What is JacketFlap

  • JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans.
    Join now (it's free).

Sort Blog Posts

Sort Posts by:

  • in
    from   

Suggest a Blog

Enter a Blog's Feed URL below and click Submit:

Most Commented Posts

In the past 7 days

Recently Viewed

JacketFlap Sponsors

Spread the word about books.
Put this Widget on your blog!
  • Powered by JacketFlap.com

Are you a book Publisher?
Learn about Widgets now!

Advertise on JacketFlap

MyJacketFlap Blogs

  • Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.

Blog Posts by Tag

In the past 7 days

Blog Posts by Date

Click days in this calendar to see posts by day or month
new posts in all blogs
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: David Ehrenfeld, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 2 of 2
1. Earth Day: Are Restoration Efforts Enough?

By Eve Donegan, Sales & Marketing Assistant

David Ehrenfeld is a professor of biology at Rutgers University and holds degrees in history, medicine, and zoology. He is the founding editor of the journal Conservation Biology, lectures internationally, and is the author of The Arrogance of Humanism and Beginning Again. His most recent book, Becoming Good Ancestors,focuses on the interactions, both negative and positive, among nature, community, and our exploding technology, and explains the critical role of honesty in moving towards a sustainable society. In the post below, Ehrenfeld celebrates Earth Day by reviewing the role of environmental restoration in the Florida Everglades.

Environmental restoration is a case in point. We cause environmental damage with comparative ease. We have many ways of doing it: the reckless application of pesticides, indiscriminate use of chain saws and bulldozers, strip mining, carpet bombing, the excessive withdrawal of groundwater, the obliteration of wetlands, the spread of invasive species, and even the relatively rapid alteration of global climate. The speed of the destruction may lead us to think that environmental restoration can be achieved almost as quickly; and the word “restoration” implies a return to the original condition. Yet even though many restorations work well, our most optimistic hopes are not always met.

The environment doesn’t function like the diagrams in the economics textbooks, where the arrows point in both directions, and flows of capital and labor are readily reversible. When the environment is altered, some changes (like species extinctions and introductions) are irreversible, and some (like the removal of topsoil) have a painfully long recovery time.

Take the case of the Florida Everglades. A complex and beautiful ecosystem, a “river of grass” dotted with teardrop-shaped islands of trees, it was created and sustained by the sheetlike flow of water from Lake Okeechobee and the lands to the north. In the last fifty or more years, the Everglades have been dramatically altered by human activity.

The flow of water has been curtailed by agricultural use and diversionary canals, and the trickle that comes into the glades is contaminated with phosphates and mercury. The pattern of wildfires has changed. Ecosystem alteration has imperiled species such as the snail kite and the Cape Sable seaside sparrow. New species, often from released pets, have flourished. The Burmese python, as large as eighteen feet long and 160 pounds, has become common – it can swallow a deer, a pig, an alligator, or presumably a person. The introduced climbing fern, Lygodium, coats and smothers native vegetation. Intense development along the Miami corridor to the east consumes groundwater, which leads to saltwater intrusion in the aquifers, and the traffic and other human impacts all have their effect.

What can be done to restore the Everglades? Part of the answer is that if a dependable flow of relatively clean water is once again made available, damage can be slowed or halted in the central part of the remaining Everglades, and natural recovery will be given a chance. The State of Florida has already spent a vast amount of money to achieve this, with preliminary success, and the federal government has promised to spend more. But it would be foolish to expect that the existing phosphate and mercury will have no lingering effects, the exotic animals and plants will all be controlled, that human population on the park’s eastern border will cause no further changes, or even that the rapidly rising sea level can somehow be completely contained.

It is harder to achieve environmental restoration in some places than in others. In the remaining intact areas of the peatlands of Canada and northern Europe and the rainforests of the Amazon, the Congo, and Australia, preservation is still an option but extensive restoration is not likely in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, restoration is thriving in urban areas, with the replacement of brownfields and concrete deserts by parks and gardens. Wetland and prairie restoration is an exciting new science with many success stories. Some endangered species – the peregrine falcon, the wolf, and the Costa Rican nesting population of green sea turtles – have responded dramatically to restoration efforts. The mixed deciduous forests of New England recover most of their species and much of their beauty a mere 50-75 years after cutting, with minimal management on our part. Even in New England, however, new diseases and pests introduced by human activity – gypsy moths, sudden oak decline, beech bark disease, emerald ash borers, hemlock wooly adelgids – may make restoration to the “original” forest impossible.

