Image

Security Alarm Installer Results for Human Impact

Green Living Magazine

By Sarah Ghan · Comments (0)
Sunday, May 12th, 2013

 

 

“I continue to believe as I did, when I began the ride, that the best way to convince someone you are sincere and that you care is through your example. We cared enough about this issue to take on this challenge, and ultimately to finish. With this in mind, the U.S. with 5% of the world’s population has footprint this is more impactful that 80% of the rest of the people on the planet. Let’s be that 5% that does the “right thing”, let’s lead by example, and if we do, we will be well on our way to turning this situation around.”

Here is an article I just did that I want to leave with you:

http://livinggreenmag.com/2013/05/02/people-solutions/the-long-ride-the-record-setting-journey-by-horse-across-the-american-landscape/#SPsXRDC1ZppCAfy5.99


Comments (0)
Categories : Human Impact, The Long Ride

Consequences of Deforestation

By Sarah Ghan · Comments (0)
Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012

Last week I discussed the genetics and biology of the rainforest and the importance of maintaining its diverse gene pool. Today, I’d like to go a little further into what causes deforestation.

What are the causes of this devastation? The four primary causes are 1) commercial logging, 2) fuel wood gathering, 3) cattle ranching, and 4) small scale forest farming and population pressure. The causes are complicated, since they are simultaneously political, psychological and economical. Many people claim that the rainforests must be developed and conquered to help the poor and landless. In some cases, settlement of civilians by the government is meant to secure national borders by establishing a presence in the frontier region.

Some tropical forests are increasingly exploited because more people want more wood. The consumption of wood is expected to increase dramatically during the last years of this century. Of the total, one-third of the wood will be used as fuel in developing countries. Over 50 percent will be used in developed countries, where demand has been rapidly growing for construction products like plywood, veneer and particle board.

In Brazil, cattle ranching and subsistence farming have been the largest contributor to deforestation. Until the 1970’s, the government sponsored a program that promoted colonization. The government gave ranchers incentives to exploit the rainforest and develop either farms or ranches. A large percentage of the clearing that took place was a result of various government incentives, but cattle ranching proved to be inefficient.

Cattle Ranch in Rainforest. Photo courtesy of Flickr user, Cocoabiscuit.

In many countries, meat production on a pound-per-acre basis is ten times what ranchers in Brazil will receive. Once the rainforest is cleared, the pasture or farm land has a life expectancy of less than eight years

Conservationists have, in the past, boycotted the fast-food industry, and many restaurants now swear that they no longer use Latin American beef. However, this can be difficult to prove. Combination meat products are difficult to trace because once imported beef is inspected, it’s allowed to enter the United States market without any requirement to show its country of origin.

Another factor contributing to deforestation is our booming world population. The largest percentage of this growth takes place in developing countries in rainforest regions. Small-scale forest (subsistence) farming, the search for fuel, and government programs to provide the landless poor with an opportunity to own property within the rainforest will, in the future, represent the largest threat to this ecosystem.

In the rainforest, the nutrients reside in the biomass, rather than the soil. The biomass is the total weight of all the organisms–plant and animal–in an area. The rainforest is so efficient and utilizes all of the nutrients so quickly that it’s always  in the process of  transformation. Therefore, very few nutrients can be found in the rainforest soil. When a rainforest is burned, carbon is released as ash and briefly acts as a nutrient or fertilizer, allowing crops to grow. But as soon as this ash is used up, the soil becomes barren.

While the causes of the decline in rainforests are complicated, the role that rainforests serve in the global balance of nature is quite simple. As a gene bank, the rainforest, by supplying that genetic diversity, directly and indirectly protects all of the plants and animals on the globe, including the human population. These forests provide habitat for countless plant and animal species and they store massive amounts of carbon which in turn, helps in the fight against global warming.

Studies have shown that the rainforest can produce natural products whose value far outweighs agricultural or ranching products. The economic worth of these rainforests for purposes other than ranching and farming is significant and should be recognized.

If the present patterns continue, all or most of the world’s remaining rainforest will be lost or severely degraded by the end of this century. When the trees are cleared away, little except scrub grass and weeds will grow in the poor soil. When plants and animals that used these trees for cover are exposed and die, the formerly lush forest will be replaced with a desert. This desert area tends to grow larger and creates a very dangerous spiral: with fewer trees, less vapor rises into the atmosphere, which causes less rainfall that in turn destroys more rainforest, and on and on.

