Saturday, April 15, 2017

Dear Earth


Dear Earth—

Writing as a member of the mammal species we call homo sapiens  (Latin for “wise person”) I want to apologize for our behavior towards you: it has not been very wise. However, we are the hand you were dealt regarding a human species—wish you had a better luck on the draw.

We were okay to you until the middle of the 1700s when we commenced what we call the Industrial Revolution in Europe. (You may very well want to call it The Start of a Really Bad Date.) Our large-scale manufacturing set in motion the mining and drilling of fossil fuels, which has led to the melting of your beautiful Arctic ice cap; sea level rise that is just starting and is headed for 15+ feet, destroying coastal cities where most of us live; ocean acidification that is already having a fatal impact on myriad marine species; accumulation of plastic that is literally choking life everywhere; and an explosion of the human population which is leading to what is called the sixth extinction of animal life on Earth—by 2050 half of the creatures who call you home will have gone the way of the extinct DoDo bird. It has already begun.  Actually, in a recent report published by Living Planet 2016, two-thirds of wildlife that was on Earth in the 1970s will be gone by 2020—two-fucking-thirds!

I could go on and on. But you know this better than we do, better than most of us anyway, the ones who are walking around glued to their smart phones, posting pictures of their cheeseburgers on Instagram, taking selfies with grizzly bears and getting mauled when the bears don’t get the selfie thing so good and do what bears do, faced with close-up idiots.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of us humans.  Currently, almost 8 billion.  Twenty-five years ago, Dave Foreman, radical environmentalist and co-founder of Earth First! called us “the human pox” in his biography, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior.  He was right and not the first to point to human over-population as causing an imbalance and strain on the Earth’s eco-system, your eco-system.

Henry David Thoreau lamented egregious human population growth in Walden, recognizing in it the rampaging destruction of wilderness.  “In wilderness is the preservation of the world,” he wrote. In The Maine Woods, Thoreau observed that a squirrel could hop on a tree in Maine and not have to touch the ground again until he hit the Mississippi River (1,500 miles away).  That pristine wilderness is now paved by endless highways, passing to-the-horizon monoculture fields of genetically modified corn, used for ethanol to power our cars and trucks, which pump filth into your atmosphere, filth that started to accumulate in the 1750s and filth accumulation that has accelerated exponentially due to our enormous human population explosion.

And Edward Abbey (Earth First!’s patron saint), in one of his dozens of books about nature and humankind’s relationship to it, proclaimed, “You can have wilderness without freedom; you cannot have freedom without wilderness.”

Well, my friend, humans are well on their way to destroying all of your wilderness, destroying you, Earth, as we have come to know you; and although the ginormous number of us don’t realize it or don’t believe it, we are also destroying our own freedom—a fact we will come to live every day as our mega-corporations continue to seize control of our very minds.  FaceBook, Instagram, Twitter, et al. are already doing it. Very few of us are aware. (God bless Edward Snowden!)

But back to you and the reason I am writing: I am so sorry for what we’ve done.  So sorry we let ourselves get out of control.  Some of us, a minority I’m afraid to admit, follow Edward Abbey’s call to arms, “Stand up for what you stand on!” We try to wake others up to support ethical practices.  We try.  Maybe what keeps us going is the knowledge that you, Earth, will continue without us, without most of the species now living.  But you will generate more, new ones.  You will survive. We won’t.

With greatest respect and deepest regrets,
E. Grant
Earth Advocate

www.speakingforwolf.org

Sunday, September 28, 2014

What Will It Take?


Environmentalists, like myself, are often accused of being pessimists because we see what is happening to the Earth, and, rather than keeping what we see to ourselves, we tell others; but because what we have to report isn’t a “happily ever after” story, many people go into shut-down mode and call us doom-sayers.  What’s an eco-speaker to do?  Lie?

Most of us in the English-speaking world right now are like Wile E. Coyote when he runs off a cliff and hesitates in the air, not quite realizing yet what he has done.  Like it or not, humans have run off the cliff, and I, for one, am wondering what it will take for us to realize we’re not on solid ground anymore.




