Up The Creek Without A Paddlefish

"The Chinese Paddlefish, Psephurus gladius, is on the verge of extinction" states Andrew Revkin on his blog, Dot Earth. This colossal fish grows to be about 20 feet long and could be found in the Yangzte River in China. But no more. Soon Revkin writes, the paddlefish will be listed as an endangered species on the Endangered Species Act. This act is intended to save creatures on the brink of extinction, but why is there not an act intended to monitor and sustains diverse ecosystems before bad things happen? I believe that there should be an act to monitor and preserve diverse ecosystems. This act should also support the species found there. Could a campaign be created to obtain the goal of an act that would do these things? YES!

The goal of an environmental campaign is a long term vison or value (Cox, 234). In this case the goal for this campaign would be to create or have an act passed that monitors, and sustains diverse ecosystems if they are showing signs of trouble, such as extinction. The objective, a specific action or decision that moves a group closer to a broader goal (Cox, 234), would be to gain the attention of congress and write a rough draft of the act for congress to view. The next step is to figure out who the primary audience for your goal is going to be. In other words, the descision makers who have the auhtority to act or implement the objectives of a campaign (Cox, 235). The primary audience then could be the United States Congress. The secondary audience, or the various segments of the public, coalition partners, opinion leaders and the media (Cox, 235). The secondary audience is going to act as the leverage to help you and your campaign gain favor in the eyes of the primary audience. This audience might be the public and the media so that your campaign is learned and heard about.

Next, choose a strategy; a specific plan to bring about a desired outcome (Cox, 236). in this case, the strategy would be to educate the public about the endangered species and why the new act is such a good idea. It might also be a good idea to bring democratic polictics into the picture. "The use of democratic polictics in environmental policy involves attempts made by advocay groups to mobilize constituencies to influence public officials accountable to protect the environment." (Cox, 237) Tactics are the specific actions that carry out or implement the broader plan (Cox, 237). Meetings, public protests, briefings and so on, are examples of a tactic.

Can the paddlefish be brought back from the brink of distinction or is too late? What about the snow leopard? The humpback whale? Maybe they can't be brought back from extinction, but other species can definently be prevented from going there, we just need to convince others that this is true. This act, to monitor, and nourish diverse ecosystmes can make a difference!

Violent Elves on a Rampage of Property Destruction

A multimillion-dollar home destroyed by arson.

The remains of a radio tower toppled over by ecoterrorists.

Some tactics are more extreme than others. In the process of trying to make a goal clear, some individuals and groups fail due to violating laws.

On September 5th, 2009, a pair of radio towers near Seattle were destroyed by what some believe were "Elves". No, these weren't Santa’s elves of course, but rather the collective term for members of the ecoterrorist group called the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). In an e-mail from the North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office, it was stated the KRKO-AM towers were toppled due to environmental and health concerns. Jason Crawford, a spokesman for the extremist group, stated: "...Local residents do not need additional sports news radio towers that come at the expense of reduced property values and harmful radio waves."

The ELF consists of radicals that are accountable for numerous attacks since the '90s. Authorities found a banner with the initials of the group at the site. The crime scene is now being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In a course of over ten years, KRKO-AM has desired to increase its transmission capacity by constructing more towers in the area. However, the area has been subjected in appeals and litigations over problems such as harming trumpeter swan habitat to possible human health risks.

This is only one example of destruction done by the ELF. In 1999, Marie Mason and other "Elves" set fire to Michigan State University's Agricultural Hall, resulting in over $1 million in damage. Mason is also accountable for $3 million in damage via other incidents, such as setting fire to boats owned by a mink rancher and annihilating homes under construction around Detroit and Indiana. Another incident: Three seven-figure homes were set aflame in a Seattle suburb; on the spot was a sign ridiculing the builders' claims that the houses were eco-friendly.

The above stories are disturbing to me, but not shocking. I was already aware of the ELF prior to now. What is your opinion on them and other extremist groups? Do you feel they get their point across (that humans are ravishing the Earth of its precious resources and it must be safeguarded), or do you think they've crossed the brink between sensibility and craziness? Personally, I appreciate their philosophy but I am repulsed by their actions. I feel there are more effective and legal ways to address environmental concerns. Groups like the ELF make all environmentalists look bizarre (at best) and look like misanthropic terrorists (at worst). In your opinion, what are alternative ways to promote environmental protection?

