Phil challenges us "to name a metropolitan area that doesn't include a disgustingly 'suburban' area" so let me offer one (assuming that his definition of a "disgustingly" suburban area is one with uncontrolled sprawl converting farms and wildlands into lawns): I live in a suburb of the Portland (Oregon) metropolitan area where the required density is 5 homes per acre, which is rapidly being met (it used to be 1 home per 2 acres). There are other parts of the suburban metro area where density requirements are even higher. And much of the inner city is experiencing considerable redevelopment and upgrading (what some call "gentrification"). Much of this is due to an established "urban growth boundary" which limits the spread of development into adjacent farm, forest and open land. As a result, the Portland metro area has one of the nation's lowest degree of urban sprawl in proportion to population size. And yes, there are challenges in trying to maintain my neighborhood's natural values such as trees, green spaces, and stream corridors in the face of increased suburban density.
Warren W. Aney Tigard, Oregon -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ecolo...@listserv.umd.edu]on Behalf Of Phil Morefield Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 20:09 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! I disagree with, what I perceive to be, the sentiment that "cities are bad". Is it not the case that one of the best predictors of diminished ecosystem integrity is the presence of humans, e.g. roads, resorts, etc.? I would argue that confining the human footprint to the smallest area possible is crucial to preserving natural systems. As one of my professors put it many years ago, cities can be "an efficient use of the land". Unfortunately, as a species we have neglected to enact policy that optimizes the potential efficiency of urban systems. Instead of encouraging dense, mix-used development along mass transit corridors, the contemporary model is, and has been, to build more roads, McMansions, and strip malls. (There are numerous exceptions, but I challenge anyone to name a metropolitan area that doesn't include a disgustingly "suburban" area). I dread the notion of humans occupying every square hectare of land, disturbing and modifying native flora to grow crops and polluting the nearest stream with whatever waste is deemed unseemly by the local tenant. In my opinion, cities provide valuable bottlenecks for pollution and the human/nature interface. Phil M. Man brings all things to the test of himself, and this is notably true of lightning. -Aldo Leopold --- On Fri, 3/6/09, Robert Hamilton <rhami...@mc.edu> wrote: From: Robert Hamilton <rhami...@mc.edu> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 8:36 AM The effects of overcomsumption and overdevelopment on the part of people in modern cities are very obvious, and one does not need to make the sorts of arguments that Miller makes below to show the effects. The obscene amount of energy required to maintain people living in modern cites would be greatly ameliorated if people moved onto less arable lands and became more responsible for their own existence. Grow some of your own food for example, or at least support local food producers rather than forage on food shipped in from Thailand and Chile. I wonder if that practice is factored into people's "carbon footprint?". IMHO, nothing does more ecological harm than maintaining populations in large urban centers. I could equally argue that Birkenstock shoes have caused global warming. The effects are difficult to see, but if you were a nuclear physicist you could see them. If you remain unconvinced, get a degree in nuclear physics and do some research. There is no "side" to this thing, IMHO. Science is a particular type of philosophy. You must have an explanation that makes a risky prediction, and you must have empirical evidence to show that nature behaves in accordance with your risky prediction. What we see with CO2 arguments is akin to Freudian psychology. The data are explained regardless; the hypothesis cannot be wrong. Explanations are changed to suit each particular contigency. We have seen, with CFC's, that science can make meaningful contributions in related areas, with real evidence. Here, with CO2, there is none. What is most disturbing to me is the presentation of evidence spun to support one view or another, be they some weatherman saying there is no human generated increase in CO2 levels, which is ridiculous to me, or some environmentalist saying that increased CO2 levels will destroy our civilization, equally ridiculous, to me. I can understand them as political arguments. As science, they are invalid, and the shadow cast when people who are scientists make these arguments, falls across all scientists, and ecologists in particular get painted as quacks by this pseudoscientific political spin. Rob Hamilton >>> Robert Miller <rjmill...@gmail.com> 3/5/2009 11:20 AM >>> The problem with CO2 and climate change is that they are not visible. A city is visible, and easily vilified, even though spreading its citizens over the countryside would do far more damage. There is abundant evidence that global warming is a problem, but it's not easy to understand. To people who claim "the evidence is weak" I suggest talking with an experienced biogeochemist. If you're still not convinced, maybe you should become a biogeochemist and do some science to see if your views hold up. Bob On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:42 AM, William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org> wrote: > I don't have the reference available, but I recall a talk from an AAAS > meeting some years ago dealing with the impacts of increased CO2 on PP. The > findings were that scurb grasses, weeds basically, responded well to > increased CO2 levels, while cereals and trees did not do as well. Perhaps > someone on the list could add more facts and details. > > In the marine ecosystem we know that increased sedimentation of carbon and > nutrients increases benthic productivity but there is a loss of biodiversity > to the point where eventually the bottom is covered with slug worms > (Capitella) and little else. Beyond this point anoxia sets in and the > bacteria take over. > > Although the overall impacts of increased CO2 are still controversial, a > lot of people seem ready to characterise any views other than their own as > nonsense. This too can be an embarassment for the rest of the science > community. > > Bill Silvert > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Hamilton" <rhami...@mc.edu> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 4:26 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Thank you for responding to the survey! > > > > Increased CO2 in the air, along with the resultant increased temperature > and water vapor has to increase primary productivity, as we all know from > basic principles that precipitation and temperature are the prime regulators > of primary productivity. I see increasdPPP as a good thing overall. The > catastophic predictions, the Al Gore sorts of things, are embarassing to me > as an ecologist, as the public does see me as a person supporting such > nonsense. > -- Robert J. Miller, Ph.D. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management University of California Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA 93109-5131
