Thinking into the Future

The article “Canadian rivers in trouble, study warns” (De Souza, 2009) discusses the state of 10 Canadian rivers. The study says that if something isn’t done soon, rivers in Canada will be perilously close to disappearing. The main idea in this news article is that economic and infrastructure developments are the biggest factors in the disappearance of rivers. This blog will explore why the issue of losing rivers should be addressed now, and why it shouldn’t be left for our children to sort out.
An idea brought out in the book Environmental Principles and Policies: an interdisciplinary introduction, is that of ‘The Equity Principle’ (Beder, 2006). A division of that is Intergenerational Equity. This is
“the need for a just distribution of rewards and burdens between generations,
and fair and impartial treatment of future generations” (Beder, 2006).
In other words, we are responsible for leaving a healthy and habitable environment for the generations to come. Since the people of the future can’t stand up for themselves right now, a few guidelines have been put down.
The first of these guidelines is Justice. In this case, it is only fair that we give the future what we were given. While growing up and living in Canada, we were allowed to use these rivers. Even if the uses weren’t always the most economically or environmentally friends, they were there. As a result it would go against most humans’ morals to deny these amazing resources to the coming generations.
The second guideline is Responsibility. As organisms who have a concept of the relationship between actions and consequences, we must take responsibility for our actions. This is where the Precautionary Principle steps in. If we don’t know what the result of something is going to be, (especially if there’s a chance that it might be a negative effect,) then we shouldn’t do it. We’ve already passed the early stages of that type of consideration. But we can now say that continued action in the same direction will definitely have a negative effect on the surrounding ecosystems (and as a result negatively effect life on Earth). Although these negative effects probably won’t be seen fully in our lifetime, they should be appreciated in our lifetime. We should take responsibility for our actions, because we have “the capacity to bring about these consequences” and “have the choice to do otherwise” (Beder, 2006).
The third guideline (and final one being addressed in this blog) is Avoiding Harm. We may not have the duty to make the life of future generations better than the lives we currently lead, but we must at least see that destroying their chances at survival is wrong. In all likelihood, they will need the same things to survive that we need now: nutritional food, clean water, habitable environment, shelter, etc… If we were to allow these rivers to run dry during our lifetime, then the bodies of water that the feed (and are fed by) would be greatly and almost certainly irreversibly altered. Without drinking water, future generations won’t be able to survive. Thus, protecting today’s rivers and other water supplies is a small act that can play a major role in ensuring future life on Earth.
In conclusion, today’s generation has a duty to maintain the current water levels in Canadian rivers, and other water sources around the globe. Avoiding harm to future generations is the just and responsible thing to do.


References

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.

De Souza, Mike. "Canadian rivers in trouble, study warns." Vancouver Sun - Canadian breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, B.C. 15 Oct. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. .

An Incentive for Fisheries: Used for Resource Protection or for Economical Purposes?

The decline in fish species has been an unaddressed problem until recently. Even today, it is a major problem and although it is claimed that it has been confronted, the decline seems to be becoming more and more problematic. One incentive that has been suggested in certain cases (e.g. the orange roughy fishery case (Beder, 2009)) to stop this loss is the use of tradable fishing quotas, also called individual trading quotas (ITQ). At first glance, ITQs seem logical and effective. The total allowable catch (TAC) for a fishery is separated, individual quotas are given out, and people can trade these quotas if they desire to fish more. This should allow for the right amount to be fished, which would cause enough fish to remain for reproduction. However, due to problems caused by big quota holders and by a lack of rule enforcement, these quotas do not seem to be stopping people from overfishing.

In a blog post written by Benjamin Leard, the use of ITQs is seen as a good alternative to fishing regulations. Leard mentions the fact that with ITQs, there would be no more “pressure to harvest” (Leard, 2009), as there would be enough fish for all who own an ITQ. He also explains that a “strict monitoring system” (Leard, 2009) would be essential, and that satellites are helpful for this, using the European Union’s use of them as an example. Finally, he states that the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association (NOAA) has already taken steps towards the use of ITQs. If ITQs were to work as planned, these points would be true and the solution to collapsed fisheries would be solved. Nevertheless, the goal of ITQs is "to make the fleet more economically efficient” (Beder, 2009). The focus is therefore not on reducing the amount of species fished, but rather on making the fishing more successful economically. The trading of ITQs is encouraged so that fewer boats are used for fishing, reducing the amount of personal boats and increasing the amount of large powerful boats.

