Ecolog:
"Conversion" of ecosystems from one type to another is a failed fairy tale
invented by exploitation-oriented "experts" (you don't have to ask them, they
will tell you that they are "ecological experts*) that has decimated uncounted
hectares/acres, especially where they can "afford" it. I have seen huge areas
chained and poisoned (agent orange) in the USA and apparently (huge areas of
dead conifers) Mexico because of the misguided belief that forage production
will increase when the "competitors" are extirpated. This is faux "ecology,"
not disciplined research, and it drags down the standard of scientific work in
a field (ecology) that already has enough trouble being taken seriously. Who
would even take money to "review" such stuff? But it needs reviewing, and it
needs open discussion, especially among ecologists. Gentlemen and ladies, get
out your whistles!
For example, true grasslands require certain kinds of soils, and few woodland
soils make good grasslands (except where the woodlands have developed
on/invaded/colonized grassland soils). The primary reason conversions appear to
"work" is that there is a transient release of nutrients when the roots of the
trees and shrubs decay. Another favorite of the "experts" is the claim that
water will be conserved when the trees are removed. Wrong again. Sure, more
water runs off (flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and debris-flows increase)
but spring and well productivity declines, albeit slowly at first. "Studies"
are safely short-term enough to validate the illusion. They are commonly
wrapped in the mantle of ecology, with a few of the buzz-words du jour
("sustainable," "carbon-neutral") as part of the sales package.
But, conversion can make a lot of money in the short-term, especially when
somebody else foots most of the bill (direct government subsidies, tax breaks,
price supports, ad nauseam). Then the landlord hires some destitute peons to
supervise the few stragglers that can survive to slaughter on the clear-cut,
chained, poisoned, alien-seeded, cow-burnt land that remains. That's what
"experts" do, convert Eden into dust bowls.
WT
*These folks even "publish" studies represented as "scientific," but will brook
no challenge to their "results," much less their biases. They can get away with
this largely because they "publish" in government publications for which there
is no procedure for challenging conclusions and methods, since they are not
journals, do not publish regularly wherein communications can be
printed/posted. They cling to assumptions that, despite the damage it does to
their own objectives, their short-term observations are valid for the long
term. Pride ain't one of the seven deadly sins for nuthin'. But don't get me
wrong--these folks really believe what they are doing is "ecological," that's
how they get away with it. Their bluff needs to be called. This is as good a
place as any to begin cleaning up questionable "research."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abraham de Alba A." <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
My 2 cents on the other side of the coin:
As you mention,
Kevin,
My 2 cents on the other side of the coin:
As you mention, eating lower on the food web is very important, EXCEPT when you
use grass-fed beef, because to my knowledge that's the only and best way to
trasform grasslands into sothing that we can use. And yes, there are out there
responsible ranchers that do more for their land and carbon footprint than
urbanites.
It is unfortunate that in most underdeveloped (not a politically correct term,
but still the same) we have moved from grass-fed to grain fed, mostly pushed by
consumers that want the cheapest not the best (I do hope that the grain prices
stay up there). Which touches on the basic issue here: education (but not the
typical "school" ed, is almost ethical ?).
For what it's worth, I also believe it`s a "human" problem, not even ecologists.
Abraham de Alba Avila
Terrestrial Plant Ecology
INIFAP-Ags
Ap. postal 20,
Pabellón Arteaga, 20660
Aguascalientes, MEXICO
SKYPE: adealba55
Tel: (465) 95-801-67, & 801-86 ext. 126, FAX ext 102
alternate: [email protected]
cel: 449-157-7070
________________________________
From: Kevin McCluney <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 9:50:17 PM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Are ecologists the problem?
I recently attended the 2009 annual meeting of the Ecological Society of
America (ESA). The theme of this year’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 year’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 apologized… 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 we’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 haven’t stopped at eating low on the food chain. We’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.
We’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, we’ve done our best to come in line with our planet’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 isn’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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.83/2353 - Release Date: 09/08/09
06:48:00
