PDS APES 8th Period 2009-10

My question is about a term from our first study guide. What does it mean for a resource to be potentially renewable? I left this blank on my study guide too.

Mr. W in a dove field

I hope you all had a wonderful Labor Day Holiday.  Except for a little head cold, I did.  As usual, I took a trip to Laurinburg, NC (my hometown) for the opening day of dove hunting season.  It got me thinking about our discussion of the Tragedy of the Commons during the first unit.

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 sort of public resource and so, regulated by the government to prevent a “tragedy.”  So, yes, they represent a “commons” of sorts (see previous post on the Tragedy of the Commons).

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 limit to 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?

So, I was wondering about the 5 Basic Causes of Environmental Problems listed in the book (p. 15). Specifically, I noticed that there’s no mentioning of Affluence as one of the 5 causes, despite it being a factor in I=PAT. There is, however, a section about both the damage it can do/benefits it can provide. Additionally, Poverty is listed as one of the 5 main causes. So I’ve got two main questions:

1. On the whole, which is more detrimental, Poverty or Affluence?
2. I know that Affluence can be both harmful and beneficial, but it tends to be more harmful, right? The pros don’t outweigh the cons?

So, I was thinking back on that article we read last night, and it kinda got me thinking…

Sure, Diamond presented some good points about the downsides of agriculture, especially in regards to the problems presented by a society relying on a single staple crop, but I really felt that there were some HUGE overgeneralizations in his logic. For example, when he argued against the old theory that agriculture gave way to art because it gave people more free time, Diamond stated that many hunter-gatherer societies have MORE free time than agricultural societies. Diamond logic here was flawed because, while hunter-gatherers might have had more free time, this doesn’t change the fact that they were unable to settle down in one location for extended periods of time. I believe that agriculture DID probably help foster art not because it gave people more free time, but because it allowed them settle down in a stable location and thus be able to focus on matters other than survival.

These are just my thoughts. Does anyone else have anything to say about the article?

Hey,

I was looking through the study guide and the reading, and I was wondering if someone could clear up or add some information regarding the following people’ s contributions to society:

Garrett Hardin: “Tragedy of the Commons” (which says that when an area is exploited the same way by every individual, then the area will be unsustainable.)

Ernst Haeckl: ?

Arthur B. Tansley: ?

Barry Commoner: Four Laws: 1) everything is connected to everything else; 2) everything goes somewhere; 3) everything goes somewhere else; 4) there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Lady Bird Johnson: 1st Lady who worked from the White House for the beautification of landscapes/conservation of natural resources

Ansel Adams: preserve the scenic value?

Thanks!

hey guys, i understand the idea of an S-curve, and how population levels out when the demand for space or resources becomes too high.  however, when a population exceeds its maximum capasity and reaches its inflection point, and then drops back down before it levels out, does this have a different name? or is it still considered an S-curve.

Ever heard someone talk about ignoring “the elephant in the room?” It is an issue you can’t ignore, just like you could never ignore an elephant in the room.  Check out this BBC News article about the elephant in the room for environmentalists.  No matter how much we talk about solutions to problems this year, it all comes back to the population problem you just read about…try a Google search for “the elephant in the room: overpopulation.”  I = P x A x T.  At 6.8 billion, the P is the problem…

available at: http://conservationbytes.com/2009/03/

Hey guys! I looking over our study guide for chapter 1 and when I looked over question three I was a little confused.  I am not sure how to differentiate between natural resources and natural services.  I know that a resource is something we use and the service is what we get in return, but I’m not sure how they would go together.  What would be an example of a natural service?  Also, there is no way to replenish the natural capital right?

Determining Your Ecological Footprint:

an ecological footprint

To begin our discussion about ecological footprints, each student was asked to visit a website–http://www.ecofoot.org/–and use the Ecological Footprint Calculator to estimate his/her ecological footprint.  After each student emailed his/her results, Mr. Willard was then able to compile the results and determine an average for our class ecological footprint.

