OUR ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURE

 I have been posting on the environment and climate change on my Facebook site(Ron Milestone) almost daily for the last year. Although the day to day posts cover a range of topics, the basic issues are not complicated or confusing (though they may be difficult to solve!).
1) How do we rein in the use of fossil fuels and other carbon production to slow the climate changes already occurring? How do we do this without totally disrupting the economic balance of separate countries?  The relationship of humans to energy use is a vital concern.  A defined amount of energy arrives at the earth each day as sunlight.  This is converted into various phenomena and may be converted to other forms (solar power, wind turbines).  Residual heat from processes within the earth provides an additional source of energy.  And plants have stored energy in their structures over eons, and continue to do so.  Energy is stored in every molecule and methods of releasing this have been developed (nuclear) but their safety has historically been poorly engineered.  Energy is needed for daily activities and for transportation from place to place.  It is easier to use alternative energy sources converted to electricity for daily activities, and more difficult to use them for transportation.   The reserve of fossil fuels is depleting.  A decision must be made to slow their use and preserve their availability to make the transition to future power needs less drastic.
2) How do we adjust to the climate changes occurring and likely to continue in this century without catastrophic political events? This includes managing the changing distribution of water, intensification of weather events, fires, and the relation of people to the events.  Climate change is already underway.  How rapidly it will occur, and all of its ramifications are not understood.  Some of the effects are clear already.  Major political decisions will be needed to adjust to these changes.  Wars in regions of Africa and the middle east indicate the consequences for failure to make peaceful decisions.
3) How do we reduce the distribution of toxic polluting substances, and clear ones already distributed, to avoid human and animal damage? This includes ending the use of the oceans as toilets.  The manufacture of new materials and electronic devices is associated with the creation of pollution not cycled back to natural substances rapidly.  A similar issue occurs in nuclear production of energy.  The only solution to this problem is the reduction of use of these substances.  This goes in the face of the economic evolution of human consumption and will be difficult to accomplish!
4) How do we balance the distribution of humans to other plant and animal species to retain suitable biological diversity? This must involve changes in human demography, and changes in how humans exploit other species.  Every place where humans sequester land to grow crops  or animals for human consumption creates an opportunity for wild animals to exploit this food supply.  This interferes with human food production, and diverts animals from "natural" food source activities.  Opportunistic animal species also invade human cities and dwellings creating unintended "shared spaces".  THERE IS NO WAY TO COMPLETELY ISOLATE HUMANS AND OTHER SPECIES.  A constant attention to the ecology of sharing is needed,  along with creating "natural spaces" that retain animal species away from human concerns.  This is a decision about use of land, which also involves major economic and political considerations.
Solving these problems without creating chaos requires careful decisions about choices and balancing different goals. The current political process in the US is not capable of this level of careful decision making. Perhaps more mature countries will lead the process.

ENVIRONMENT "In wildness is the preservation of the earth."

This is a famous quote of Thoreau, who lived in a cabin on a pond in New England for a year, sometimes visiting town to have dinner at his mother's house, and was accorded honor and reputation for writing a book about it.  Recently a friend sent me a short article by a psychotherapist, George Sciple, about the importance of being in nature.  It stimulated me to think about my own experiences and what they mean.

He begins with:  “Many times in wilderness I have found myself in touch with processes through which I am actualized, I am filled with joy and peace and fullness.” The essay is a meditation on the impact of his experiences  in the natural world.  Throughout my life, I have also sought experiences in the natural world and wanted to compare with him.  Sciple emphasizes wilderness as not the world of persons,  but for me it is nature less modified by humans. Much wilderness in the US was already occupied by native people in ways that did not entirely disrupt the natural patterns.  Sciple calls this neutrality, the natural world does not engage him. He is being present without the need to attend to the expectations of others, but this is balanced by the need to attend to the risks and dangers of nature.  Sciple wonders why he doesn't persist in being in the natural world, his commitment to civilized society, and the fear of risk is important. Primitive cultures engage with the benefits and risks of the world around them, addressing the fears.  For him, the enormity of the natural world creates this neutrality, illustrated by a story of encountering a thunderstorm without protection, and experiencing its power.  Nature produces intense sensory experiences, and people are often unprepared when they live sequestered from it.  (People might prepare for the enormity and not be surprised or overwhelmed, as in “natural disasters”.)  His second principle is dealing without meta, i.e. abstraction, and he contrasts his use of abstraction when dealing with the unexpected intimacy of a friend with attending to the danger of dealing with a coiled snake.  Nature encourages relying on primary sensory communication. His third principle is ecotone, the boundary between eco-zones which humans often disregard, creating environments that block out nature.  This is closely related to the fourth principle congruence,  alignment with nature, whatever that means, which “increases the experience of self”.  Or maybe this isn’t congruence, but awe, and spiritual awareness.  This short essay,  written in 1988, anticipates our confused and changing interest in nature.  Item: more and more automobile ads show FWD vehicles, jeeps and trucks, crashing over natural roads to distant places.  Item: national parks are now often surrounded by gated expensive subdivisions to allow certain people to have a home near the “natural beauty”.  Jackson Hole and Bozeman are now areas of intense development.  Item: the attendance at national parks is so intense that vehicle traffic and parking must be restricted by reserved admission.  

