic growth) make it more like ecocentrism because their opinion revolves around the ecology of the issue?

Hello everyone, I am struggling to understand exactly what the Activists stood for. Would the Activists fall more closely into the Romantics, Conservationism, or Environmentalism movements and why?

 On Friday we learned about the importance of utilizing resources wisely through the Gone Fishing Simulation. During this simulation, four people sat at each table, representing a village. A plate represented the village lake, which was filled with sixteen fish per month (goldfish). In the first one minute round, each member of the village had to take at least two fish by using a straw as a suction device to capture the goldfish. If a member didn’t take two fish, his or her family died. In addition, during this round, village members could not speak to each other. After every round, the number of fish remaining in the pond was doubled,  the game began again and conversation was allowed. For additional fish taken (other than the first two), the village member gained profit (a mint). Eventually we learned that for the number of the fish in the pond to be sustained, instead of running out after the second or third round, each member could only take two fish–enough to sustain his or her family. This idea was then related to The Tragedy of the Commons which is defined as, The degredation of a public resource due to self interest.  This idea was originally proposed by Hardin whose essay can be read at the following link. http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html The class  came up with three solutions to this problem: 1. Voluntary Cooperation   2. Government Regulation   3. Privitization. The class then decided that this problem is comparable to what will eventually happen to the senior lounge if it is not already occurring, and we decided that the two global commons are the oceans and the atmosphere.

In class yesterday we worked in groups to trace the lineage of the modern environmental movement.  Remember, environmentalism is a social movement.  While environmental science and ecology are used by environmentalists to promote their causes, they are not one and the same.  I took pictures of the whiteboards the groups made that highlight key values, beliefs, and individuals from each movement (below). Sorry about the picture quality, but you can click to enlarge.  Who knew your history knowledge would come in handy in science?

Industrialism

Romanticism

Conservationism

Environmentalism

While we did not have a lot of time, we had some good points raised.  Did we forget anything? Seems like environmentalism board may be missing info on the legislative protections enacted during the Nixon administration in particular…feel free to comment.

Yesterday in class we learned about the concept of an Ecological Footprint. We defined an ecological footprint as:

“The environmental impact of a person or population in terms of the cumulative amount of biologically productive land and water required to provide the raw materials needed to be consumed and dispose or recycle the waste.”

Which essentially means how much water and land and person or group of people need to maintain their lifestyle. We divided the parts of a biological footprint up into four categories: Goods and services, housing, food resources, and carbon.

Footprint Components

The goods and services aspect represents the materials, land, waste, and energy required to produce, package, ship, and store the products that a person uses. Housing represents the materials, waste, land, and energy needed to build, maintain, heat and cool, and power a person’s home. Food resources are what’s needed to grow/feed, manufacture, package, transport, and store the food products a person consumes. Finally carbon represents the emissions produced by a person’s burning of fossil fuels such as oil in transportation and production, coal in electricity production, and natural gas in heating and cooking.

We also learned the difference between the terms per capita and population. Population means the total number of a species in a given area, while per capita means the average amount per person in a population.

Finally, we learned that a population’s total environmental impact is dependent upon its number of people, the affluence (wealth) of the population, and the technology the population has. Obviously, the number of people in an area increases its environmental impact as more people consume more resources and produce more waste. The affluence of a population also typically results in a higher environmental impact because it drives up consumption. Technology can either increase or decrease a population’s environmental impact as some technologies (such as coal power plants) can drive up carbon emissions, resource consumption, and waste production, while some (such as hybrid cars) decrease those environmental factors. An equation we learned to calculate the total environmental impact of a population is:

I = P x A x T, with I being the total environmental impact, P being the number of people, A being the affluence, and T being the technology.