I think that it is safe to say that ecologists know more about the
impacts of our activities on the environment than average American.
Even if we do have a smaller footprint per person, so what? If we
have more knowledge, we have more responsibility.
I think that it would be interesting to standardize our footprints
(e.g., carbon, water), by the amount knowledge we have on our impacts
on the environment . I cannot even begin to predict which group would
have a larger footprint then. Any guesses?
Chris
On Sep 9, 2009, at 6:17 AM, Casey terHorst wrote:
There was an interesting article in the August issue of Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment that suggests ecologists have a much
larger carbon footprint than the average American, largely because of
air travel to meetings, field sites, etc.
---------------------
Casey terHorst
Ecology & Evolution Program
Department of Biological Science
Florida State University
319 Stadium Drive
King Life Science Building
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4295
[email protected]
Quoting "Kevin McCluney" <[email protected]>:
I recently attended the 2009 annual meeting of the Ecological
Society of
America (ESA). The theme of this yearÂ’s meeting was
sustainability. There
were many great talks on this subject and a few truly pessimistic
ones. One
speaker proposed that human beings are, by our very nature,
destined to
consume and reproduce as much as possible, and despite our best
efforts,
this will lead to our own demise. During the same talk the speaker
also
asked, “who is responsible?” He answered his question by saying
that we at
this conference are just as much a part of the problem as anyone
else.
Is this true? I know I myself have taken many steps to lower my
footprint
and many other ecologists have as well.
For instance, at last yearÂ’s ESA meeting in Milwaukee there was an
interesting occurrence at local restaurants. The first night of the
conference I had a really good veggie burger at one restaurant. I
went back
later in the week for another. The waitress apologizedÂ… they were
all out.
She went on to explain that the manager had heard our conference
was coming
to town, so bought extra ahead of time, but ran out of those
quickly anyway.
The manager then went to the local grocery store and bought more.
But alas,
by the time I returned, they had run out of those as well.
Further, when I
dine with friends at ESA meetings, I often find that more than half
the
table orders vegetarian entrees.
Why does eating vegetarian matter so much? Modern, industrialized
livestock
production is one of the more environmentally destructive human
endeavors.
It contributes roughly one fifth of all our greenhouse gas
emissions, more
than all cars, and these gases are major contributors to the rapid
climate
change weÂ’re experiencing. Livestock production also may, in
certain cases,
be leading to deforestation and destruction of important
ecosystems, as well
as to pollution of rivers, lakes, and even oceans. In addition, we
all know
that basic ecological principles hold that it takes less resources
to raise
plant based food sources than meat based, since energy is lost as
you move
up the food chain. Thus we can feed more people and use fewer
resources on
a plant-based diet. All this caused the chairman of the
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change recently to proclaim that the best thing a
person
could do to reduce their impact on climate change was to eat a more
plant-
based diet.
My wife and I havenÂ’t stopped at eating low on the food chain.
WeÂ’ve also
joined community supported agriculture, where we buy a share of
produce from
a local farm. The farmer gets upfront economic security and we get
very
affordable, local, fresh organic produce. We pay just $18 per week
for a
large bag of food. At this price we can afford to supplement our
diet with
additional organic items from the grocery store.
WeÂ’ve also taken a variety of other steps, from riding my bike to
work, to
offsetting car and air travel through renewable energy from an
independently
certified company, to buying 100% of our electricity from renewable
sources
through our local utility for as little as $15 per month.
While we may not be reaching the small ecological footprint of
those in many
third world countries, weÂ’ve done our best to come in line with our
planetÂ’s
limits while maintaining a decent quality of life.
So, are ecologists just as much a part of the problem as everyone
else? Are
all ecologists the same? What are the variety of lifestyle choices
made by
ecologists? Not only would the answers to these questions provide a
response to the ESA presenter, but I think the answer would be
interesting
to a wide audience. I propose that ESA conduct a poll of members,
asking
questions about lifestyle choices and demographics, comparing ours
to that
of the general public. If we are not different, this would be a
bit of a
wake-up call. However, if we are different, then perhaps some of our
lifestyle choices would be informative to understanding how to
achieve a
more sustainable society.
If there is one thing I learned from a cultural anthropology course
I once
took, it was that there isnÂ’t just one right way to live. Human
cultures
throughout the world are very diverse. But, from the inside of one
culture
it is often very hard to see other ways to live. Let us not be
trapped in
our culture, but seek a better understanding of all the ways of
living, so
that we might find a more sustainable path.
--
Kevin E. McCluney
Graduate Student
School of Life Sciences
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-4601
Christopher Moore, Ph.D. student
Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology
Department of Biology
University of Nevada, Reno
Office: Fleishman Agriculture Building 140
Webpage: http://www.unr.edu/~cmmoore
Email: [email protected]