Large nets are used, able to “‘catch anything from a shrimp to a whale’ as well as ‘swordfish, sharks, birds and marine mammals’” (Hagler 1995:77, as cited by Beder, 2006). The nets often catch large quantities of immature fish, which are thrown back into the water and usually die from this. Nets used by large companies are usually dragged along the bottom of the fishery, destroying aquatic environments and therefore killing more of the fish and other valuable animals.

The problem with ITQs is that they do not account for all the fish that are thrown back into the water, and these are usually more numerous than the fish collected (Beder, 2006). The “pressure to harvest”, as mentioned by Leard, would then still exist and could even be higher than in the past, as there would be such a large amount of fish not considered when calculating the TAC. To prevent this, Leard suggested the use of satellites, but this is not possible for all countries. According to Beder, it is even expensive to have people monitoring onboard, making satellites absolutely out of the question. Other problems include people being dishonest about the amount fish in order to receive a higher quota, as well as people recording valuable species as similar, not as valuable species.

Individual trading quotas originally seem like an advantageous way of ensuring that only a certain amount of fish are taken out of their ecosystems. However, after considering the consequences linked to big fishing companies with their reckless fleets as well as the lack of proper monitoring, ITQs may actually be the cause of higher declines in fish species. A considerable amount of investment must be made to help regulate the amount of unusable fish being taken out and to improve monitoring systems in order to benefit from ITQs and to successfully preserve the ecosystems.

Resources

(As cited by the author): Sharon Beder, ‘The Corporate Agenda for Environmental Property Rights’, Property Rights and Sustainability, NZ Centre for Environmental Law Conference 2008, Auckland, April 2009. http://www.uow.edu.au/~/sharonb/property.html

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies. Sydney: UNSW Press, and London: Earthscan, 2006. Print.

Benjamin Leard. “Are Property Rights Key to Saving U.S. Fisheries?” http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1793-are-property-rights-key-to-saving-us-fisheries. AIER, July 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.

Possible lake explosion endangers millions

http://trak.in/news/rwandan-lake-runs-risk-of-turning-into-freshwater-time-bomb/24570/

The article “Rwandan lake runs risk of turning into freshwater time bomb”(November 17, 2009) by ANI talks about Lake Kivu, a freshwater lake found between the countries Congo and Rwanda. This large body of fresh water contains dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide and methane gas, and because of this Lake Kivu is at risk of explosion. The circumstances of this lake bring about issues which involve the human rights principle and the precautionary principle. Both principals will be explained further in this blog.

Within the article it states “approximately 2 million people, many of them refugees, live along the north end of the lake.”(ANI, 2009) All of these people are at risk because of the unpredictable state of lake Kivu. There are a number of different catalysts found within the lake, which keep the carbon dioxide at the bottom of the lake stabilized. However, if these catalysts were to destabilize the lake would explode, and could result in a earthquake or even a volcanic explosion. This event would leave the 2 million people living in a vulnerable state. The human rights principle states that every human deserves the right to life; however Lake Kivu is putting local communities in danger. Therefore it would be plausible to assume that further research needs to be conducted to determine the hazardous affects that the fatal gas would have on the communities around the lake. Knowing these affects, fundamental human rights could be put in to action to allow everyone to have the right to life, human health and well-being (Beder, 2006).

The precautionary principle uses the reasoning that action should be taken to avoid very serious or permanent damage despite of lack of scientific certainty. In the case of Lake Kivu there is a lack of scientific certainty due to the lack of conclusive evidence. Therefore it is right to employ the precautionary principle, because it is better to take action in this instance as soon as possible. This is because the safety of the people around Lake Kivu is most important. If action is postponed because of research it could be disastrous to the community.

This research may be a lengthy process which would put the large amount of people in this area in serious danger. Therefore the precautionary principle should be employed to aid the well being of the community of people in this region. In order to initiate such action, the community that lives around this lake must be forced to evacuate the surrounding area. In this situation people living here must be evacuated sooner rather than later for their own safety. It may be a difficult process to move 2 million people whom live around the lake, but it benefits their right to life because they are better off to not be in close proximity to a Lake that has the capacity to explode.