Below is a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny selection of news stories from the last couple of months:

Global Warming Is Already Here and Could Be Irreversible (1)

Lake Erie is sick. (2)

The Algae Problem in Lake Erie Isn’t Going Away Anytime Soon. (3)

                  Drought is real. (4)

There is a crisis in clean drinking water. (5)

World Faces Water Crises (Global Drought) by 2040 (6)

ISIS, Water Scarcity: Climate Change Destabilizing Iraq (7)

Drought Is the ‘New Normal’ (8)

Climate and ocean changes are blamed for huge losses of seabirds. (9)

We’re indifferent to the mass extinction of animals we are causing. (10)

“Enormous Growth of Ocean Garbage Patch” (11)

Holy Sheet!  The Antarctic Is Melting...And It’s Unstoppable (12)

 “It’s the End of the World As We Know It...” (13)

 Global warming is here, human-caused and probably already dangerous — and it's increasingly likely that the heating trend could be irreversible....” (14)


So, I ask again: what is it going to take for us to not only listen, but to do something?  The UN has produced three wonderful videos of weather reports from Florida, Brazil and Iceland in 2050.  Here’s a link: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/sep/11/un-2050-weather-forecasts-stories-climate-change

Why did the UN do this? To make a joke? To play with our heads?  Or to try to get us to listen. To wake us up. To come together and do something.  Perhaps something REAL, something to slow the catastrophic changes we are already experiencing and are in denial about how much worse it’s going to get.

The People’s Climate March in New York City last Sunday (21 September) drew 400,000 conscientious humans (& Frostpaw, the activist polar bear) marching to have their voices heard before the UN Climate Summit met on 23 September, also in New York.  The only live media coverage came from Amy Goodman’s and Juan Gonzales’ Democracy Now.  The march was alluded to only briefly by the big media—CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ABC, CBS—which was dominated by news of a new global war with the Islamic State.  Jon Stewart offers fine coverage of these skewed priorities: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed



Frostpaw (Environmental Activist),
Getting Arrested at Flood Wall St. Protest 
(22 Sept. 2014)

Honestly: don’t we care about our children at all?

In my last blog, “Olann’s World in 2050: Food,” I painted a scenario of some probable food realities in 2050 when my friend Jane’s 2 year old son will be 38.  Jane’s reaction opened my eyes to a sobering reality: she had taken the posting personally, became violently angry and accused me of ripping the dreams of her son’s future happiness directly out of her heart. Everything I had written was based on reputable sources, so I got blindsided by the fury of a willful ignorance.   

The same day Jane called to end our friendship, and quite serendipitously, I tuned into Radio Ecoshock just as the host was interviewing long time environmentalist, George Marshall, who discussed his latest book, Don't Even Think about It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change (NY: Bloomsbury, 2014).

Mr. Marshall explained that people in climate change denial have a lot of company when they go into their willful blindness.  On a broad social scale—about 2/3rds of the English-speaking populations around the world—people react to climate change information with anxiety and distress, anger that there is no clear external enemy to blame (like the Ebola virus or ISIS or Sarah Palin) and difficulty thinking about it (in the sense of getting their heads around the scope of the apocalypse we’re in).

It is language like that, “apocalypse,” that shuts people down and tempts me soften my words and lie.

But, do this for me, will you? Picture a person likely to die of thirst. Here’s a picture we can work with...pretend it’s a photo grab from Google Earth, so we’re not sure exactly where the poor suffering fellow is.  (Looks like California right now to me.)


"parched of thirst am i and dying"


There is plenty an individual can do:  text NASA to get exact location from a satellite, then get Amazon to send in a drone with a six pack of Aquafina. Or maybe use Kickstarter to raise funds to trek out and find the poor guy?  Perhaps get a tweet trending: #dying of thirst.  I repeat myself: there is much individuals can do to solve a problem we can get our heads around.

On the other hand, the problem with global warming, with climate change is it’s a problem we can’t get our heads around.  It’s bigger than any of us, and, as Mr. Marshall admits, people don’t like that.

So, what’s an environmentalist to do?  Tell a lie?  Oops, sorry.  I misspoke: there is no environmental crisis.  My bad.  Whatever is going on, it’s God’s will.  He can help us deal with it, and everything’s going to be just fine.  And if God’s busy elsewhere—like I hear there’s a shake up going on in the Black Eye Galaxy—well, science...science will think of something.

But before we generate the funding necessary for science to think of something, first of all, people need to be informed about what is going on: there is a planet in the early throes of The Sixth Extinction. Is that negative? Or just a statement of fact? Secondly, people need to acknowledge what they see: there is life on a planet suffering from rising sea levels and ocean acidification, while fresh water availability is decreasing, and what is available is becoming more polluted, and while all of it is falling into corporate capitalist hands, which makes fresh water a precious and expensive commodity. Thirdly, people need to agree to do something about it.