Sources:

Sabotage Fells 2 Radio Towers (New York Times)

Woman Gets 22 Years for '99 Mich. Campus Arson (CBS News)

Activists topple towers, claim dangers of AM radio waves (CNN)

Earth Liberation Front Believed Responsible for Arson at Multimillion-Dollar Seattle Homes (Huffington Post)

Hey I'm like Angelina Jolie!

Ever wonder why people buy those expensive clothes that celebrities buy? You know the prada bag that "Paris Hilton" wore last sunday. It is because when you look like them you, in a way, feel like them, or at least you think you do. This is why environmental activists want celebrities to become their "icon."

When famous people care for the environment their fans start caring for it too. The majority of people do not listen to what their politician says instead they are too busy listing to their favorite musicans song or watching them on t.v, that is why instead of trying to address the public the poloticans mostly address the people in the media because they know that to get to you they need to get to the media first. Celebrities are like the opinion leader, once they state their opinion to the media their fans will react either in a positive or negative way. They can do something big like Pierce Brosnan who mainly works with protecting marine mamals and wetlands to Kt Tunstall who ran her tour bus with biodisesel fuel, either way their fans will see their act of helping the envrionment and hopfully it will influence them to do the same.

I find this to be a great tatic to making the public go green. Of course these celebs are being green for their own personal reasons as well but they also know how influental they are to their "follower's." But do we really need someone to tell us to be environmentaly freindly? Are we that "brain washed" to only listen to what they say that we can not act alone? I remember how that was for fashion, how teenagers would only wear what the celebrities would where, is that how we are now about being green? I hope not because then we can never advance without a famous person doing it first.

Women Against Fur

Yesterday I was online looking at environmental protests on PETA’s website when I saw these pictures that caught my attention. Their title, “We would rather go naked then wear fur” was catchy and made me want to look into it. This slogan was in fact a campaign that that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) launched in 1991 to raise awareness for the millions of animals trapped and killed for their fur. PETA is the largest animal rights organization in the world, focusing on animals suffering in factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry.

Personally I believe that when done humanely trapping can be a great management tool, however PETA has a very different opinion. When I saw this add though I thought it was an excellent example of Kevin DeLuca’s image event theory. Images can be an excellent way to get your point across when protesting and can create an influential environmental communication to the public. In this case PETA’s anti-fur campaign is shaped primarily by images. These pictures show how involved and committed the girls are to the cause while simply explaining the problem with a picture. I thought these pictures were well taken and they are an excellent example of a “picture event”.

Stopping KFC in Bikini's

So I was browsing the web this past weekend and I came across an organization called Peta. It is an organization set up to protect the rights of animals throughout the world. Peta is one of the biggest animal rights organization in the world today. It is made up of about two million members and supporters. It is a very successful group which catches a lot of eyes from the public.

Researching the Peta organization I found many strong image events. "Image events fully take advantage of television's hunger for pictures"(Cox 162). These pictures take big issues and put them into pictures which symbolizes what the issue is about. These pictures make people question if the issue can be solved by changing the way these people are doing things.

To me these pictures grasp your eyes right away. I mean off course they use these hot girls in bikini's to attract your attention. Well at least most of the guys anyways will be drawn right away. So now that they have your attention, they are holding signs that say "KFC tortures chicks". Like the picture I found, two girls are in a cage and are putting the issue of torturing chickens like torturing to chicks (the two girls in the cage). So then it opens your eyes into realizing what is going on and putting the issue into a whole other view. To me these pictures are perfect examples of image events. They grasp your attention and get the point across of what the issue is. So think twice when you go to KFC.

should we pledge our allegiance to our flag?

The other day in class we talked about people that think we should not have to pledge our allegiance to our flag in class rooms or in other places. well I don't think that is right to say, if you think about what that stands for and what it means to our countries soldiers that are fighting for us right now what do you think they would say and how it would make them feel to no that people don't want to do something that means so much and stands for so much. I under stand that some people dont think they should say it beacuse they dont belive in God and thats fine if you dont want to say it dont even though I think you should, but it's not right to just get rid of it, it simpley means to much to this country.

Killers At The Cape

Today, I decided to go on the Dot Earth Blog. When I got there, I typed in "fish" because it is my major, and therefore holds my primary interest for the environment. There were various different articles, but one that certainly caught my eye was the one called "White Sharks Cause Stir on Cape Cod". Now, this was not the typical fish article that I was looking for, but it caught my interest. This summer, I spent a lot of time at Hyannis on Cape Cod, which is a short 40 minute boat ride from the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge in Chatham. I had been hearing gossip about the sharks through my mother and some professors, so I decided to read up on it. 