Lake Kivu is a highly unstable lake, which increases the risk of those communities that live around it. Because of this, the principles of human rights are violated and the precautionary principle needs to be put into place. To avoid any harm to the communities, they should be relocated to a safer place. Until any reasonable scientific certainty can be obtained showing that lake Kivu is a safe place to live, the precautionary principle should be applied. When these environmental principles are applied, it is clear that the people need to evacuated from the lake Kivu region.

Kendra Bester

Sources:

ANI. "Rwandan lake runs risk of turning into freshwater time bomb Source: Rwandan lake runs risk of turning into freshwater time bomb carbon dioxide and methane, lake kivu, methane gas, saline springs, volcanic explosion." Web log post. Trak In News. 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. <http://trak.in/news/rwandan-lake-runs-risk-of-turning-into-freshwater-time-bomb/24570/>.

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.

Fresh water: is the world’s most important resource in need of the precautionary principle?

The need for clean, fresh water has become a growing concern over the decades, and according to a new study fresh water is going to become even higher in demand in the upcoming years. This study was carried out in four specific areas in the world where a combined 42% of the projected water demand will be located. The study, conducted in China, India, South Africa and Sao Paulo state in Brazil, determined that by the year 2030, global fresh water usage will be “40 per cent higher than current supplies and agriculture is predicted to suck up 65 per cent of all [fresh water] resources” (The Straits Tines, 2009). Specifically in India, the study found that in 2030, fresh water supplies will need to be double what they are today in order to satisfy the needs of this ever growing nation’s population.

In the study, it is stated that “'…the situation is getting worse. There is little indication that left to its own devices, the water sector will come to a sustainable, cost-effective solution to meet the growing water requirements” (The Straits Times, 2009). Water basins in India are currently the main source of fresh water for millions in the nation, and are at a great risk if no action is taken to protect this important resource. If no immediate action is taken, these basins are at risk of depleting greatly in size, and even vanishing completely, leaving these millions who depend on them without any fresh water source.

Due to the fact that India’s population is constantly on the rise, the need for food is also going to continue to increase. Demand for these foods, such as rice, wheat and sugar will mean that India’s agricultural division will utilize approximately 1.5 trillion cubic metres of water by 2030. It may be hard to control the use of water in India due to these rising numbers in population and the demand for food; however it is a necessary precaution that must be taken in order to ensure that future generations in India have any water at all. Therefore it can be determined that in order to avoid these massive increases in fresh water demands the precautionary principle must be implemented.

The Precautionary Principle is defined as being a solution used when an action or activity raises threat or harm to human health or the environment. In a case where the precautionary principle is necessary, there may be some cause and effect relationships not fully established scientifically. The basis of the principle is to do as little harm currently as possible in order to benefit as many people as possible in the future. By implementing the precautionary principle, such taxing companies and agricultural facilities that regularly use fresh water in processes, the amount of fresh water needed in the future may be reduced.

The Aarhus Convention, adopted in 1998, recognizes that “every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being…to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations…”(Environmental Principles and Policies, 2006). By examining this statement, a conclusion can be drawn in the issue of depleting fresh water resources all around the world. In order for future generations to develop and strive, it is necessary that we take drastic action today by means of implementing the precautionary principle.

Resources

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies; An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan: London, 2006

The Straits Times. “India water needs set to double”. The Straits Times. 24 November 2009. http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_458438.html

Envrionmental Earth Perspectives. “The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science” September 2001. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/109p871-876kriebel/kriebel-full.html#def

Emily Hartwig

Wetlands: Our Most Valuable Water Resource

One of the most underappreciated and vital water resources are the marshes, swamps, bogs and fens of North America. These ecosystems not only provide water filtration and storage for human populations, they also are home to a huge number of plant and animal species. Other functions of wetlands include pollution control, ground water recharge, drought mitigation, shoreline protection and recreational opportunities. (Beder 2009) Yet despite these benefits, wetlands have been and are still being destroyed at an alarming rate. The blog post Wetland Restoration: The Best Alternative to Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies by Jeremy Jacquot highlights another reason that wetlands should be protected: they are a valuable form of carbon storage. Perhaps this benefit will finally be the key to wetland survival.