So, environmentalists like me are bashed by right wing climate deniers like my former friend Jane as being negative doom-sayers when what there is to say is, well, unfortunate and does not bode well for the future of life on Earth . . . and not in the far away future, but literally tomorrow.

It is most interesting, but perhaps not surprising, that the largest cohort of climate deniers (according to Mr. Marshall, et al.) is young mothers with children.  (Apparently there is a feeling of security in active denial.)  No wonder then about Jane’s volatile melt down before she asked me what can be done. “Nothing” is the answer—unless nations of the world agree to make radical changes literally today, that is, TODAY! RIGHT NOW! However, there is little to no indication that is happening—though the countries attending last week’s UN Climate Summit did promise to do something soon. (Promises, promises...) But even then, the best we can do is slow the inevitable down and learn to adapt to a new reality. 

That’s the gift Jane and other parents like her can give their children:  awareness of what is going on in the world, willingness to learn mundane ways of adapting, working collectively with others, and behaving with Seventh Generation ethics: making decisions with the health and wellbeing of future generations in mind—something it would have been most wise to do a couple of generations ago, before we found ourselves crying over destroyed eco-systems.

After the march last week, NPR interviewed Bill McKibben (environmental activist, one of the organizers of the People’s Climate March, founder of 350.org, and recent recipient of the Right Livelihood Award—Sweden’s alternative Nobel prize).  The interviewer asked what people should do about the climate crisis.  Bill said, “Don’t be an individual anymore.”

So, what will it take?  Reduce, reuse, recycle, repurpose are important, but nothing’s going to change where we’re going till governments all over the globe take action together to stop carbon emissions, to develop sustainable energy sources, to stop deforestation, to, and this is most important, promote collective human change.  Finally, I ask once more: what will it take? Well, as at least one marcher’s sign proclaimed, “There is no Planet B," so you figure it out.











Sunday, July 20, 2014

Olann's World in 2050 : Food


Olann is the 2 year old son of Jane, a good friend of mine.  Jane, by her own admission, is an “eco-dummy.”  While I would like to define what an eco-dummy is, I’ll do that another time. Right now, I want to tell my friend about the world her son is likely to live in when he is 38 in 2050, especially the food he'll be familiar with.

The Earth speaks to most contemporary western humans through the availability and cost of everyday products.  So, any person walking into a Price Chopper, Kruger, Aldi, Food Lion, Wegmans, or any other common supermarket anywhere in the United States has the probability of finding well-stacked tables of fruits and vegetables from all over the world any time of year, and market aisles with routinely well-stocked shelves of packaged rice, pet food, candy, cereal, soda, coffee, pasta, etc.

Earth, however, is in the throes of a catastrophe it has never known before. Olann is growing up in the Anthropocene Age (The Age of Man). For the first time in Earth’s history, one of its own species is the cause of catastrophic transformations having a profound and irreversible impact on life all over the globe.

Change of this scale is best comprehended by scientists and other educated citizens who study and know the big picture.  The average Jose and Julie American, working responsibly to manage a life in the increasingly shrunken middle class, comprehend the impact of global warming/climate change only in the mundane realities of their every day lives—like when they go shopping.

Let me introduce Olann in 2050:  He’s 38 years old, married to Amita (of Hindu heritage), also 38; they have two children: Ena, 8, and Caspar, 7.  Both Olann and Amita graduated from a technical college in South Carolina, but now they live outside Houston, Texas where Olann works in middle management at the People H2O desalination plant, and Amita works as an engineering assistant at a biotech company near where Galveston, Texas used to be. (Galveston will be long buried by the rising sea level.) Amita commutes via aquatrain.

Olann and Amita live in a seapod community unit.  These are common along the Gulf Coast and the Atlantic side of Florida. Olann’s and Amita’s decision to move into one suit what others of their education and income level will do.


Gulf Coast Sea Pod Community

Fundamental aspects of Olann’s and his family’s life together with regards to food, clothing, water, animals, outdoor and cultural activities, social realities will be significantly different from what their parents knew as normal in 2014.  But perhaps food is the most fundamental.

How about a cup of coffee? There is a good chance by the time Olann is old enough to want to try coffee in about 2030 when he is 18, he will do so only with his friends on a very special occasion, such as a senior class trip to Washington, D.C. where coffee will be found at specialty cafes.  A regular-sized cup of nothing particularly fancy will cost the better part of four hours work at minimum wage pay or about $60.