Recognizing the above, it’s clear that preserving this belt of rainforest along the equator is one of the most important environmental stands that conservationists can take. The political implications of success here are as important as the biological consequences. If, through long-term sustainable development, environmentalists worldwide can influence the preservation of this fragile ecosystem, they will have won a battle of global significance.

What are some actions that we as individuals can take? Here are a few ideas to get started:

  • We can also avoid eating fast food products that come from rainforest countries. We need to read the label that specifies the country of origin of all food products.
  • We can avoid purchasing or using tropical wood products, and we can promote a local boycott of these products.
  • We can lobby our political representatives to support policies that reduce debt and promote sustainable management of resources in developing countries. These policies should tie aid in developing countries to environmentally appropriate land use and energy policy.

As consumers, we all place a demand on the market that the market will attempt to meet. Our demand acts as the driving force behind what we consume and produce. We must quickly become aware of that relationship and learn to harness this potential. Consumers must demand that producers provide alternative products.

The problems in America and other developed countries are linked to issues of too much, rather than too little. The ecology movement must become more linked to economic problems and less to ideology. I believe that ecological ideology has in general ignored the context of economic development from which the problems of pollution have been generated. We must bring the two closer together.


Comments (0)
Categories : Environment, Human Impact
Tags : , , ,

The Genetics of Deforestation

By Sarah Ghan · Comments (0)
Thursday, September 27th, 2012

To understand the global impact of deforestation, we must first understand the basic biology of the rainforest and the causes of deforestation.

Rainforests cover less than 7 percent of the globe. They are predominantly found in a wet or moist band circling the globe along the equator. Tropical rainforests are some of the richest, oldest, most productive and genetically diverse ecosystems in the world. Between 40 and 50 percent of all living organisms (plants and animals) on this planet live in the rainforest.

What characterizes a rainforest? Temperature and rainfall. The equatorial rainforests, which represent about two-thirds of the world’s rainforests, receive more than 250 inches of rain per year. The average temperature is 80 degrees Fahrenheit, with no seasonal fluctuation in temperature during the year.

The second main group of tropical rainforests receives less rainfall–40-160 inches per year–and has distinct wet and dry seasons. These seasonal rainforests are not as genetically diverse as the equatorial rainforests.

In years past, the rainforests covered over 14 percent of the earth’s surface. Now they cover less than half of this. Most of the destruction has resulted from human intervention in the last 200 years, and more specifically since 1950. Of the remaining rainforests, almost 60 percent are located in Latin America.

Rainforest photo courtesy of RAN Flickr account

Most people in developed countries are so far removed from nature they are unable or unwilling to perceive the relevance or relationship of rainforest organisms to their daily life. They do not know that many products they use come directly or indirectly from tropical rainforests. Some of the more common products are rubber, teak, mahogany,  pesticides, medicinally useful drugs and many active anti-cancer compounds. Some food items include cashew nuts, avocado, mango, cocoa, coffee, and spices like vanilla and nutmeg.

We know that 25 percent of all prescription drugs marketed in the United States contain one or more rainforest plant compounds. We can assume that many new drugs are awaiting discovery in the rainforest, yet fewer than one percent of tropical species have been examined for their possible use by mankind.

As deforestation continues, millions of yet undocumented and documented species of plants and animals go extinct. There are literally thousands, if not millions, of yet-to-be discovered species that could one day yield vital or economically valuable products.

“Deforestation” means the removal of large tracts of tropical forest for  agricultural, urban, or industrial use. A “primary” or “virgin” forest is one that has been undisturbed for centuries. If it has not been disturbed, it is often called a “climax forest,” which means it is no longer going through stages of development.  Once primary forests are disturbed in any manner, they are no longer in equilibrium, and are now classified as “secondary forests.” Human intervention is usually the cause.

Forest conservation implies that our use of the forest comes with a degree of preservation, and wise use of the forest involves trade-offs between preservation and development. The “gene pool” and “genetic diversity” refer to the quantity and variety of the individual organisms, populations, or species in the forest.

