This section focused mainly on energy and ways to make the US create less carbon emissions. The section makes a great point that warmer temperatures have an impact on both agricultural yields as well as coastal dwellers.
This past summer, I had the privilege of working at the Illinois Natural History survey assisting in botanical surveys across Illinois. The crop situation in much of the state was dire. In fact, yields of key crops were so low that the corn and soybean yield was the lowest in decades, and the drought was declared as bad as the 1988 drought (which was, coincidentally, the year I was born). Fortunately for botanical surveys, this meant that there were less mosquitoes and ticks to keep us company. Unfortunately, that also meant that an increasing amount of the vegetation was either dead or wilting under the strain of the heat. In addition, areas that had been active wetlands just five years prior were now planted with crops that would hopefully fare better than those planted in drier regions. In this way, the drought was not only impacting domesticated crops, and thereby yields and the returns of Illinois farmers, it was also impacting the native plants that used to thrive here. That was just the news from Illinois.
Over the winter break, I traveled down to Belize for a few short weeks of dissertation research between semesters. I was prepared for daily rain and a constant humidity that would make even 50 degree days seem incredibly chilly. Instead, I was met with temperatures that climbed into the 90s, but with humidity that made you sweat in the shade. The taxi drivers and my field assistants informed me that this weather was very unusual for this time of year. When I arrived, it had been so dry that my field assistant, who is also a farmer and owns cattle, had been forced to switch irrigation ponds to one that was no longer dry. This is the beginning of the classic "dry season" in Belize, with little rain expected for the next several months. Of course, before we left the rain returned with a vengeance, but with little of the potential accumulation and none of the colder temperatures.
These personal experiences pair nicely with Lester and Hart's examples, leading me to also conclude that the climate is warming, and significantly at that.
The solutions presented in the book were focused just on US energy, and mainly on reducing the carbon footprint. The solution to the fuel-driven economy of the US were nuclear and coal, wind and solar power, and even natural gas. Personally, I was shocked that someone would suggest that these are viable solutions, even for the short-term. As a biologist and anthropologist, I know the impacts that these alternative energy solutions have on multiple different species, including humans. Besides coal, fracking is perhaps the most disputed of the proposed alternative energy options. Fracking uses trillions of gallons of water along with billions of gallons of chemicals, and can contaminate nearby watersheds and, in turn, the many species that consume this water. Nuclear energy has many distinct drawbacks, as recently demonstrated clearly in Japan. In addition, the waste produced has very dire consequences both in the short and long term. Finally, wind energy often exploits areas that are key biologically, and also tends to disrupt bird migrations and other important biological processes. As mentioned in class, some people do not feel that these problems are enough to outweigh the benefits of these forms of energy. However, with some of the most brilliant minds ever evolved able to connect and share information and technology at rates and scales never before imagined, surely the future of energy does not have to involve as many sacrifices.
Another issue that I had with the Lester and Hart reading was with their disregard for countries and individuals other than human beings living in the US. Again, this greatly disturbs me. There are many more species living in the US besides humans. Just because we tend to have the greatest say in our own existence, and tend to negatively impact other species without caring much about it, does not mean that this is a viable way to exist! We do need to care that other species co-exist in our spaces. They do not need to be thought of as expendables or even as secondary to our own needs. The reason that we are able to exist as we do is because of the other species that we co-exist with. The sooner that more people realize this, the more protection can be afforded to other species. In addition, there are many more places on planet Earth besides the US. As an anthropologist, I am extremely offended that this section merely addresses other places in the world without giving it much thought or concern. The US is one of the most highly-industrialized and richest nations in the world, and even we cannot react quickly enough to natural disasters, such as tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes. If this is the US reaction, please stop to think about other countries that have far less resources and whose people are far less prepared or able to pick up and move given the increasing difficulties presented to them via climate warming.
Finally, the reading tends to suggest that the best method of proceeding forward in the energy innovation process is to employ competition, ie Capitalism. While this is, unfortunately, the mindset of many Americans, I do not feel that an innovation system focused on competition and backbiting is the best to solve this very global and very diverse problem. If anything, we need more cooperation and understanding between the different researchers and scientists who are working to make energy less carbon-dependent, thereby decreasing the negative impacts that are currently being felt through any energy usage.
No comments:
Post a Comment