Cup o' Joe: $60
By 2050, coffee won’t exactly be extinct, but its traditional growing areas in South and Central America and West Africa will have shrunk considerably due to temperature extremes, inundating rains, insect infestation, and ‘coffee rust,’ a fungus currently destroying Arabica coffee crops all over the world. The coffee plantations that survive will have moved north to eastern Texas and southern France where the climate will be more suitable for production, but not on the scale Olann’s parents know in 2014.  In other words, no Starbuck’s on every corner or even in every city.

So, Olann, Amita and others of their generation are not likely to be coffee drinkers; and although the South Asia tea industry is suffering impacts similar to the coffee industry—extreme droughts, followed by inundating rains and insect infestations, caused by increased global temperatures and released in some measure by the melting of the tundra—tea plantations are likely to survive as producers adapt harvesting (with the help of new agricultural technology and storage facilities) to transformed seasonal rhythms. 

So, if Olann and his wife wish to share a few moments of peace together over a cup of tea they should be able to afford to do it.  However, if Olann and his friends have grown up with a can or bottle of soda almost a constant prop in their hands, there is no question the cola industry will be around in 2050. That sugar-caffeine infusion will still be ubiquitous.

Chocolate, however, is a very different story. 70% of the cocoa we currently use for chocolate comes from West Africa, which, even at a projected moderate global temperature increase of 2 to 2.5 degrees Celsius, is already becoming too hot for cocoa production.  Chocolate manufacturers, such as Hershey’s, saw this coming some years ago when they began to replace cocoa butter with vegetable oil in some of their products and re-label them as “chocolate candy,” indicating a chemical concoction of flavoring only.

By 2050 chocolate, real chocolate will be a luxury item, affordable only by the rich-beyond-comprehension elites.  So, real chocolate may be a story Olann can tell his children, one of those “when I was your age” stories: “When I was your age, we had baskets of chocolate at Easter time . . . the Easter Bunny delivered all the chocolate eggs any kid could want. . . and they were made of reeeeeal chocolate, not colored vegetable oil.  They were so rich with cocoa butter, we were happy when they melted on our hands, so we could lick our fingers dry.”

Peanut Butter, Bananas, Cereal, and other common staples Olann grew up with will have continued to grow increasingly expensive, so much so that, when he and Amita do grocery shopping, those purchases will be rare and precious due to limited availability and cost.

The world’s peanut crops require 20”-40” of rain within a narrow time frame.  If there is too little rain, the crop is dry; too much at the wrong time, peanuts develop a toxic mold (1).  Climate change is compromising peanut production everywhere, so what can be produced in 2050 will be considerably less, and consequently, more costly.

Bananas may not even be around, but if they are, they will be rare and precious due to the soil fungi and insects that are currently ravaging banana plantations throughout South and Central America, as well as the change in climate temperatures, causing unfavorable growing conditions over the long run.

Cereals made from rice, wheat, and corn will be more expensive even in 2030 when Olann is headed to college, and even more expensive by 2050 due to on-going climate changes in precipitation and temperature, which some projections indicate will raise the cost of a box of Rice Krispies from $3.98 (in 2014) to as much as $12.00 (in 2050).  

Apples and other common fruits like peaches, plums, pears, and apricots (“stone fruits”) will be smaller and taste different from what they like taste today.  Olann will have grown up through the transition period, and so, will have witnessed the plethora times with pyramids of stacked apples in supermarkets and roadside stands around Halloween, and otherwise with availability throughout the year.

However, as a result of warming climate and shorter winters, which alter fruit trees’ blooming window, Olann and Amita will have seen apple and fruit stocks diminish, while Ena and Caspar will know apples, peaches and other stone fruits as expensive treats with a taste much different from what their parents grew up with.

Fortunately, Olann may have the opportunity to learn how to grow food in college if he and his suite mates plant and tend their designated garden plot at the campus community garden site.  To save some dining hall costs, they can eat the fruits of their collective effort and sell any excess to splurge on pizza. (No question pizza will still be around though a crust made with traditional wheat flour is likely to have become a costly special order.)

When they are married, Olann and Amita may very well keep a garden at home--either inside their living unit or as part of a community plot.  And Amita can grow hydroponic vegetables as this methodology will be common.