Environmental restoration is vitally necessary, and it deserves a far greater commitment of resources and effort than it is getting. But we have to guard against unrealistic assumptions about what it is possible for a restoration to do. In any particular restoration, everyone should decide at the outset what an acceptable end result will be – not necessarily a carbon copy of what was once there. Restoring processes, such as proper water flow in the Everglades, is likely to be easier and faster to achieve than restoration of the original species composition and ecosystem structure. Given enough time, an acceptable plant and animal community will follow the repair of ecosystem processes, but there is a good chance that it will not be exactly like the original one. Appreciate it for what it is.

0 Comments on Earth Day: Are Restoration Efforts Enough? as of 4/22/2009 10:05:00 AM
Add a Comment
2. Elephants in the Room: The Discussion of Energy in the Presidential Debates

Eve Donegan, Sales and Marketing Assistant

David Ehrenfeld is a professor of biology at Rutgers University and holds degrees in history, medicine, and zoology. He is the founding editor of the journal Conservation Biology, lectures internationally, and is the author of The Arrogance of Humanism and Beginning Again. His most recent book, Becoming Good Ancestors, focuses on the interactions, both negative and positive, among nature, community, and our exploding technology, and explains the critical role of honesty in moving towards a sustainable society. In the post below, Ehrenfeld talks about the role of energy in the presidential debates and suggests that the candidates have not talked about the really big energy problems that we face.

The presidential debates made one thing clear: regardless of who won, energy technologies are about to get a great deal of attention and money from the U.S. government in 2009. John McCain said that in a McCain presidency he would be trying to build dozens of nuclear plants, step up offshore drilling for oil, and fund “clean coal” technology. Barack Obama said he would focus on wind, solar, and geothermal power, on biodiesel, and on increasing energy efficiency. There was considerable overlap between their energy agendas, but neither candidate mentioned the two elephants in the room.

The first elephant, a medium sized one, is that the technologies the candidates said they would promote, and those they didn’t mention, are not sure bets for solving the energy crisis quickly, if at all. Some, like “clean coal,” hydrogen, and oil shale, come with inherent technological problems that will limit their usefulness for the foreseeable future. Others, like offshore drilling and nuclear power, will take years or decades before they pay a net energy dividend, and there are serious safety issues, which cannot be brushed aside. Biodiesel competes with agriculture for land, and can cause ecological problems – oil shale and “clean coal” need lots of fresh water. Geothermal, wind, solar, and tidal technologies, promising as they are, will be limited in the quantity of energy they can supply. Nuclear and many of the other energy technologies yield only electricity – unlike fossil fuels, they don’t provide chemical feedstock for making the plastics, synthetic fabrics, and many other chemicals that modern society demands. Regardless of our hopes and fantasies, there doesn’t seem to be a really cheap and super-abundant energy source like 20th Century oil and gas on the horizon.

It’s true that we have no choice but to continue to develop alternative energy technologies. In some cases, present problems will be overcome, and there is always the possibility that we will discover entirely new ways of producing energy. But it would be reckless to count on it. Chances are slim of finding a replacement for cheap oil and gas in time to keep our current economy running without tremendous disruptions.

And then there is the other elephant in the room. This second elephant is much bigger than the first – maybe it’s a mammoth. Yet if either candidate noticed it, he didn’t want to talk about it, although it’s simple enough to describe. Learning how to cope with the consequences of our excessive energy use, and acquiring some restraint will be even more important than finding new energy sources. In other words, what if we do find ways to keep on supplying ourselves with vast quantities of affordable energy, but do nothing to moderate our energy consumption? What happens then to what remains of the ecosystems on which we all depend?

The winning candidate is going to have to deal with all the secondary issues arising from our overuse of energy. How will we hold back global climate change if we keep on pumping energy into a stressed environment? With many of the ocean fisheries already gone or going, what will happen to the ones that are left if there is limitless energy to fuel all the world’s fishing fleets indefinitely? How long will the remaining tropical forests last if there is unlimited energy for indiscriminate logging and for shipping timber and timber products to markets thousands of miles away? If there is enough cheap energy to maintain high input agriculture – with its energy-consuming nitrogen fertilizers, huge machines, heavy pesticide applications, factory-farmed livestock, and corporate conglomerates – what will happen to our dwindling supply of precious farmlands, soils, animal and crop varieties, and farmers? These are the sorts of problems that will haunt the new president and the rest of the world even more than the problem of energy supply.

The only energy strategy that can make these elephants vanish is learning to get along with less energy. Conservation based on new lifestyles will be as much of a challenge as creating alternative energy technologies, but it’s faster, cheaper, and far more certain of success. Can we do it? Can conservatives and liberals ever agree on an agenda to move to a low-energy society? There is no choice if we want our society to survive.

ShareThis

10 Comments on Elephants in the Room: The Discussion of Energy in the Presidential Debates, last added: 11/14/2008
Display Comments Add a Comment