Tropical rainforests serve as a source of genetic material. It can, and currently does, provide products of economic and medicinal importance to people in both developing and developed countries.  One example of why a gene bank is crucial can be seen in the Corn Blight of 1968. In the summer of that year, some farmers noticed a mysterious disease on their corn plants. This was the first sign of a very dangerous fungus that reproduced rapidly in the warm moist weather of 1970. Under these conditions, the disease spread across the Southeast, toward the United States’ corn belt and proceeded to leave the cornfields in shambles.

This fungus, later called “The Southern Corn Leaf Blight,” spread in four months  from Georgia to Oklahoma. It spread so quickly because the United States corn crop was genetically uniform, so what affected one plant affected them all. For this reason, a diverse gene pool is very important.

Rainforests are being destroyed or severely degraded every minute of the day, every day of the week and every week of the year. The United States National Academy of Sciences reports that we lose an area the size of England, Scotland and Wales (50 million acres) each year. At this rate, we will lose all of the world’s remaining rainforests by the year 2050, just forty years from now, and in turn, we will lose access to that genetic material forever.

 


Comments (0)
Categories : Environment, Human Impact
Tags : , , ,

What Now? (Part 3)

By Sarah Ghan · Comments (0)
Friday, September 21st, 2012

 

This is a continuation from the post, What Now? (Part 2)

Pollution in an Urban City

Image available via Creative Commons on Flickr by “Asian Development Bank”

Recently, changes in the economic structure in Europe and other parts of the world have caused business interests to think on a more global scale. Technology has made this a very small planet indeed, and has forced many in the business world to change their way of thinking. Changes in transportation now allow us to travel anywhere in the world in hours while advances in communication make is possible for us to communicate around the world while driving down the road in our car.

Because we are no longer isolated from one another, activities (economic, environmental, social, and cultural) in one part of the world can have an immediate impact in far flung reaches of the planet. A decade ago, it was commonly thought that resources, technology, labor, land, air and water were virtually infinite. The typical corporate horizon was short-term (a quarter or a few years at most) and regional.

This viewpoint was in conflict with the ecologist’s long-term, global and generational view of the world in which we live. This situation creates a dilemma, while the global community is a global market and economic opportunity it is also a global village with individuals who may not yet know how to live like neighbors.

It is clear that the methods are now here to bring us closer together. What we need now is the capacity to foresee the problems and then generate the new attitudes of accommodation that these rapid advances in technology require of us.

If it is true that when cultures differ, it will be harder for them to understand one another, it is also true that the more people differ, they more they have to teach and learn from one another. Today, as we move with lightning speed toward a true global community, most business people and environmentalists agree that we need a sustainable global economy that sustains an environmentally safe place in which to live.

For the first time, by and large out of necessity, this agreement is more than just rhetoric, and that is a significant step in the right direction. The market does not always reflect the true costs borne by society for current environmental and economic decisions. But we will eventually pay the piper–if not now, then in the future.

The 2010 summit in Copenhagen was termed the “Climate Change Summit.” Happily, there was a consensus among the countries that further economic progress depends on improving world-wide environmental conditions. However, the results from this summit were overshadowed by the global economic crisis. As a result, only a limited accord was signed.  Fortunately, the Cancun Summit that followed played out well and now we have agreements in place that can be translated into a UN process to advance the needs of our natural systems. In parallel support in developing countries, environmental awareness is beginning to surface. This is all very encouraging news!

In other ways, individual consumers have an impact. We can make environmentally sound investment decisions. As shareholders in both large and small companies, we have a voice and can require that our companies choose environmentally sound approaches to production and the business of doing business.

Various money management firms have established socially responsible funds that guarantee our investments will be used in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. These funds require that companies address the effects of their business on society and the environment.

The poet Wendell Berry once said: “How superficial and foolish we would be to think that we could correct what is wrong merely by tinkering with the institutional machinery. The changes that are required are fundamental changes in the way we live.”

We know, of course, that living implies that we consume. A result of this consumption is some level of waste. As society goes about the business of producing goods and services for the market, its activities are not 100 percent efficient. Production of goods and services and waste go hand in hand. Waste is often a result of production. The market plays a very active role in our economy and, as a result, of the production-waste relationship, it plays a very active role in the environmental arena, as well.

We realize that there is no way to make the waste from production and consumption and society, in general, go away. However, we can alter the amount, the manner in which it is introduced, and possibly even increase the ecosystem’s capacity to absorb or assimilate the waste to minimize the pending impact. The problem is not to eliminate waste, but to learn to reduce, manage, or cope with a level that does not overwhelm nature’s ability to assimilate and process that waste.

