The term apologetic has nothing to do with saying "I'm sorry". Quite the contrary. It comes from the Greek ἀπολογία (apologia) which means "speaking in defense." While there are many literary/secular examples of apologetic it is probably the religious scholar who most often uses the term. Nevertheless it was the best term I could find for the intentions of this blog, and I sincerely believe that most conservation/environmental writers were/are at some time apologists - from Henry David Thoreau, to Edward Abbey, John F. Kennedy, Jr., and E.O. Wilson, who are just a few of a great many.
I can only be called an environmentalist, a conservationist, a nature lover, a tree-hugger. Until you have walked in our shoes - the famous Native America "walk in their moccasins" - you have no idea of the extent of prejudice and abuse we suffer. We are frequently treated like a clueless flower-child. Many people show signs of anger toward environmentalists and others snicker at nature lovers or conservationists. "Tree-hugger" was a derogatory term which, like Yankee, we've turned into a proud symbol. We are always treated like the abnormal. But what is so abnormal about loving your home, wanting clean air and water, and a good future for your progeny?
The demises of our wilderness and oceans
I love the wilderness. Looking back at my childhood, the places my parents took me to visit that I liked the best were forests, lakes, parks and natural wonders. As an Explorer Scout I ran with a group who liked nothing more than heading out for a three or four day camping trip with only the basic survival essentials or traveling a good portion of French Creek (a contributory of the Allegheny River) in canoes. So it is no wonder that I became a trail runner and made it my goal to run through parks, mountains and wilderness areas across the United States, culminating in becoming a National Park Service volunteer at Glacier National Park, Montana. Being an NPS volunteer has been one of the greatest adventures and experiences of my life.
About 12 years ago I had my first scuba diving experience in Hawaii. I didn't tell any one but I was certain that I was going to be the one who would panic. But I didn't panic. It was marvelous. A little over two years ago I got my scuba certification and now have a master diver certification. It is the most awesome experience of freedom. It is almost surreal. Watching aquatic animal life and exploring natural formations gives you a tremendous appreciation of our beautiful blue planet. Then you run into the trash. Divers have a saying "Take only pictures. Leave only bubble." Unfortunately there are people who don't believe this.
The wilderness and the oceans are beautiful, magnificent, dangerous, challenging, beckoning, strengthening, and a source of peace and solace. But above all they are places that provide and protect those things which sustain life on this planet. Wilderness and the ocean is a source of clean water and produces almost all of our oxygen.
Most of the oxygen on the planet is actually locked into minerals like quartz and calcite.
(1) We can't do anything about that, but 50% of the breathable oxygen on the planet is produced by photosynthesis by microorganisms in the ocean. 20% of our air comes from the Amazon Rain Forest alone which leaves only 30% produced by trees and plants elsewhere on the globe. If we are destroying much of our oceans through pollution and the destruction of reefs, what do you think we are doing to the 50% of oxygen produced there? Would you not agree that to blatantly abuse our planet's oceans is to commit suicide?
 |
| Hypercapnea (3) |
Why would destroying our oceans be suicidal? Well, we know that 50% of our oxygen comes from photosynthesis in the ocean. If we destroy that, wouldn't the other sources pick up the slack? I don't think you could make that argument for two reasons: (1) you can't expect an ecosystem to produce more oxygen than it is already producing, and (2) we're likewise destroying the other oxygen producing areas with equal or greater rapidity. At one point the rainforest, which you will remember provides 20% of our oxygen, covered 14% of the Earth's surface. It now covers only 6%. We have about 40 years left.
(2) I don't think anyone can make a viable argument that earth can survive on 30% of its oxygen. Besides, we are destroying forests and other high oxygen producing areas at a dramatic rate. For example, Russia is the home of the world's largest area of tree cover. It is losing 16,600 square miles of trees every year. That's an area larger than New Hampshire and Vermont combined.
(4) So this is very bad. If we destroy our oceans and the rainforest, in about 40 years we'll be dependent upon the remaining 30% which is being destroyed at the rate of 16,600 square miles each year. There sure isn't going to be much oxygen left. Boreal forests in Russia and Canada are also major carbon sinks which leaves us with a double whammy. As oxygen goes down, carbon dioxide will be going up. The human body does not do well in a high CO
2 atmosphere as you can see in the chart entitled Hypercapnea.