Monomoy wildlife refuge happens to be a hot spot for thousands of seals. Apparently, the great white sharks have noticed the abundance of food in this area.

Dot Earth Blog's article  discussed how Marine biologists for the state of Massachusetts tagged two of the sharks (as of September 6th, on September 8th, three more were tagged: for more information about the other tagged, visit The Boston Globe) and how beaches in Chatham were still closed due to recent shark activity. It also mentioned how great it was that Massachusetts was taking a lead on the shark research.

After reading this article about the sharks, beaches closing, and efforts to gain a greater understanding of these monsters, I thought it would be a good idea to read the comments. Honestly, I was embarassed for some people and their comments. One consisted of, ">duh duh--------duh duh------duh duh duh duh duh duh duh doodle doo ! Your gonna need a bigger boat." Honestly? Do people seriously go on well- known blogs, such as the Dot Earth Blog, and respond with stupid things like that? As I scrolled through the 18 comments under this article, I realized that only a few were slightly intelligent and not "Duhh its gunna be another Jaws duhh". Most people were civil, but they again only presented one side of the arguement. There was a lot of, "so what if the sharks are there, don't close the beaches. you are more likely to be struck by lightning than attacked by a shark". Well, yeah I guess thats a nice little statistic you've got there, but again, why do you think people are closing beaches? Maybe due to safety? And maybe thats why the statistic is lower, because beaches are closed when sharks are sighted. After reading through the comments, and again, only seeing a few that sounded slightly intelligent, I thought about what makes a good blog comment.

How do you accurately comment on a blog? Well, using this shark issue as an example, a good post is obviously not "haha its gunna be jaws again". That just makes you sound like an idiot. And again, a good post is "well people are just overreacting. just open the beaches". Well why are people overreacting? And what is their side of the arguement, even if you do not agree with it, it should still be presented. This all brings me to a good blog comment. A good blog comment should contain your opinion, such as, " I think it is great that Marine biologists are tagging these sharks. It is going to be highly valuable information when they retrieve the information from the tags on the sharks. These tags should further expand our understanding of the sharks, their migratory habits, and just how close they get to Chatham beaches. Though closing the beaches is terrible for all people who use the beaches and plan vacations there, it is a lot safer than not warning people. Maybe a swim at your own risk sign should be put up for those who feel the need to swim in the shark infested waters? Anyways, the tags should do great things for shark research, which would give us further information about where they travel, which would give us a better understanding as to whether or not beaches should be closed". Now, I am not saying that is perfect, but it is a whole lot better than a lot of the things I was seeing on the Dot Earth Blog's website.

So, after reading this, I think our class is doing pretty good on our blog comments back and forth, and even our posts. Good job everyone!

Ghostly Reefs

Today I read an interesting article on Dot Earth about the coral reefs in the Caribbean.

Andrew Revkin writes that the reefs are in danger of bleaching and dying off due to rising ocean temperatures. In 2005 the Caribbean had the worst case of coral reef bleaching and disease in its recorded history and scientists are worried that the bleaching will either reach or exceed the levels of bleaching of that horrible year.

Luckily coral reefs don't die off immediately, however, if the ocean temperature continues to rise then the conditions of the coral reefs will not improve. This is one of the many apparent effects of global warming that people can actually see taking place. Scientists are so adamant about saving these reefs because of their delicacy. The reefs are also home to many species and if the reefs die off then so will a wide variety of ocean life.

People who responded to this particular blog on Dot Earth had mixed opinions. Commentor 16 had mentioned that the bleached coral reefs are no big deal since you can't see them up close and therefore does not care. Though they were on topic with the blog their opinion on not caring was not very logical. Even if you can't see something up close the evidence is still apparant and should warrant some concern. Most of the other commentors remained on topic and had logical responses and concerns for the dying reefs. Many commentors were civil and debated the topic with their facts and logics.

The blog post had 138 responders who expressed their skepticisms and concerns about the coral reefs. I'm glad to see that ordinary people take interest in enviromental problems and are willing to voice their opinions on the matters at hand. After all, we can't let the scientists do all the work.

Help Global Warming

Yesterday I was looking up global warming and I stumble across a picture of people holding a sign that said “Global Warming Stops Here.” This is a good image because they’re showing that the world needs to change what we do to stop global warming. They’re trying to put a point across through showing it, not telling it. Having a visual catches the eyes more than just having something written up and making people read a whole paragraph that gets the point across. This does just as good. I know that I would rather see a visual then have to read a whole thing, so others will too.