It is useful to distinguish between people who live in the natural world,  and people who come to visit the natural world from the “developed world”.  His essay, and my experiences, are about people who periodically “escape” the developed world seeking an experience in the natural one.  We often bring food,  protection, and other devices to guide and “enhance” our experience of nature,  and we observe the dramatic differences, the recognition of ecotone, as he described.  People who live in regions with limited development must cope with the environmental dangers— weather, animals, water, and food, etc.  These are about daily survival, not special opportunities for awe and personal development.

Is it possible to blend the two worlds?  Can humans live protected lives that do not completely block nature?  Historically,  the very wealthy isolated property from the use of others as “hunting preserves” or other preservation of natural resources.  This was also done with redwood preserves. Parks, forests, and garden areas now provide managed and designed interactions with plants,  and sometimes animals as well.  But the boundary between these “natural regions” and the rest of the environment must be managed, and their desirability attracts the increase of human populations.  Plans like “30 percent protected in 30 years” seem to address the idea of protecting regions, but the problem with these plans is that no one tells the plants, the animals, or the weather.  People build small cattle ranches and are ravaged by wolves finding a new food source.  They plant food crops which are invaded by “weeds” and insects that use the fertilizer and water unless poisons are used.  Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and floods do not avoid designated human habitats. 

Creating a balance between nature and human development cannot be done by specifying rigid boundaries.  The only solution is an ecologic balance of human and other life into an integrated ecosystem in which selected parts do not destroy the others.  This is a disappointing answer.  Do humans need to give up developments in food, communication, housing, etc. in order to live ecologically?  I do not think we must give up all, but it will be necessary to revise and design the human footprint to accomodate.  Is this possible?  Is it possible politically?  Anybody got a crystal ball?

ENVIRONMENT: PARTICIPATING IN THE CHALLENGE

Reality is always distorted by politics,  and the discussion of solutions to the changes in earth's climate are a good example.

The climate is changing.  The overall temperature of the earth is getting warmer,  and rapidly.  This is not happening in a year,  but over decades.  The measurements are statistical but the trend seems clear and dramatic.  

Why is this happening? In the 1970s,  an ozone depletion theory was the proposed answer,  still considered by some  https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/why-warming-stopped/  https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/15/is-the-ozone-hole-causing-climate-change/   This theory has generally been replaced by the proposal that fossil fuel changes in the atmosphere create a "greenhouse effect".    https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/    https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuels-dirty-facts    https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports   It is important to understand that this is a theory, an explanation of the changes based on observations, correlations, and assumptions.  Are properties of the earth a factor?  Does climate shift in this way due to variations in solar energy,  or cycles of ice formation,  etc?  Opponents can find indications and data that do not support this theory.  That is inevitable in scientific discovery. 

But this is not just about proving a scientific theory.  The changes in the earth's temperature and related changes in climate are altering the distribution of plants and animals,  the location of arable land suitable for growing food,  and the distribution of water supplies.  These are measurable changes in the earth, whether or not they are the consequence of the use of fossil fuels.  The test of the importance of the role of fossil fuels would be the dramatic reduction in atmospheric changes and an associated change in climate.  This is unlikely to be possible.  Use of fossil fuels is directly related to economic development,  and sustained economic advantage.  It does not appear that any country with significant fossil fuel resources will forego use for the sake of the survival of the earth.  Statements by oil companies, etc.  to the contrary are marketing distractions to confuse consumers.  And it may not work!  The climate changes may have progressed too far,  and cyclical shifts are already occurring.  Or the reversals may occur but be much slower to reset the climate.  Human experience is generational roughly 20-40 years,  and so is political thinking.  So these climate changes are too slow for normal human thought processes.  COMMITTING TO THE  CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERE BASED ON FOSSIL FUEL AND OTHER POLLUTION IS A TRANS-GENERATIONAL COMMITMENT.  This is very difficult to accomplish in political terms.

Instead the focus in reporting and promoting is on natural disasters and animal extinction. Problems in the distribution of food and water have already given rise to migrations toward regions with more opportunity (though not always with regard to future climate issues).  Natural disasters are another source of confusion.  Tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and fires are recurring natural events that may be exaggerated by changes in climate. (The data to assert this is incomplete.)  But the reality is always the same:  When humans build dwellings in regions of high risk for natural disasters the dwellings are damaged or destroyed and the lives are altered.  The location of the disasters is statistically predictable,  yet humans return to the same sites to rebuild despite knowing the damage will return.  The fantasy of owning a piece of the earth interferes with the reality of recurring destruction from natural disasters.  The emphasis on animal extinctions is another example, to be considered in another blog.

Humans have relatively little political or personal control over climate change and natural disasters. By contrast we have a significant ability to manage the pollution of the earth and sea with toxic substances,  avoid living in disaster prone areas, and set aside regions of territory for maintaining some persistence of the previous environmental patterns (i.e. "wilderness" whatever that means).