Bottom line . . . to destroy our wilderness and our oceans is to destroy our life. If you want to claim that these figures are either made up or exaggerated, there are actual photographs from space where you can see the change.
Let's also consider a fact that I pointed out in a FaceBook post on Old Conservationist viz. that the Amazon rainforest alone is responsible for most of our medications. 1300 of 2000 current cancer drugs are dependent upon the rainforest. Also, the coral reefs of our oceans alone infuse $375 billion into the world economy each year and they provide food and resources for 500 million people in 94 countries.
(5) Is that not also worthy of consideration?
Pure water. Water is a most precious commodity. Sadly most Americans have no idea how precious water is and consume 3.9 trillion gallons a month when 1.1 billion people don't even have access to potable water.
(6) I have lived where clean water was a luxury not to be taken for granted. When we bathed in a tub it contained only 2-3 inches of water. If we showered, we would quickly wet ourselves, turn off the water, lather and wash, then quickly rinse. That obviously wasn't in the United States where the long luxurious hot shower is given little thought and treated like a birthright. I still spend very little time in a shower. Every time I bathe I think of those days and the people for whom clean water is such a luxury.
The issue, however, is much greater than abuse and misuse. Pollution is an extremely serious problem. While we generally think of pollution as a third-world country problem, there is lots of pollution right here in North America. "Water is typically referred to as polluted when it is impaired by
anthropogenic contaminants and either does not support a human use, such as
drinking water, or undergoes a marked shift in its ability to support its constituent biotic communities, such as fish."
(7) A 2007 EPA report to Congress (2002 data) reported that 45% of stream miles that were tested, 47% of lakes and 32% of bays and estuaries that were tested were found to be polluted.
(8)
We can also make the connection between pure water and wilderness areas. Glacier National Park in northwestern Montana (about 20 miles from Idaho and sharing part of the park with Canada) probably has the highest concentration of scientist studying water at any one time of any place in North America. You see, Glacier contains the Triple Divide Peak. Waters here flow north into the Hudson bay and effect the entire eastern side of North America. They also flow westward effecting the west coast of North America and south via the Flathead and Missouri Rivers into the Mississippi, effecting the central part of the United States. Poison or pollute this Triple Divide Peak and you adversely impact almost every drop of water in North America. And it is being polluted. While the National Park Service and the State of Montana do an admirable job keeping contamination out of this wilderness area, they can not stop planes from flying overhead. Airplanes are dropping measurable amounts of pollutants. They can not stop snow and rain which carries pollutants from cities and civilization to the west.
 |
| Anti-road paving at Polebridge parade drew great applause. |
There are efforts to conduct coal mining in the Canadian North Fork which would send polluted water along the western side of the park, and efforts to pave the US North Fork road which would mean more traffic along the waterways along with threatening commercial development.
(9) The focal point of the North Fork is a place called Polebridge - population 15. Polebridge is literally off the grid. It has no electricity, telephone, cable, gas, water or other public utilities. It is 20 miles from the nearest paved road, and the people who live in the North Fork area want to keep it that way. The mountains and wilderness are their livelihood. They don't want to see them destroyed. I was privileged to be a judge at the Polebridge 4th. of July Parade in 2014. Here's a picture from the judge's stand (a piece of plywood on a tractor-forklift) of the entry against paving the North Fork Road. They received hearty cheers.
The destruction of plant and animal species. I would never chastise a hunter because, in our western society, we have been taught by religion that other animals are ours to do with as we wish. But the average hunter really isn't the focus of this argument and are generally not the culprits in the demise of animal species. In fact, many individual hunters are strong conservationists and abhor western society's attitude toward the destruction of animal species. Commercial "hunting" - mass slaughter - is a different thing. Bludgeoning baby seals to death can hardly be put in the same category as hunting but that's what they call it. The biggest offender is the spread of the homo sapiens and the western attitude that animals are on this planet for us and we can do with them as we please.
 |
| Notice the amount of green in 1978 as compared to 2012. That's not good! |
Human expansion is responsible for the loss of great tracts of farmland and forests. 3000 acres of farmland is lost to development every DAY
(10) and 46-58,000 square miles of forest are lost each year. That is the equivalent of 36 football fields
per minute.
