Sherwood in Trouble Monday, Nov 12 2007

I was thinking about what I learned in my environmental science class about how fragmentation and other human interactions with nature can cause imbalance within a habitat when I came across an article about how the legendary Sherwood Forest in Nottingham County, England, is in danger and has shrunk considerably from its original size. 

Sherwood Forest is a collection of many rare and ancient oaks and is thought by many to be the largest collection of oaks in Europe.  Many people identify Sherwood Forest and Robin Hood as being distinctly English, but the legendary forest is in serious trouble these days.  The original size of the forest was around 100,000 acres, but today the center of the forest only spans across 450 acres, with patches spread throughout the rest of Nottingham County.  The forest has been broken up throughout the years because of farming, mining, logging, and for the builing of towns.  The 450 acres that are left are in danger, as well.  The usual tree decline is that one oak per year falls. This year, seven oaks have already fallen, with many others looking very worn.  To try and save the forest, about 15 environmental organizations have joined together to try and win a $100 million grant that is being given through a tv program.  The program, called BIG Lottery, is a branch of the National Lottery and gives money to good causes.

Many people in both America and Britain grew up with the stories of Robin Hood hiding out in Sherwood Forest from the evil Sheriff of Nottingham and it has become somewhat a symbol of good in and of itself.  If the forest becomes no more, a nation will lose one of its defining features, as well as later generations of schoolchildren will not be able to see the places where many of their favorite legends and stories are said to have taken place.  This is just another example of how human expansion into nature can cause us to lose some of the things we love the most, even if we didn’t intend to getr them when we started off.

Leave a Response »

 

The Cost of “Going Green” Sunday, Nov 11 2007

Something that really bothers me is the hypocricy that is often bred when big issues like the environment come up and people want to do something about it but don’t want to pay the price in order to make a significant change in the equation of how things work.  One very good example of this is the debate over the new initiative that Mayor Daley has begun to draw up for Chicago.  Mayor Daley wishes to make the city “go green” in the model of cities like New York and Seattle.  The plans hav not even been drawn up yet and people are already protesting even the idea at this time.  They say that the timing is not right for the drastic changes needed in order for the city to become more environmentally friendly to any significant degree.

I believe that there is no “wrong time” to be trying to improve the world in which we live.  Although I have not agreed with the practices of Chicago’s mayor many times, I do believe that he is trying to do something good, even if it is just to improve the citie’s imaga and put it among other cities in the world that have gained better reputations by “going greeen.” 

I believe the problem that people have with investing money in the environment is that they cannot visibly see any changes in the short term.  When they spend money towards new roads or better schools, they can see the road or building being built, but when they use money for the environment, they have to trust some obscure reports that say things are improving, and these may not come until a year or two later.  I believe that this skepticism must be fought against with education.  We need to teach people that if we do not make the changes necessary to minimize the impact of human activity on the environment, then the planet will be used up and will no longer be liveable.  We need to give the people who make these decisions vivid images on how drastically life would change if the status quo is not changed.

Daley’s plan so far calls for two high-profile concepts.  The first is the addition of wind turbines to be fitted on top of Sears Tower in order to harness the power of the strong winds that blow at the top of one of the tallest buildings in the world.  The other is the builing of a “green roof” on top of the Merchandise Mart.  Now the plan wishes to drop the key greenhouse gas levels by 25 percent from their 1990 levels according to early reports.  To do this, however, a a major chain of improvements must be made to the cities’ transportation system, around 2.7 billion in all, and this is after CTA has floated several major budget-cut scenarios. 

Although there is much early opposition to this plan, I believe that it is a very important step to improving not only the environmental impact of the city collectively, but also the quality of life in the city, as the air will become cleaner and improvements to the transportation system will make city travel more enjoyable and safer.  I sincerely hope that this plan is set into motion and that people come to realize that although they may have to sacrifice much for the sake of the planet, it is worth it in order for our posterity to take care of the planet as we have not yet done.

Leave a Response »

 

Peace Brings Back Animals Sunday, Nov 11 2007

An article in the Chicago Tribune caught my eye, because it made me think of ways in which people’s actions may unexpectedly influence the environment around them in ways that no one may have even predicted.  The article reported on the return of elephants, as well as many other animals, to the since rcently war-torn area of southern Sudan.  During the long and bloody struggle between North and South Sudan, the longest and most costly struggle in Africa’s history, many animals that had previously resided in southern Sudan had migrated away to get away from the fighting and the death.  But in 2005, a peace deal between the northerners and southerners brought relative peace to the area. 

Two years after the treaty was signed, large groups of animals that previously were indigenous to southern Sudan are returning, bringing much excitement to scientists and environmentalists in the area.  Some of the animals that are returning include:  elephants, giraffes, antelopes, lions, leopards, and gazelle.  After large numbers of these animals left years ago, some thought that many of them would never return.  An arial survey of the area revealed that the number of antelopes in the area is calculated to be around 1.3 million, which is one of the easons that some are looking at this as one of the largest mammal migrations in history.

The animals are returning because of the peace that has returned to the area, but that peace is very fragile and tensions are rising again between the North and the South.  If the peace is broken, it could not only mean a return to the bloodshed that had plagued the area for years, but it could also mean that the animals will once again leave the area and push into other ecosystems, causing environmental imbalances in other areas. 

The article made me think of ways in which war and other human activities that we may not think of as being inherently damaging to the environment can seriously affect the environment surounding it.  It just goes to show that almost every major human activity has some kind of impact on the environment.

Leave a Response »

 

Beware of “Green Initiatives” Sunday, Nov 11 2007

I recently read an article on the Chicago Tribune website about the multitude of “green initiatives” that many companies are using to capitalize on the fact that the topic is on many peoples minds these days with continuous talks about how the earth is being destroyed and that we need to do all we can to stop the accelerated process of our planet’s decay.  Now I have no problem with companies trying to change to be more earth friendly, even if their only reason for doing so is so that people will be more inclined to buy their product.

The problem I have, and which is what the article adresses, is companies who put up the image that they are being envrironmentally friendly, when in fact they are just doing the bare minimum and not actually contributing at all.  The problem I have with this is that companies are taking advantage of the fact that even though most if not all people want to help the environment, they really have no idea how to do so.  The real way to help the environment would be to educate people on how to do so, but instead they are using the idea of free market capitalism to take advantage of people’s ignorance. 

The article gave several tips on how to determine whether a companies’ practices are actually environmentally friendly or whether they are just putting on a show in order to boost sales or ratings.  One tip-off for food products was to read the labels on the package.  Make sure that the phrases used are specific.  The more generic the wording, like “eco-friendly” or “earth-safe”, the more skeptical a perspective buyer should be.  Other companies have parts of their web site that outline how they are being environmentally friendly, but readers should have a critical eye.  Some companies are completely honest and forthcoming about their dedication to the environment, while others use this as a tool for marketing.  If it seems that a company is exaggerating what they have done to change their polluting ways or if, again, the wording is vague, the report is probably misleading or not completely factual.

Many things people can do to reduce their affect on the environment are things that don’t take too much effort or cost too much, such as carpooling or switching to fluorescent light bulbs.  This brings me back to my previous point and leaves you with just a few words of advice: the best thing we can do is to get educated about the environment, so GET EDUCATED, learn anything and everything you can, but beware of misinformation and those trying to take advantage of people, but don’t ever be deterred from learning, because that is perhaps the best thing you can do, is learn all you can.

Leave a Response »