To participate effectively in the future of the earth,  more thoughtful reflection is needed,  and less poorly thought out, and stupidly motivated political action.  No amount of Tesla production, or other electric vehicle use will offset fossil fuel and the need to generate power to reverse climate change.  It is an example of false marketing of climate change for economic purposes.

Economic development that destroys natural beauty

     The September 19th, 2016 New Yorker magazine has a profile on Yvon Chouinard,  the rock climber, adventurer,  developer of new climbing hardware,  and founder of the clothing company  Patagonia.  The profile captures the conflict between the adventurer and the businessman,  and reveals a fundamental split in the agenda of the outdoor community.  In keeping with Chouinard's personal values,  the company has championed high risk outdoor wilderness adventures,  primarily through the photographs in its catalog,  while maintaining a strong support for environmental protection.  The company has several initiatives to make its products more environmentally friendly and produces them with less environmental impact.  (Less than other outdoor clothing manufacturers?) He is personally famous for his climbing exploits and other adventures.  And the profile reveals his desire to be an environmentalist in the strongest terms.   Along with a few other colleagues of his generation (now 77) his career embodies the dream of people who pursue their favorite activities and are financially rewarded at the same time --- like Hobie Alter developing his beach boats,  and the Meistrell brothers who founded Body Glove wet suits.
     Chouinard is not happy though.  The natural world that he loved to explore and challenge is becoming crowded and overdeveloped.  Ski areas to him are "golf courses" of social and real estate development.  And climbing has become so popular  that major climbs require scheduling by serious climbers.   Surfing along the California coast is so crowded that on good days there is competition for waves that sometimes gets ugly.  What happened?  Success.  The adventures  of Chouinard and others were so appealing that more and more people were attracted to them,  and bought outdoor clothing,  and ropes,  chock and expansion bolts,  surf boards,  etc.  Outdoor adventure has become a major business.  REI of Seattle,  once a clubby supplier to hard core outdoorsy people is now a large marketer of the "outdoor lifestyle" with clothing,  lessons,  trips,  and everything you might need to enjoy your adventure.   Going outdoors is no longer for an odd group of folks who want to escape the more developed part of the world.  Major climbs like Mt. Whitney and Mt. Everest must be scheduled to deal with the high demand.  To be sure these are still daunting climbs requiring training and conditioning.   But more and more reports indicate that some of the climbers are marginally prepared and in mortal danger if the situation turns against them.  Deaths have occurred.  There are still wilderness areas in several parts of the Americas,  and the Himalayas.  But the most desirable of these areas get very busy at the peak times of the year and it is hard to say that you are "alone in the wilderness" at those times.
     Chouinard the businessman has succeeded in defining a lifestyle and a premium clothing brand that draws others to fantasize and sometimes populate the outdoors, so he is chipping away at the wilderness he is fond of, and wishes to protect.  It makes no sense to focus on him personally: there is now an extensive industry of equipment, clothing, travel planning,  and training all designed to make money off people wanting to be outdoors, in relatively wild and unspoiled places.  A similar challenge faces the National Park Service every year when it must deal with the seasonal demand for access and utilization of its most popular parks,  effectively degrading their "natural" and "wild" qualities into crowded tourist experiences.  Even the Sierra Club sponsors guided wilderness trips on the justification that getting people to experience the wilderness will make them stronger advocates for it.  There is a long history everywhere in the world of people discovering beautiful natural places and wanting to live around them. Housing developments are built by people wealthy enough to afford multiple homes,  and the sites become real estate projects.  Yvon's life story is just one poignant example of the incompatibility between the desire for natural experiences and the desire to have some economic benefit from the access.
     The solution is elusive.  It is possible to restrict the access to wilderness locations and require controlled reservations to enter them.  This already occurs in some popular National Parks.  And this effectively nullifies that sense of spontaneous wandering into wild places!  There are still beautiful unrestricted natural areas in the US and other parts of the world,  but the threats of development,  including high end tourist development are current challenges  along with natural resource development of logging,  mining,  and drilling.   How many ski mountains, once wild places with a few lifts and some rambling shacks, have been transformed into condo cities which flood to overflowing in good snow seasons and otherwise languish.  Avid skiers seem to rarely notice that the part of the mountain that is "wild and natural" has poles going up it to carry lift lines,  and the base is covered with lodges and resorts that are anything but "wild and natural".   Everyone is entitled to enjoy the gifts of nature in their own way,  but some ways effectively nullify the benefit for others.
     The only solution is changing the public's attitude toward using the natural world.  Give up using it to prove what a great climber you are.  Give up using it as a party space away from home with all the pleasures of home.  Give up making it easy and accessible to large numbers of folks.  Encourage visitors to concentrate only on seeing and understanding the natural features and beauty and not any way of exploiting or "using" it.  And this includes emphasizing natural means of navigation around the sites and limited access by motorized vehicles.   In short,  give up trying to make money off of the natural beauty in any aggressive way,  and fund access to preserve and protect the natural beauty that people initial claim to care about.  One can compare the North and South rim of the Grand Canyon to see how two different ways of developing the same site result in dramatically different experiences.  None of this is new.  Edward Abbey had the same rants in Desert Solitaire half a century ago.  And he did not slow the changes,  and neither will this.