(11)
We've already talked about the impact of this type of loss on human survival. What about plants and other animals? As we encroach on their habitat they have one option - find another place to live or die.
A good example of this is the tiny Pikas that live at high altitudes in the Rocky Mountains. This little creature has adapted to life in extremely cold climates. They love extreme cold and can die if the temperature goes up to only 78 degrees. They are being pushed higher and higher into the mountains. When they get to the top they have no where to go. Their only option . . . die!
Animals that have become extinct because of humans and human development include the Black Rhino, Pyrenean ibex, passenger pigeon, Quagga, Caribbean monk seal, sea mink, Tasmanian tigers, Tecopa pupfish, Javan tiger, great auk, and the Bubal hartebeest.
(12)
I am not going to try to make some sort of human "value assessment" to justify a species' right to live. I believe that these animals, by their very existence, have every bit the same right to survive as do homo sapiens. As far as I'm concerned it is mere religious arrogance that would attempt to justify otherwise. While I don't like hunting and obviously don't believe in killing other animals, I can grudgingly accept that the homo sapien is an omnivore - i.e. we can be carnivore or herbivore (vegetarian). That still does not justify our arrogant attitude toward other animals. Even though I do not feel it a necessity to point out the importance of each species we have destroyed or are threatening, I believe that it is important to this discussion to note that every animal serves a purpose within the ecosystem. I'm sure that most, if not all, of you have read articles about the honey bee. They are essential for 1/3 of all the food we eat. Albert Einstein has been credited for a dramatic statement that if bees go extinct humans will be extinct within four years. Einstein didn't make that statement, according to Quote Investigator, but Maurice Maeterlinck in a book he wrote in 1901 entitled "The Life of the Bee." Regardless of who penned the claim, are we really willing to watch the honey bee go extinct to find out if they're right? Even if I had no concern about the validity of the statement, there are too many items on the list of foods we'd lose that I really like. To be very self-centered, I love to sit on our deck with a cup of coffee and look out over the flowers. If the honey bee goes extinct I can't do that. Both my coffee and the flowers are dependent upon bees.
An excellent example of the balance created when all indigenous species are present in an ecosystem is the story of the Grey Wolf that had been removed from Yellowstone National Park. Significant environmental deterioration was being observed and there was no clear scientific answer to why. For example, aspen, willow and cottonwood trees were dying and waterways were deteriorating. Finally someone noticed that the last wolf had been killed in Yellowstone in 1926 and that coincided closely with the start of the problem. About 15 years after the re-introduction of the Grey Wolf into Yellowstone, Oregon State University did a study which clearly demonstrated the interdependence of all living things in an ecosystem.
"
The gist of the study by Oregon State University shows that aspens, willows, and cottonwoods in the park’s northern range are thriving, in part because the increased wolf population has put a check on the number of elk in the park, down from a high of 15,000 animals in the early 1990s to 6,100 elk in 2010. And fewer elk and more diverse tree species have led to cleaner streams and rivers, with improved habitat for beaver and fish, which in turn provides more food sources for birds and bears. Even bison have benefited from the wolf reintroduction, because there’s less competition for food from elk, and bison aren’t a common target for wolves."
(13)
Suffice it to say, even if you do not believe in the sanctity of all life, you must concede that there is more than ample evidence that we are totally interdependent. Many of those creatures on whom we depend are given little or no consideration - bees, ants, termites, bats, frogs and birds. I purposely included ants, termites and bats in this list because humans go to such great lengths to destroy these most beneficial creatures. It's okay if you don't want ants and termites in your house, but, believe me, you don't want to totally destroy them. The world would get pretty messy. Many other species are of significant benefit and all are a part of nature's balance. Most of us accept that there is a balance of nature. If we continue to destroy plant and animal species then we are throwing nature out of balance. Basic intelligence tells us that that can't be good. And whether or not we like it or one's religion will admit to it, we are animals and a part of nature. That means that if nature is adversely effected then we will be adversely effected.
Climate Change. Oh, this is such a hated topic. There have been examples of great climate changes long before homo sapiens could be blamed or do any harm. The last time there was this much carbon dioxide camels lived in Canada. That was the Pliocene about 15 million years ago. Back then 400 ppm was part of a downward trend heading toward the ice age.
(14) Our numbers are, unfortunately, going up. Like belly buttons, everyone has an opinion on this issue. Scientific evidence shows that this has happened before. Even accepting that, the question remains - would it be this bad if homo sapiens weren't dumping 29 billion tons of CO
2 into the atmosphere each year? There is no way anyone can deny or ignore our contribution to the problem. Would it hurt us so much to reduce our emissions? If we find that it doesn't make any difference we haven't lost anything. We'll just breath better.
Conclusion. These are just but a few of the issues facing us as creatures of this most marvelous planet Earth. Some argue that we are the only planet in the universe with life. Others argue that statistical odds show that there are other planets with life but there are none within a hundred light years or so. Either way that makes our home, Earth, pretty unique and very, very precious. We are the only animal on the planet that has both the ability to destroy this planet or save it. We are the only animal with the cognitive ability to identify causes and problem solving skills to come up with solutions and actions to be taken. There is an old saying credited to Voltaire, "with great power comes great responsibility." We are the ones with the power therefore we are the ones with the responsibility.
FOOTNOTES ========
(1) https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100515174714AA6SD2h
(2) https://www.google.com/search?q=how+much+rainforest+is+left&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS398&oq=how+much+rainforest+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.5907j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia#/media/File:Main_symptoms_of_carbon_dioxide_toxicity.svg
(4) http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/deforestation.html
(5) http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/06/13/losing-our-coral-reefs/
(6) http://www.waterinfo.org/resources/water-facts
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution
(8) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Washington, DC.
"The National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress for the 2002 Reporting Cycle – A Profile."October 2007. Fact Sheet No. EPA 841-F-07-003.
(9) http://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/waterquality.htm
(10) http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/landuse.html
(11) https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation
(12) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/22/11-extinct-animals_n_4078988.html
(13) http://www.adventure-journal.com/2012/01/return-of-wolves-to-yellowstone-benefits-aspens-cottonwoods-bison-fish-and-more/
(14) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/
By their own account the two experienced back-country rangers did just about everything wrong. They were hiking a remote trail well into the wilderness of north-central Glacier National Park. They had a strong head wind, yet they made no noise nor did they take any other bear precautions. Bears - ursus americanus and ursus arctos horribilis - both prefer to avoid humans. If they smell you, you'll never see them. In fact, one author hypothesized that they do not like our smell. The Grizzly Bear (ursus arctos horribilis - a lousy, disrespectful name) does not have particularly good eyesight. It can hear about as well as a human, but its sense of smell is phenomenal. Contrary to the popular misconception, the bear does not raise up on its hind legs to attack but to see, hear and smell better. With a strong head wind there was no way a bear knew these two seasoned outdoorsmen were coming.
Sadly most people think of the Grizzly bear (ursus arctos) as some sort of monster and the Black bear (ursus americanus) as a teddy bear. Both are total misconceptions. The picture to the left is the type of things which floats around the internet reinforcing such misconceptions. Yes, even I have to laugh at such humor, but the difference is that I know the bear isn't chasing the bicycle because he's a monster wanting to devour the rider. Bears are omnivores and therefore are, at times, predatory. Predators have a pursuit instinct; viz. if it runs it must be food and therefore you must chase it. This is why, in Bear School I (basic bear training), one is taught to never attempt to run from a bear. Despite their bulk and appearance, they can do 40 mph in a sprint. Even Lance Armstrong on steroids isn't going to beat that. I did meet a ranger who is a cyclist who had this experience but he was already moving fast when the bear gave chase. Nevertheless, the bear almost caught him. He could hear the bear's claws on the asphalt just behind him. The bear evidently decided that he wasn't worth wasting the calories. You see, bears of all types are calorie machines - i.e. all they can think about from spring to hibernation is consuming mass calories.