Carbon is stored primarily in the peat soils formed in undisturbed wetlands. Plants photosynthesize throughout their lifetime, absorbing carbon dioxide. When they die, the carbon containing plant matter settles to the bottom of the marsh to form a peat soil. Oxygen does not reach this submerged soil so decomposition occurs very slowly, resulting in little release of that stored carbon dioxide. Now that it is known what a valuable combatant to global warming wetlands can be, there needs to be a way to protect them from further degradation.

Many conservation methods have been attempted throughout the world. One technique is to give people the right to a resource, because if they own it, or are entitled to it, they are more likely to protect it for the future. Communally owned wetlands are degraded because it benefits the individual to use them up before someone else does. This entitlement puts a market on conservation because people would be able to buy and sell these resource rights. Although it may seem that this would give the environment some standing in an economic world, tradable rights to a resource actually degrade the environment further. This will be outlined in the following example of attempted wetland conservation.

The most common method of wetland conservation, as outlined in Sharon Beder’s Environmental Principles and Policies, is the use of Wetland Mitigation Banking. This form of economic environmental protection attempts to preserve the net amount of wetland remaining. Compensation for building can be achieved through the restoration of another wetland. This is challenging for large companies to do, because they lack the expertise. Instead, another company can improve and remediate a wetland independently and then sell the credits earned to the large company. In theory this is intended to create large tracks of protected wetland and stop the net loss of this valuable resource.

This is not a perfect solution. If you totally destroy 5 hectares of marsh and then remediate 5 hectares somewhere else, there is still a net lost of 5 hectares of wetland. Also, the benefit of the wetland is locally important. Usually companies pay for the improvement of a wetland that is far from the area that has been destroyed, maybe even in another watershed. This leaves no purification, flood protection or biodiversity for the area with the brand new shopping mall. Location also is important when considering what species can live in it, and even what kind of wetland it is. If all of the restored and protected wetlands are located in one spot, the diversity of many smaller marshes, bogs, fens and swamps is lost. Finally, there are some wetlands that are much cheaper to create and/or restore. Larger ponds with a rim of wetland are far easier to create but are worth the same amount of credit as deep peat swamps. The more ecologically diverse and beneficial types, such as bogs and swamps, are far more expensive. They are also the best at carbon dioxide absorption.

I think that if resources such as wetlands are going to be bought and sold on a market, there needs to be a much better system of evaluating their dollar value. There must be some division between the types of wetlands, and the services they provide can not be undestimated. It seems that in most cases the environment is devalued when put on the market. To improve ecomonic conservation, valuation methods need to be changed. Mitigation banking has some merit and could probably be reformed into a much better method of environmental conservation. Restored wetlands would have to be located in the same region as the wetland that was destroyed and the replacement for a wetland would have to be more than just that area restored somewhere else. Maybe twice as much restoration in exchange for the complete annihilation of a wetland would suffice.

Although I hate to think that wetlands might one day all be individually owned and not for the enjoyment of the public, it does make sense that they would be better looked after that way. Although many would litter on a public beach, they probably won’t dump garbage on their own dock. It would work the same way for wetlands.

Overall, the mitigation banking system has many faults, but if it was implemented for the purpose of protecting wetlands then it is a step in the right direction. We depend on these riparian ecosystems more than most realize, making it worth the effort to protect what is left. Hopefully the need to offset global warming will give wetland conservation priority in the years to come.

- Amy Adair

References

Beder, S. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies. Sterling: Earthscan.

Jacquot, J. E. (2009, October 22). Wetland Restoration: The Best Alternative to Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from treehugger: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/wetland-restoration-ccs.php

Endocrine Disruptors Harmful to People and Ecosystems

A recent study in Alberta discovered that many pesticides are common and widespread in the province’s surface water. 44 different types of pesticides were found in 65% of the samples located mostly in agricultural areas of the province (Water Matters, 2009). The large amount of pesticides found are believed to be responsible for sex changes in fish as many of these pollutants act as endocrine disruptors interfering with hormones. Since these endocrine disruptors are known to be harmful to fish, people have begun to wonder how they will be affected by these potential toxins.

The Participation Principle states that, “Environmental Issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision making processes.” (Rio Declaration 1992, as cited by Beder, 2006). Essentially, people have the right to know about potential dangers in their community and should be involved in processes to eliminate these threats. This information must be made accessible to them at all times, and if it is not the government should be held accountable.