If Olann and Amita are wise, as soon as they move into what will be their home for some time to come, in addition to growing some of their own food, they are likely to join one of the local food collectives.  Scattered thinly in the early years of Olann's life, food collectives, including underground black markets, will have burgeoned as virtual economic necessities due to changes in global food transportation and availability, in addition to the increased cost of imported products.   

Assuming the world is still “lovin’ it”—McDonald’s is likely to have the McMealworm sandwich (with a marketable name, of course) on its dollar menu.  If not mealworm, then chapuline (Mexican grasshopper) or perhaps the McCricket sandwich will appeal to the hungering masses and still provide a fast food treat for Amita and the kids on a Saturday afternoon while Olann is away, visiting his elderly parents.

Some kinds of bugs and insects, processed for human consumption, will be common worldwide.  Scanning the shelves of their local Whole Foods store, Olann and his wife will be able to choose from protein-rich flour made from a variety of insects—much more affordable than the wheat flour they grew up with. 

Mexican Grasshoppers
Or perhaps they will fancy a package of boiled and sun-dried Mopane caterpillars, which they will know is a fantastic source of iron and other vital nutrients.  But Ena and Caspar will really love fried or steamed termites and won’t even know they are an excellent source of protein and omega-9.  Perhaps Olann will favor some African palm-weevils for a barbeque because they are like a rib-eye, but with a crunch. Roasted stink bugs (as a side dish) might easily be a standard favorite.

If humankind is still eating chickens and growing them up in massively packed factory farms, the chickens will need to be bald because having feathers exacerbates the effect of a globally warmer climate. Not being able to survive long enough to grow big enough for market slaughter, the chickens will die too young and small. Geneticists are working now on altering chicken DNA so they stop having feathers and can continue to grow for the sake of McNuggets and Buffalo Wings.

Olann will be aware of this because he will have grown up through the transition period, and BigAg chicken producers will have spun perfectly rational stories about the featherless chicken-change so as not to threaten KFC and other chicken company profits.

Americans, for the most part, don’t think of jellyfish as a food source, but it is likely raw and processed jellyfish will be commonly available for consumption as a result of three factors: increased human populations, decreased food availability globally, and exploding jellyfish populations.

The world’s oceans are already indicating a progression towards catastrophic acidification, which will increasingly alter the behavior of fish, causing many populations to go extinct, some to simply diminish as they migrate to different ocean ecosystems, other populations to explode.  Jellyfish populations are already exploding. 

In the Gulf of Mexico, where Olann and his family will live, sea nettle jellyfish, moon jellyfish, Australian jellyfish, and many other types are already moving into the warm acid waters and will have conquered the Gulf’s marine eco-system when Olann was still in college (2032). 

Moon Jellyfish
No more shrimp, no more oysters, no more crustaceans of any kind for two primary reasons: acid water dissolves shells, and jellyfish eat shellfish. Jellyfish also consume phytoplankton in such quantities other fish are starved out. The seas off shores around the world will be a throbbing blob of jellyfish much of the year, but at least some species of jellyfish will be harvested for food and other products.

When Henry David Thoreau published Walden in 1854, the world’s human population reached 1 billion. The world population is projected to be at 9.6 billion by 2050.  Olann, Amita, Ena, Caspar and other young American families with modest incomes are not likely to starve. Billions of other people will be starving though, so a plethora of insects and jellyfish is a gift for the hungering masses.

Food for Olann in 2050 will not be his grandfather's food.


Monday, July 7, 2014

Who Are the Real Invasives?

Zebra Mussels?  Kudzu?  Mute Swans?  Or Us?

The definition of what an “invasive species” is depends on context and point-of-view.  From the species’ point of view, of course, circumstances, competition and survival are vital factors.  Therefore, whatever kettle of soup, so to speak, you find yourself in, you need to figure out what’s available to keep you going and to stave off anything else looking for the same thing you need. 

Let’s say I’m a zebra mussel and, through completely accidental good fortune, my fellow Dreissena polymorpha and I land on the foreign shore of a large fresh water lake where we set up shop.  We are filter feeders, which means, after we open our shells, we siphon in water, extract algae (mostly), then filter the water out.  We are celebrated around inland lakes as natural water cleansing agents, which allow deeper penetration of sunlight, which permits water fauna growth at greater depths.  In other words, within reason, we help a system’s eco-system.  If there are too many of us, though, we tend to be pigs (nothing against pigs) about the algae filtering and take too much, depriving other algae-dependent species, like, well, most fish from securing what they need for survival.