While the choice we must make is very clear, the decision to change our behavior and embark down this new road will be difficult. Because when I refer to we, I am referring to the collective we, and therein lies the problem. Even though it seems crazy to imagine that as intelligent as we are that we are incapable of making a conscious decision to act in global consensus and change our behavior and rise to this challenge. But this is actually the dilemma we are now facing. It is not whether we have the tools and technology to reverse the problems because we do have the tools, technology and intellectual wherewithal to reverse the decline. The question now is.

Do we have the resolve, commitment, and collective political will? The most often asked question on the ride was, “Can we turn this situation around?”

My reply was, “Can you?”

I know that in many cases the damage world-wide is significant, but at the same time I’ve seen the resilience of these natural systems. I am confident that we can work with these natural systems to significantly reduce the damage and lessen the long-term impact of our earlier mistakes.

I did not cross the United States by myself. I had a lot of help. Cooperation, compromise and the opportunity to become involved and aware were the keys to our successful ride. These same keys will help us restore the balance and integrity of our natural ecosystem.

Making this happen is more than a goal for each and every one of us. It’s an imperative for the survival of our planet–and that of everything we hold dear.


Comments (0)
Categories : Environment, Human Impact, The Long Ride
Tags : , , ,

What Now? (Part 2)

By Sarah Ghan · Comments (0)
Wednesday, September 19th, 2012
Earth

Image available via Creative Commons on Flickr from Kevin M. Gill

This post is a continuation from What Now? (Part 1).

 

On the day the Los Angeles Lakers got their tails kicked by 34 points at the Garden (by Boston in game two of the “85” series), Pat Riley told his team a quote his father had once passed on to him: “Somewhere, someplace, sometime you’re going to have to plant your feet, take a stand and kick some tail.”

Environmentally, I believe that time is now. We are involved in a dangerous experiment and must take a stand to gain control of our destiny. This will require that, as individuals and as a society, we must make certain sacrifices.

The technology already exists to dean up oil spills, develop alternative fuels, close the ozone hole, preserve the rainforests and stop or slow most environmental problems. But we must realize that we do not need to go out and invent new technologies to fix all our problems. We already know many of the answers, and we know what we need to do to correct not all, but many, of them.

What we do not have yet is the collective political will and resolve to play out the trade-offs and make a concerted effort to set priorities so we can put the environmental issues at the top of the stack. Only when we do this can we channel our money, our technology, and our expertise into these problems and begin to see results. We need to do this as individuals first by changing our consumption patterns and the way we manage our lifestyles.

In parallel efforts, as the constituents of our elected leaders, we need to give these officials an environmental mandate. We may not need to invent anything: we already have many of the tools we need, and many of the answers. Now, we need to focus on the problem and get others to cooperate.

The most significant aspect of the ride across America was the powerful emotional response that the environmental issue generated. This planet may be here during my generation and quite possibly the generation after mine, but will it be here for my grandchildren?

This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are not entirely certain the next generation, or the one after that, might not have a home on this planet. It has always been our desire to pass on to our children a better society and a better environment, be it the family farm, better education, or less disease and war.

We are the first generation that won’t be able to do this. Our children will instead be inheriting an over-used, hand-me-down planet that may be on its last legs and unable to support them and  generations to come. What is frightening is that we have the power now to  turn it all around–or not.. If we don’t, we have only ourselves to blame. We must rise to the occasion, take our lumps, and make whatever sacrifices are necessary to ensure that these natural systems survive and that we pass on to our children an ecosystem that can sustain generations in the years to come.

The director of Friends of the Earth, Michael Clark, said at our first “Ride Across America” news conference that “The most difficult thing to do is to explain to people the critically of the problem without implying that it is too late and scaring them into doing nothing.”

I agree, and I add: “Show people the problem and give them something to do.” We must provide others with the opportunity to become involved and we can then give them hope.

Our ride was a way to attract attention to the issue and also to give many an opportunity to help. If we as individuals can provide an avenue of involvement, then this “Environmental Movement” will continue to grow. The opportunity to get involved will become more and more important as the movement grows and interest builds because people with no way to help become frustrated. The challenge for people like those of us who are already involved is to help others make that same commitment. If we can find ways to enlist others in our efforts, we can keep this ball rolling.