In our textbook, per capita ecological footprint is defined as the amount of biologically productive land and water needed to supply an individual with renewable resources and to absorb and recycle the wastes and pollution produced by resource use.  It is an estimate of an individual’s consumption of earth’s resources.  This definition is important to understand; one’s ecological footprint includes the impact of the food, shelter, mobility, goods, and services in our lives.

Currently, the equation I = PAT can be used to estimate a nation’s ecological footprint (I = impact, P = population, A = affluence, and T = technology).  As Kyle kindly pointed out during our discussion, this equation is ridiculously oversimplified!  But it can be used to help us roughly approximate a nation’s impact on the environment:

China’s Impact = (1.3 billion people) (affluence of 2) (technology level of 8 ) = 24.

United States’ Impact = (.3 billion people) (affluence of 5) (technology level of 4) = 6.

Kyle argued that affluence did not necessarily correspond directly with a nation’s environmental impact.  In other words, the United States is a very wealthy nation but our affluence does not necessarily mean that we have a greater environmental impact.  Or does it?  The United States makes up only 5% of the world’s population, but we are responsible for 25% of the world’s pollution!

During our class discussion, several arguments were made regarding this issue.  Does affluence = bigger ecological footprint?  Overall, we concluded that “it’s all about trade-offs.”  Some folks are wiser and use their money to invest in compact fluorescent light bulbs which are more energy friendly while some less economical folks spend their money on luxurious vacations! =)

So when should we feel guilty about our ecological footprint?  After completing the activity on the Global Footprint Network site, my own ecological footprint was calculated to be this:  if everyone in the world lived as I do, it would take 6.8 planets and 30.2 acres of land to sustain the world’s population.  Yikes?!  We only have 1 planet to sustain the world, and if there were 6.8 billion of me, we would need 6.8 planets!  Well, this is precisely why studying environmental science is so important; we must work to find solutions!

Right now, the world’s population is following a constant, exponential growth rate (a J-curve).  But what is the earth’s carrying capacity?  As our population continues to grow, the earth’s carrying capacity cannot grow along with it.  There is a limited amount of materials and resources; the only resource we can “import” is solar energy, and even a great amount of this energy source is lost through radiation, etc.  Unfortunately, as our affluence increases, the carrying capacity of the earth will decrease as more and more people will be able to live “less simple” more extravagant lifestyles.  More people will be able to afford to “overindulge,” “over consume,” and “over use,” the earth’s resources.

The trick is finding an appropriate balance!  The world is constantly changing and nations are always transitioning.  Until the 1970s, the United States neglected the rise of industry’s impact on the environment.  So as other nations of the world develop, do they have the same right to industrialize even if it has a negative impact on the environment?  Or is it our duty to stop these nations from making the same mistakes as us?

Thanks for an interesting class discussion!  I hope this post helps us keep all of today’s arguments and information organized!

Here are some additional articles to check out regarding ecological footprints:

“Carbon Footprint of Best Conserving Americans is Still Double Global Average” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm

“Calculator of Carbon Footprint for Nations” http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/content/calculator/82/

“Ecological Footprint” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

Molly Snyder =)

Hey Guys,

I am slightly confused on the difference between renewable, non-renewable, and potentially renewable resources (question 6 in the chapter one study guide).  The difference between renewable and non-renewable are pretty clear to me, but I cannot figure out where potentially renewable fit in.

Here is what I understand of them, correct me if this is wrong, but mostly if an explanation could be made with an example or something:

non-renewable: fixed quantity of resources, if it’s gone, it’s gone.

renewable: can be replenished fairly rapidly and basically an infinite number of times

potentially renewable: takes an extended period of time to renew. So does this mean that it is renewable and it just takes a long time?

Thanks!

Also, I think that the movie “Food Inc.” pertains a lot to what we have been talking about in class. I saw it over the summer and it was very interesting. I will post the link to the movie’s website here, but I am not exactly sure how it all works:

http://www.foodincmovie.com/