Partly because of this, Canadian and American humans in the Great Lakes’ area are out to get us.  For one thing, our females can lay over one million eggs in a season, so with no known natural predators, we can eventually take over an entire maritime eco-system, literally smothering other lake life by the sheer magnitude of our numbers—and we do have a habit of doing this.  We also love getting into pipes, water treatment plants and other facilities where, again, because there are so many of us, we clog everything up and cost taxpayers and consumers in the U.S. and Canada billions of dollars every year. 



So, humans call us “invasive” because, although we are originally from Eastern Europe and managed to immigrate to Western Europe around 300 years ago, in the 1980s we immigrated to North America via ocean liner ballast water, and arrived not far from the Motor City (and some other places). It didn’t take us long, barely two decades, to clog the Great Lakes.  We aren’t liked where we are right now . . . much like kudzu.

Ah, kudzu!  Although I’ve never heard of Walt Whitman: I hail myself!  How could naive Euro-Americans have known what they were letting into their Reconstruction South when they put me on display as an ornamental bush at the New Orleans Exposition in 1883? They call me “The vine that ate the South” (1).  We should change "ate" to "eats" because I’m still chomping away, so to speak: we kudzu plants grow out of control, and in the process, suffocate any and all plant growth unfortunate to be under us.  Needless to say, this rampant habit of ours does not benefit biodiversity in eco-systems.



The funny thing is, in northern China, Japan and Korea, where we are from originally, we thrived well and did not pose any galloping threats.  Why?  Because the climate is temperate, so we lost our leaves and basically died above ground over the winter; but, when we traveled at the hands of humans, we found ourselves in places where we just kept growing and growing and growing--I honestly think that Energizer Bunny got the idea from us.  But back to my point: although we are still admired for our ability to provide comforting shade on southern porches, increasingly we are viewed as hated Mongol hordes, invaders, killers. 

We do have our uses, however, as livestock feed, in medicines, as basketry fibres, even for paper and clothing, et al.  But, like zebra mussels, our harm outweighs our good.  As invasives, we are out of context, kind of like plopping a big handful of parsley on a birthday cake: ruins the whole mood.

Here’s another mood ruiner: let’s say I’m a beautiful, elegant mute swan.  Here’s a picture of me and my mate—we connect for life, you know!



Our Cygnus olor ancestors came to this country to be used as decoration on large estates for folks like the Rockefellers, the Roosevelts, the Carnegies, you know, the 1%ers of their time.  Some of us also landed in zoos; well, we didn’t literally “land” there because we were shackled and caged there by our human captors.

About 100 years ago, some of us escaped captivity and established successful wild populations in New Jersey, New York and Long Island.  Wildlife folks estimate that there are about 5,000 of us now, spread throughout the Northeast.  No one argues against our beauty and majesty, but we are a non-migratory waterfowl, so when we identify a wetland as ours, we stay put; and because we are very large birds and aggressively territorial, we drive away and sometimes kill native waterfowl.  Plus, we have a wing span of 7’ and with a 4’ underwater reach, and due to our long necks, we can reach down quite far into ponds and lakes to consume the 4-8 pounds of vegetation we need each day to survive.

Our aggressive territorial habits and consumption needs have gotten us into trouble.

“Over the winter [NY State’s Dept. of Environmental Conservation] DEC became the target of public outrage after it issued a draft plan that entailed eradicating the state’s entire population of 2,200 mute swans by 2050, claiming that they’re an invasive species who pose a threat to native wildlife and are aggressive toward people” (2).

Um.  Excuse me?  We’ve been here 100+ years—longer than, well, you could name any number of immigrant groups, like Italians, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Jews, Mexicans, blah, blah, blah.  Get it?  We came to the U.S. by force, adapted, found a niche for ourselves and our families, but now we are regarded as “invasives,” so it is necessary to put us into the sites of guns, which two NY State DEC officers did two weeks ago, killing the two parents pictured below, even though the state had put a moratorium on killing us due to opposition from human groups who recognize our right to life and the significance of our iconic beauty:




Anyway, those four cygnets (baby swans) were left without parents.  Well, they are invasives anyway—much like the children of Mexican immigrants who do not yet have legal status.

Given the human tendency to determine what is a ‘fact,’ based on what serves or fits human purposes, perspectives, the prevailing value system, sure! mute swans are invasives because the point of view and context reality changed.  

