This is a link to an article in the NY Times that very much reminded me of the cat/bird dilemma we talked about in class on Monday. It's an interesting story that brings up big environmental ethical dimensions.
To summarize, Jim Stevenson, an ornithologist and huge bird lover, shot a feral cat that was attempting to eat a piping plover, an endangered species. Stevenson comments, “The American taxpayers spend millions of dollars to protect birds like piping plovers and yet here are these cats killing the birds, and nobody’s doing anything to stop it.” However, a tollbooth attendant (of the bridge where the cats live) considered those cats “his babies” and called the police on Stevenson. He was caught and thrown in jail.
If you want to see what happens in this ethical clash between cat lovers and bird enthusiasts, read on…..
A polar bear on Alaska’s Arctic coast. (Credit: Alaska Image Library/United States Fish and Wildlife Service, via Bloomberg News)Environmental groups cheered a Federal Court ruling today that forces the Bush administration to decide by mid-May whether polar bears deserve protection under the Endangered Species Act because of Arctic impacts from the warming climate.
President Bush and members of his administration have criticized environmentalists’ moves under the endangered species law and other statutes to force federal action on climate change. As Dana Perino, the White House press secretary, put it earlier this month, in a briefing preceding Mr. Bush’s latest speech on climate, the result was a looming “regulatory train wreck.”
“This would have the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act all addressing climate change in a way that is not the way that they were intended to,” she said.
The polar bear issue has been a particular thorny one for the administration. It is pushing for new oil and gas drilling in polar bear habitat while biologists for Interior Department, prodded by legal action, recommended the bear be given threatened status under the species act because of the warming of the Arctic and summer retreat of sea ice.
“Today’s decision is a huge victory for the polar bear,” said Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead author of the 2005 petition, filed by various environmental groups, seeking protection under the endangered species law. “By May 15th the polar bear should receive the protections it deserves.”
According to a news release from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which joined in the suit, the court rejected a request by the Interior Department for more time, saying: “Defendants offer no specific facts that would justify the existing delay, much less further delay. To allow Defendants more time would violate the mandated listing deadlines under the ESA and congressional intent that time is of the essence in listing threatened species.”
This is classic American environmental action, seeking leverage in existing laws to force governments to move on newly identified problems (or issues, in White House parlance). Do you think this approach can work in the long run on an issue like climate change?
The Bush administration has argued in various courts, including the Supreme Court, that such efforts will fail because, among other things, the “remedy” for limiting global warming must be applied globally, not just in the United States.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/court-forces-government-to-move-on-polar-bear-status/?hp
On Friday, I went with Craig and my good friend Lauren to The Little Owl for dinner. Famous for their pork chop, I was suggesting she and Craig order it—I’ve had it before—while I settled upon a lamb T-bone. Having gone on a pre-dinner tirade about “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and the provenance of meat, Craig felt compelled to ask the server where all this meat was coming from.
And, lo and behold, there was an answer. “Our pork chops come from,” and she named the farm, "where they're fed a diet of acorns and honey." The lamb was "grass-fed, free-range, organic lamb from Colorado.”
Wow. All we had to do was ask and suddenly the plate of food we were served had a story, a compelling narrative that not only alleviated my tortured conscience, but actually—magically or not—made the food taste better.
This is a great book to check out if you're writing your paper on anything related to food, or if you're just looking for a good read.
Take the controversy in Alaska regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the possibility of oil development: much of this comes down to aesthetics for the general public. Yes, the ecosystem is valuable, but I feel many people oppose it based on the fact it is a beautiful landscape supporting arctic and sub arctic animals. But is this a bad thing? Other ecosystems that may be just as valuable but not as aesthetically pleasing do not get the same amount of media coverage or support. I think how people view what should be protected is greatly based on aesthetics, as we have discussed in class. I think this is an interesting thing to think about in regard to protecting ecosystems and wildlife. Just as the first national parks were picked based on their appeal, are people more likely to support the pretty animals and ecosystems? Is this a bad thing or is it ok?
Talking about Garrett Hardin on Wednesday brought up an interesting point about the controversial nature of Hardin’s work. We’ve probably all read “Tragedy of the Commons” without really questioning the argument as Professor Tantillo was saying in class, but it is nearly impossible to read “Lifeboat Ethics” without seriously thinking about the moral implications of the argument that Hardin is making. Hardin argues against providing aid to people in poor countries basically to curb population growth by not making resources available to those who can’t obtain them for themselves. Hardin argues, that as long as the oceans, air, land, and water are treated as commons, they will continue to be polluted and degraded. Similarly, he argued against a world food bank by stating that creating a world food bank is like creating a commons where poorer nations constantly draw from the resource at the expense of more affluent nations who put into the system, ultimately causing degradation of the food bank commons. This, Hardin states, will cause the poorer countries who constantly withdraw to never “mend their ways” which will only lead them to suffer to a greater extent in greater emergencies. Hardin states, “without some system of worldwide food sharing, the proportion of people in the rich and poor nations might eventually stabilize.” It is interesting to see, that even though this argument may be warranted, the costs to humankind, by not allowing others resources which are in existence seems to have some serious moral implications.
Here’s the link to “Lifeboat Ethics,” to get a taste:
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html
If anyone is interested, or might be in NYC soon, the Central Park Conservancy and the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation are holding a series of public events and activities to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the design for Central Park. The Greensward plan for the park was chosen on April 28, 1858. The name "Greensward," comes from the English word for "unbroken stretch of turf or lawn."
Some events:
Some interesting quotes about the influence and significance of Central Park:
"The urban parks movement of the 19th century was the result of the immediate success of Central Park; every major city in the nation created parks based on New York’s exemplary public space," says Douglas Blonsky, President of the Central Park Conservancy and Central Park Administrator. "Today, it is one of the world’s great urban spaces, and we are pleased that in its 150-year history the Park has never looked more beautiful or been better managed."
Blonsky continues, "The restoration and maintenance of our nation’s historic parks has become today’s challenge, and once again Central Park, through the Conservancy, is at the forefront of that movement. In 2008, we will celebrate the significance of this American masterpiece as well as its phenomenal recovery."
"A great social experiment was begun in New York City 150 years ago when Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux designed Central Park," says Parks & Recreation Commissioner Adrian Benepe. "Over the last 28 years, the Central Park Conservancy and the City of New York have teamed up to restore this masterpiece of landscape design and manage it as the great public backyard for New Yorkers and visitors — 25 million a year."
This picture is of Bass Pond in the Biltmore Forest Estate
Silviculture aka arboriculture--The care and cultivation of forest trees; forestry, planting trees!
Thank you Olmsted for your great skills in silviculture!
(the words are fun to say, I think I'm going to try to work them into a conversation soon!)
Skimming just feet above the waves, a colony of rare penguins takes to the air - proving they can FLY.
The incredible snap for a new BBC nature series, Miracles of Evolution, shows the birds zooming across the sea hunting for food.
They launch themselves down steep icy slopes with an upward curve to get the momentum to take off.
Then they flap their tiny wings to reach a steady cruising speed before eventually crashing back into the water
"It's the perfect example of Darwin's theory of evolution working in reverse."
The flying penguins - filmed at King George's Island, 1,200 kilometres south of the Falklands - are just part of the TV crew's astonishing discoveries.
They also found a lizard that swallows itself to deter predators and a species of rapping frog that attracts mates by rubbing its hind legs together to make music.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/04/01/video-exclusive-first-ever-images-of-the-world-s-only-flying-penguins-89520-20369322/
Camping in Yosemite
Posts
All Comments