There are many risks associated with Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC) as the University of Calgary discovered. While the impacts that EDC’s have on humans are not well known, they are believed to be quite harmful. They include an increased risk of cancer, neurological impairment, developmental effects, reproductive effects, organ damage and hormone interference (Water Matters 2009). At this point in time, a maximum allowable concentration (MAC) is not known, so precautions must be taken. It is important for governments to act in a proactive manner providing maximum disclosure to their citizens through publications, promotion of open government, making sure that disclosure does not take precedence over other laws (Beder, 2006).

Most EDC’s are released through municipal wastewater in the form of laundry detergent or even prescription drug residue. If the wastewater is not properly treated, it emerges in many freshwater ecosystems harming the organisms who inhabit it. Since this is not from a single point, it makes it very difficult to pinpoint who the actual polluters are. The wastewater treatment plant obviously requires new infrastructure to reduce pollution, and this could be obtained by implementing an overall pollution tax. This idea would support the Polluter Pays Principle which believes that the person or company responsible for the pollution be the one to pay to rectify the damage. Unfortunately it would be difficult to support this principle in this situation as the pollution is not caused by a single point source but by entire cities.

Water pollution has become a very serious issue affecting large amounts of the world’s already scarce freshwater supplies. In todays large industrialized cities, people are able to literally dump large amounts of pollutants down their drains and are given safety in numbers as it would be quite impossible to track down who discarded what and where. Controlling how and where harmful substances are disposed is necessary in order to preserve water.

-Elisabeth Shapiro

Sources:

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies; An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan: London, 2006

Water Matters. What's in your water? Understanding Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. www.water-matters.org, 2009.

To Control or to Charge?

The article “Wells Voters decide on Water Extraction Regulation” discusses a regulation that is being voted on in the town of Wells. This regulation was originally proposed in 2008, after talks between Poland Spring and the Wells Water District. Poland Spring is a part of the Nestle corporation, and it’s purpose is selling bottled water. Presently, the town has placed a ban on large ground water extraction (i.e. from aquifers). This ban is only meant to be temporary. The upcoming vote is meant to find a permanent solution for the debate over bottling Wells’ freshwater resources.
The proposed regulations are meant to monitor the amount of water being removed from the area, as well as ensuring the least amount of environmental changes. In order to be considered for water extraction, companies must outline every single part of what they expect to do. They have to provide a reason for the water extraction, as well as analyses of recharge rates, and resulting (added) vehicular traffic. For the environmental side, they need to list potential effects of the operation (good or bad). They also show a map of any plots of land being used, and what they are going to be used for. All of this information is given to a “Planning Board” which has the ability to grant or deny the applicant permission to water extraction. Each approval only stands for three years. After the three years are up, the applicant goes through the entire process again. The final major aspect of this proposed regulation is that the Board may rescind their approval if something goes wrong (the extraction limits are exceeded).
Another approach to this problem could be economic incentives. Monetary restrictions and offers are very useful tools when dealing with anyone, from big corporations to smaller individuals. One possibility could be charging per gallon. The town has chosen large scale extraction to be “extraction of water from ground water sources, aquifers, springs, wells, and similar sources in a total amount on any given day of 20,000 gallons or more (Kanak, 2009).” After this 20,000 gallon mark is reached, the price per gallon can be raised significantly to reduce the chances of exceeding this level. A second possibility could be to sell permits for the use of Wells water. The town can sell a certain number of permits for water extraction and distribute them amongst the approved applicants. This would ensure that their ideal extraction amount is never exceeded. If the company that has the permit doesn’t extract all of the water allowed under the permit there are three options. The town could (a) let the company sell the remaining amount to another company, (b) let the company sell the remaining amount back to the town, or (c) allow the remaining amount to carry over to the next day.
I think that the permit idea would work the best out of the options listed above. Selling permits would make sure that no matter how many people or companies want to extract water, the ‘acceptable’ amount would not be passed. It would still be necessary to get proposals from the parties interested in extraction. This would be to prevent any possible environmental change or damage. If permits are in place, it is then up to the ‘extractors’ to allot amounts among themselves, as opposed to a proposal board deciding who can extract how much after each application.


References:
Kanak, Jim. "Wells Voters to decideon Water Extraction Regulation." The Weekly Sentinel. 30 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2009. .