It is not too late–far from it. This is the decade that will set the stage for years to come. The ecosystem is amazingly resilient, and with help it can bounce back, however, the ecosystem’s response to the changes we have imposed upon it is much slower than the rate at which we are imposing those changes. Already, we can see progress in many places. For instance, the recovery of lakes and rivers across the United States is encouraging; on a global level, developed countries recently committed to improving economic conditions through loans and grants for environmental problems in developing countries; there is phenomenal growth of membership in environmental groups, and finally, there is a greater global movement to pursue lower carbon energy sources.

The environmental havoc we have created in this finite planet may, in an unplanned twist of fate, be a blessing in disguise. Many would say that we are “up against the wall” environmentally. If so, the desperation we feel may force us to join hands in a global effort to clean up the mess. This cooperation may reduce global tensions and allow us to focus on common ground, rather than economic and political differences.


Comments (0)
Categories : Environment, Human Impact
Tags : , , ,

What Now? (Part 1)

By Sarah Ghan · Comments (0)
Monday, September 17th, 2012

What do we know for sure? We know for certain that there has not been a day in the last four and a half billion years that the earth has not undergone change. We also know that humans, unlike other organisms, have consciously been able to alter and modify the environment. Our inclination to do so has grown dramatically over the last century and more specifically, within the last two generations. Technology has given us this power. With it, we can adapt and modify the environment as we see fit. We are learning, however, that technology cuts both ways.

Physicist Albert Schweitzer once said, “As we acquire knowledge, things do not become comprehensible, but more mysterious.” Today I often hear that we are the most educated generation. If so, why are we not able to understand, acknowledge, or accept the critically important connection we have with the environmental tragedies we read about?

To many, our natural world remains a mystery. We have become a complicated society, and when we refer to our quality of life we concern ourselves with education, the arts, the homeless, AIDS, cancer and a host of worries and wants. We know that the future will be different from today. We know this because today is already different from yesterday. We can count on this. Change is occurring rapidly, and technology is the driving force behind this. Technology is a double- edged sword, and what we can quickly change with positive results can also be altered in an ecologically negative manner as well. The rapid change brought about by technology, the speed at which it is occurring and the resulting impact–this is our dilemma.

The impact can be seen, for example, in a comparison between the impact that a local mill on a small river or stream in the early 1900’s had on the ecosystem, in contrast with the global or regional impact large hydroelectric dam projects now have on Brazil or even on the western United States just 60 years later.

Balance with Nature

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons user “kmakice”

In the near term, we need to find a balance. First, we must, as individuals, bring that extremely important interrelationship–the balance of nature- -back into focus. We must understand that we human beings play the most important role in doing so. Real knowledge is our most powerful tool. If we can help other individuals come to environmentally sound conclusions on their own, we will have made major progress. The logic and intuition we use in reaching these conclusions will continue to motivate us to act.

In the last 35 years, our society has had the benefit of unprecedented growth and prosperity. It now appears that our rise in economic well-being has brought on a host of social and economic problems. We can no longer say that further growth will solve our problems. Quite the contrary, we can say that society is suffering the consequences of a growing economy.

We cannot say with certainty that all of our problems are the result of resource mismanagement, evil companies, greedy bureaucrats, uninformed politicians, and irresponsible special interest groups. Rather, they are a consequence of all of these factors and the decisions that were complicated by the constant “tug of war” of political, cultural, and economic tradeoffs along the way.

The most important role we can play is that of the consumer. If we make environmentally sound decisions in the market and cast our ballot for environmentally compatible products, the market will respond. If we simply do this, many of our environmental problems will be solved.

Finally, we need resolve and commitment to preserve, conserve and restore the balance. Simply put, we should preserve what we can when we can, and conserve what we can’t preserve and restore what remains as best we can.

Our ecosystem is amazingly resilient. Given a chance, it will come back strong and vibrant, like the restored lakes we rode by in Ohio. By committing ourselves to restoration, the cycle of influence and compensation, we obligate ourselves to seek a more exact understanding of our influence on the environment. This emerging “new understanding” will then have a positive effect on our future relationship with nature, and with the decisions we make.


Comments (0)
Categories : Environment, Human Impact
Tags : , , ,