Consider horses.  There were NONE! on either the South or North American continents before the Spaniards brought them.  Weren't horses an invasive species?  Yes, they were, but humans liked them . . . a lot. Horses fit smoothly into North America's Great Plains eco-system, and humans found them useful.

But what about humans themselves?  They are the ultimate invasive species, marching or blundering into wherever they do and not, generally speaking, considering the impact on what is already there.  Humans are ‘the better species’ or the ‘higher species,’ so their behavior, their decisions rule.  If an eco-system is harmed?  Oh, well. And tough luck to those for whom they develop distain.  Die invasives, die. (In some cases, this attitude is being demonstrated right now at the U.S.-Mexican border . . . a different kind of eco-system, but an eco-system nonetheless.)

Certainly, zebra mussels and kudzu need to be brought under control.  The lesson we can learn from their introduction into a new context is to be investigative and cautious before we introduce new species in new places.  As far as the species themselves, such as mute swans, are concerned, it would be most ethical to find a way to let them stay, and to monitor the populations of migratory waterfowl to determine if their numbers are negatively impacted by mute swan competition and aggression.  If so, let informed wildlife officials do what is necessary . . . short of total extermination.

I focused here on just three “invasive species,” but there are hundreds and hundreds of examples from all over the world available to use, and many sometimes ridiculous stories to tell—like the 3,000 mile rabbit fence in Australia, or the decimation-by-goat of the Galapagos Islands, or the massive extinction of birds in Hawaii—known as “the extinction capital of the world” (3)—thanks to Captain Cook and a whole lot of rats and cats--talk about invasives!

My point, however, is that humans are the real invasive species.  We’ve been invading new lands since we first began our trek out of Africa.  The problem with us in the last 500 years or so is twofold:  1) Our population has grown exponentially.  It’s out of control, and from an International Space Station perspective, we are the ones clogging the waterways and smothering everything under us.  2) Our rampant technologies are facilitating a global eco-system increasingly out of balance, for which other species are paying with their lives, and for which we, too, are starting to pay with decreased diversity and quality of life in virtually every eco-system on Earth.








Sunday, June 8, 2014

Thinking Like an Ocean


The vast majority of us 7+ billion humans are aware that there are oceans, but they are so huge we can’t really get our heads around their expanse.  The fact that oceans cover 71% or almost 3/4ths of Earth’s surface may evoke a dismissive nod or a blank stare because all it means to most people is that there’s a lot of water out there, it’s too salty to drink, and it has a lot of weird creatures in it: some of whom we eat, some of whom bite or sting, and some of whom eat us if given the opportunity or invitation . . . like sharks. They are known and greatly feared for their statistically rare attacks. (Ironically, any human-shark encounter is termed an “attack” even if the shark is apparently just swimming by and decides to investigate you out of curiosity with no intent to harm (1).)

Sharks are generally not well-loved and are feared (much like wolves) beyond reasonable cause.  There are 400 species of sharks in the world’s oceans, ranging from the Dwarf Lantern Shark at 8” to the Whale Shark at more than 41’ & 47,000 lbs. or 23+ tons.  Great White Sharks are the most feared, due in large measure to Stephen Spielberg though I don’t think he can be blamed for the current shark holocaust of 100 million slaughtered each year for their fins.  90% of the oceans’ shark population has been wiped out for soup (2).  Who cares?

Although he’s been dead 66 years, revered American author, scientist, ecologist, forester and environmentalist, Aldo Leopold, would have cared most deeply (3).  His Sand County Almanac is widely known for its ground-breaking Land Ethic and contains his celebrated and most reprinted piece, “Thinking Like a Mountain” (4).  In it, Leopold recounts the day in the 1920s when, while working for the U.S. Forest Service in New Mexico and charged with killing predators, especially wolves, he and his trigger-itching (by his own admission) co-rangers came upon a mother wolf and her half dozen grown pups:  “In a second, we were pumping lead into the pack....”

But what happened next was profoundly transformative for Leopold:  he describes watching the mother wolf and seeing “a fierce green fire dying in her eyes.”  He, like others, including the U.S. Forest Service, had been of the mind that “fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise.”  Leopold continues, noting that “after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view.”

This moment of catalyst sparked Leopold to think outside the anthropocentric box and to realize that considering the health and balance of the greater ecosystem would be far wiser in the long run.