Seeing this sign will make people want to learn more about what they can do to stop global warming. After seeing this, people can search online to read more into global warming like why it’s happening, how it’s happening, what’s being done to stop it, and what individuals can do to help prevent more damage.

Extinction Problems

How many of us are really aware of the ongoing occurrence of species extinctions, more specifically, of the Giant Fruit Bat? Judging by the number of comments to the blog titled “Saving the Flying Fox,” there aren't many. Or perhaps, there just aren’t many who really care.

This blog can be found on Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth blog. Leslie Kaufman tries to educate people about the endangerment of a species of bat found in Malaysia. In her introduction, she uses words like “furry critter” and a nickname of “flying fox,” to describe this species of bat. Overall, I don’t see much information about these bats as either pests or beneficial members of the environment, but she tells us that saving them from possible extinction would be an ideal goal. She mentions both the disappearance of this bat "could have profound effects on the ecology of the entire region," but also that they are pests to farmers and can carry viruses. While I do agree with and appreciate her message, I do not find her writing to be very emotionally charged or really convincing.

However, the first post comment adds a sort of balance to the blog in that it includes some emotionally charged words and description. The commenter relates the problem of fruit bat extinction more to human interactions and blames people for causing the endangerment of not only the species mentioned in the article, but to all animals. She uses words and phrases like “beautiful, diverse members of our planet ecology” and “irreplaceable creatures” to make us care more about these animals. She provides a good narrative frame, describing her feeling of helplessness and deep concern.

The second response is a somewhat smaller version of the first post. It also puts the blame on humans and adds an almost sarcastic general description of how we can help the species population.

The third post started to veer off topic, but also gave a good narrative description that adds to the audience’s sense of need and importance. The two responses following this one do not relate directly to the blog.

None of these posts use any sort of aggressive language, probably because the problem isn’t really part of most people’s immediate lives. If we don’t see it, the problem doesn’t really exist. Species are being endangered and extinct every day, but overall, I find that this blog is evidence that many of these species extinctions are not seen as real problems.

"Circle of Irony"

As the new century unfolds, there are two developments which will have a defining impact on the future of humanity. Both have to do with networks and both involve new technologies. One is the rise of global capitalism[1], which is concerned with electronic networks and the other is the creation of sustainable communities based on ecological literacy and the practice of eco-design. The goal of the global economy is to maximize the wealth and power of its elites; while the goal of eco-design is to use sustainability to maximize the way of life.

“Economics and politics are the governing powers of life today, and that's why everything is screwy."

-Joseph Campbell

One can not underestimate the powerful relationship between environmental issues and the global economic/political system. Solutions to our environmental crises will essentially come from systematic changes to the system. Thus where our problem lies because our economic system is largely focused on serving individual or nationalistic needs, as opposed to community or global needs.

I want it to be known that this problem isn’t recent; the view of nature has always been and will always be misrepresented. For example Karl Marx, founder of Marxism wrote; “The environment is a medium for human labor. Nature is to be used by humans for their production purposes. Though humanity was a part of nature, nature's destiny was to be shaped by human labor.”

To Marx this meant that the ultimate stage of Communism, from the environmental point of view, would mean that nature had been humanized to the greatest possible extent. Through science and technology, Marx thought humanity would progress to develop greater control over nature. In doing so, people would free themselves from being dependent upon the environment, mastering it instead of being enslaved by it.

John Foster believes that yes it is true that technology has changed, introducing massive new threats to the biosphere, however he brings up a good point that capitalism’s antagonistic relation to the environment was also apparent to the 19th and 20th century socialists[2], thus reflecting the fact that technology is not the primary issue. According to Foster, the problem is the nature and logic of capitalism as a specific mode of production. He acknowledges that socialists have contributed in fundamental ways to the development of the modern ecological critique. However to uncover this unknown legacy, which is a vital part of the overall endeavor to develop an ecological materialist analysis, which will be capable of addressing the devastating environmental conditions that face us today, we must first acknowledge the relationship between our environmental issues and the global economic/political system.

"People only protect what they love, but they can only love what they know."

- Jacques-Yves Cousteau

My purpose in writing this blog isn’t to tell you want to think (what’s right and what’s wrong). No, my purpose in writing this is to tell you “how” to think. In order for anything to make sense and be successful, one must first realize the connection that links the vicious circle together.

http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Economics/marxism_on_the_environment.html
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj96/foster.htm
http://earthrenewal.org/global_economics.htm

Footnotes

[1] Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

[2] Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation.