Reaction to Chap. 1 of "The Age of Sustainable Development"

I enjoyed reading the first chapter of Jeffrey Sach's  The Age of Sustainable Development. I liked the organization of the information he presented. He introduced all necessary topics such as economic growth, issues involved with poverty, global environmental threats, and pathways to sustainable development. I also liked his many explanations of sustainable development but my favorite is :
"As an intellectual pursuit, sustainable development tries to make sense of the interactions of three complex systems: the world economy, the global society, and the Earth’s physical environment" (Sachs pg 3). I also appreciated how much detail he put into explaining economics because I can never understand GDPs or GPP or GNPs. Another quote I absolutely loved was "A small change in the cell's chemistry can lead to its death; a small change in the physical environment  may cause large and cascading changes to the relative abundance of the species in that environment" (Sachs pg 7). Overall, I enjoyed Sachs' introduction and I believe he laid out a strong foundation for understanding the rest of the book. I am looking forward to the next couple of chapters. 

Country for Research Paper: Australia, Madagascar, or Italy  

Reaction to Paul Sabin’s Book, The Bet

Overall, I feel ambivalent towards Paul Sabin’s The Bet. Simon and Ehrlich’s wager or “the bet” itself was interesting. I feel that both men were partially correct and were right to express their thoughts and concerns about the fate of the human race. Ehrlich was right about us using up our finite resources but he was wrong about the time it would take to get to the end of our supply (let that be considered food, fuel, etc.). However, what he failed to take into account was human intelligence and humans’ capability. Ehrlich was wrong not to believe in human advancement. Simon was right about us finding out new ways to conserve/produce more resources. However, we can only do so much with what we have left. Everyone has been talking about moving away from fossil fuels for years now, and soon we may have to stop talking about it and actually do it.  

I find it very interesting that even though Ehrlich and his friends were wrong and lost the bet, they still have an impact and are relevant well-known figures in the world today. Even though Ehrlich was a sore loser was extremely big-headed and automatically called men “idiots” or “morons” just because they didn’t agree with him. He even said “if Simon disappeared from the face of the Earth, that would be great for humanity.” –then Simon dies three years later (Sabin 203). I am surprised that Ehrlich is still involved in public debates today. Ehrlich’s colleague during the time of the wager who believed in Ehrlich, John Holdren, was appointed the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy by President Obama.

I believe that Paul Sabin had a balanced perspective. Sabin not taking sides allows the readers to make their own decisions. I appreciate the Sabin’s neutrality, but it is apparent how unethical some of Ehrlich’s ideas were. He does not suggest the immorality of their more extreme ideas such as Ehrlich’s forced fertilization and refusal of giving food to poor countries that did not abide by his ideals. I liked reading the background stories on the two men. Their history shows who they are and how they became THE Julian Simon and THE Paul Ehrlich. The message that I got from the book was to always keep an open mind. Also, not just environmentalists have an impact on political/environmental issues; Simon was an economist and had a huge role during the 80s and 90s.

After reading Bart Elmore’s book review of Sabin’s The Bet, I thought that Elmore did a great job summarizing the text. I agreed with a few of Elmore’s critiques such as Sabin’s lack of Middle-class citizen’s perspectives during Simon and Ehrlich’s wager. According to Elmore, “Sabin’s work does a great job of showing how elites created a poisonous culture of bickering that polarized policy makers in post-1970 America, but The Bet falls short when trying to explain how toxins of academic acrimony trickled down to Middle America.” I understand Elmore’s perspective and how he appreciated the detailed historic context in Sabin’s work. 

Sabin, Paul.  2014.  The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future.  New Haven: Yale UP.

The fate of Coral Reefs: Gloom or Doom?

Last week, Evan Lubofsky  wrote an article for Hakai Magazine on over-exaggerations that lab studies provide when testing coral reef tolerance to ocean acidification. The "gloomy" results of the lab studies show that corals have no chance against acidic waters; however, the author disagrees that lab studies do not incorporate important variables that are present in nature . Lubofsky is a science and technology writer whose work appears in several marine-based  and ecology related publications. Lubofsky does not have a substantial background in environmental science nor marine biology; only a degree in journalism. Although Lubofsky included the importance and significance of lab studies in his article, he only included one example of reef resistance in Palau. He leaves out the fact that there are several types of coral reefs and some are more tolerant of ocean acidification that others. I believe that despite the fact that lab studies cannot truly replicate oceanic environments,  they are crucial when determining the fate of coral reefs. 

What is happening to Madagascar's sea turtles?

Last week, Science Daily published a story on how Organized poaching is decimating Madagascar's sea turtles. The reason for the rise in trafficking is the increase in demand for marine turtle meat and oil in local markets and abroad. Also, local villagers are taking part in poaching for monetary gain. In the past several years, illegal hunting levels appeared to have increased significantly. Science Daily is a well-known science news website on latest scientific discoveries in different fields ranging from physics to applied science. The report was very informative, however, I wish there was more statistical information on the hunting levels and the endangerment of sea turtles. Obviously, it is evident that the authors are against the poaching of the sea turtles which I agree with. In addition, I think it is necessary to raise awareness on the importance of sea turtles and how marine life is being threatened every day. 

Shells of poached sea turtles. WCS says the illegal hunting of Madagascar's sea turtles is reaching a crisis level as a result of organized trafficking networks.

Credit: Santisy Andriamiravo/WCS Madagascar

Are Malthusian claims predicting the inevitable future or doubting human capabilities?

Paul Ehrlich adopted Reverend Thomas Malthus's view on population growth. Malthus believed that there was "tension between populations growing exponentially and limited subsistence doomed humanity to harsh suffering" (Sabin 2014, p. 6). Due to populations rapidly doubling and subsistences incremental increasing families would run out of food and suffer from starvation. Specifically, "famine, unbelievable pollution, elimination of land for recreation, education only those who can pay for it, deterioration of services" according to Charles Remington who shared views with Ehrlich (Sabin 2014, p. 28). I agree that humans should be wary on overpopulation in hundreds (maybe thousands) of years from now, although, I believe that through new technologies, there won't be harsh sufferings. Due to fossil fuels, mass productions and agricultural innovations allowed an increase in food supplies around the world. Humans are not parasites, and our reproduction will not be our downfall (Sabin 2014, p. 27). I believe that we may run out of natural resources {if we do not have any other options after the depletion of fossil fuels} but will prosper through innovation.

For more info on The Bet click here

Sabin, Paul. 2014. The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future. New Haven: Yale UP.

Is the EPA truly helping the Passaic River or taking the easy route?

The recent Washington Past article by Brady Dennis discusses the EPA's $1.4 billion plan to clean up in the Passaic River by removing the industrial toxins and installing a stone barrier. Jeff Tittel makes valid points on why the removal is not the most favorable plan such as the chance that the barrier won't last. The companies responsible for the pollution will not be required to remove the chemicals, heavy metals, and pesticides. Also, only the lower eight miles will be cleaned up, and the companies will not cease to dump their waste into the river. Although the EPA's plan does not eradicate every issue, it is a step in the right direction. There are many cleanup projects throughout the East Coast that EPA is funding, which takes years of planning and designing. Even though this cleanup only involves 8 miles, there may be more cleanups in the future that will remove all the toxins from the river. One day, every community bordering the river will be able to swim and fish in the Passaic.

For information on the pollution in the Passaic click here  and more information on how the polluters will pay for the plan can be found here.

                                         Trash found on the outer edges of the Passaic River