When wolves and other apex predators were wiped out in the American West, Leopold and his colleagues witnessed and recorded a literal balding of mountains. Without predators, deer and elk reproduced and ate out of control.  A bald mountain means not only diminished trees and brush, but small mammal populations out of balance: some threatened, some whose populations explode.  I think of the Rabbit Population Explosion in Australia which compelled the government in 1907 to erect about 3,000 miles of fences in an attempt to keep the rabbits (introduced by the English) out of Western Australian pasturelands.  Eco-systems out of balance call for unusual measures, some of them, frankly, stupid.  (The fences didn't work: rabbits leap and burrow quite effectively.)

Humans are just barely beginning to realize the impact of their actions on the oceans’ ecosystems and how the alarming spread of imbalances is already, but will increasingly, impact our lives on local scales. The top of the food chain predator in Earth’s oceans is the shark. Like the wolf, it is an apex species, which means if it is wiped out or its prevalence diminished significantly, which is happening, then marine ecosystems collapse.

It is really quite simple, and parallels to the role of wolves in a mountain’s ecosystem are obvious: sharks keep marine ecosystem food webs in balance.  Much the same way a mountain loses its trees when deer populations grow unrestrained, an ocean area loses its sea grass beds and other nourishing vegetation habitats when sharks aren’t around to keep prey populations in check. 

For example, turtles in Hawaii will ravage sea grass beds till there is no growth remaining, but when tiger sharks are in the area, their natural intimidating presence encourages the turtles to graze in a broader range, keeping growth balance (5).

Additionally, sharks feed on sick, slower, weaker, older prey.  By culling these, they help healthier and stronger prey to reproduce with better genes, keeping prey populations strong and in balance.  (Some sharks even scavenge the ocean floor to feed on dead carcasses . . . though they aren’t quite considered vultures of the deep.)

Anyway, where I’m headed with these wolf, shark, apex predators, ecosystem balance/imbalance reflections is to Australia where recently, against protest from 57% of Australian citizens, the government conducted a shark cull, which sparked the largest protest ever anywhere in the world in the interest of protecting one species (6). The cull resulted in the taking of more than more than 170 sharks. 

In the seminal Oneida Nation story at the heart of my website, “Speaking for Wolf,” practicing ethical thinking in human-species relationships is or should be the controlling central principle of any decisions we make in an infinitude of local and global contexts.  

Six Australians were killed by sharks last year.  So Colin Barnett, Western Australia’s right wing Premier decided to make legal the culling of all the sharks they could find. He argued this would make beachgoers happy.  Sadly, the tax payer funded sea hunters failed to gather a single Great White (which is who they were looking for), so, to make the cull seem worthy, they killed all the big sharks they did get. “Fisheries Minister Ken Baston called the program a success, saying it ‘restored confidence in beachgoers’” (7).

What kind of people are we?  We share this Earth with species who are directly and indirectly impacted by cumulative human behaviors.  The oceans are acidifying; global warming is changing ages-old ocean currents, which confuse billions of marine predators and prey: their populations either explode or they move closer to extinction.  The human population is exploding, too, so we are showing up in places we have never been before, places that were feeding grounds for sharks for millions of years.  Suddenly a whole lot of us are around tossing beach balls.  Can it be such a shock or travesty that once in a while a shark takes a human for lunch? 

According to Sydney, Australia’s Taronga Conservation Society, which keeps the official Australian Shark Attack File, in the last 50 years there have been 53 shark fatalities (8).  Tell me again why the Australian Government needs to cull sharks from its waters?  Perhaps it is a distraction meant to keep the public focused on trivial endeavors while government-backed contractors are arguing with citizens about whether or not Australia should start fracking the fuck out of the continent.

If Australia would start to think like an ocean, then it would rethink its Shark Culls, which have full funding pending for three more years, and its current plans “to dump three million cubic metres of dredged ocean bottom into the waters of the Great Barrier Reef” (9) for a coal terminal to continue shipping this known climate changer to other parts of the world.  (The dredged ocean bottom will raise significantly the temperature of the water, increasing the threat to the already threatened World Heritage Site.) 

So long as we continue to give first consideration to humans in the short-term, and put off long-term considerations of living species in our multitude of greater eco-systems, we will continue to think like the 19th century Americans who slaughtered 5+ billion Passenger Pigeons into extinction because the European newcomers were too stupid and self-focused to see the greater picture.  

We are hardly better today; in fact, we’re worse because we have what we need to see the greater picture, but we continue to let our corporations and governments think like the distorted stereotypes of the wolves and sharks we act against with hatred and fear, instead of thinking like the mountains and oceans in whose balanced contexts survival depends.