According to Peter H. Gleick, national parks in the United States are suffering and will continue to suffer the effects of climate change and of the improper use of their natural resources. With the combination of melting glaciers through climate change and of intense commercial use of freshwater resources, the odds are that they will become dry and lifeless.
In Gleick’s blog, “Managing the Waters”, water is considered an important part of ecosystems, and “healthy ecosystems require healthy waters” (Gleick, 2009). The blog mainly focuses on the importance of taking care of freshwater resources in the national parks versus depriving the parks of them. Ecosystems such as rivers are seen as just as important as, if not more than, the wildlife living in them.
There was a bit of confusion in one particular sentence in the blog:
“If we let our parks become fenced, static, ecologically impoverished oases in a sea of unsustainable development, they will cease being the living wonders envisioned by their founders.” (Gleick, 2009)
After having read the whole blog, it is clear that the word “static” in this sentence relates to a lack of water flow; however, with it being one of the first things mentioned, the use of this term is questionable and may seem exaggerated. The word “static” meaning motionless and unchanging, the original thought is that national parks cannot be static, as they are constantly changing environments and can survive without humans interfering.
Mainly because of the extent of their commercial use in national parks, freshwater resources are becoming scarce and their availability for the wildlife that shares their environment is nearing insufficiency. One can therefore see why the term “static” could have been used; disappearing water can lead to immobile ecosystems (lack of moving water as well as the death of wildlife that depends on it). That being said, it would have been helpful to include the author’s meaning of the word “static”, as, even though water is included in the title, the relation between water and the word “static” is not very clear. Gleick’s interpretation of human impact on national parks is still very well written, and his blog is useful in the recognition of the possible consequences of a badly looked-after national park.
Reference:
Gleick, Peter H. “Managing the Waters”. The New York Times. Sept. 27, 2009.
I would have to agree that the author should of included his own meaning of the word static because it clearly does not work with what is really happening to the national parks. Your blog did a good job in proving this point to the reader.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog it was very interesting.
Kendra Bester
I believe you did a very good job of analyzing the word needing conceptual analysis in the article. After reading the statement used in your article to demonstrate the need for conceptual analysis, I did not understand what the author was trying to say until I read your breakdown of what the author could have been trying to discuss, great work!
ReplyDelete