ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIORATION

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION

 

In the Biblical book of Genesis God supposedly gave Adam dominion over plants and animals. Depending on how long ago one believes that occurred, one could argue that few of the animals and plants living today resemble those over which Adam was given dominion. A more relevant question is, did God approve of man's using his superior cunning and technology to cause unnecessary harm to plants and animals and to cause entire species to be exterminated?   Does "dominion" entitle man to poison the air other species breathe, to unnecessarily pollute the water other species drink and live in?  Does "dominion" excuse man from the responsibility to care for all of God's creatures?   Regardless of how one answers those questions, the bottom line is that unnecessary poisoning and destruction of the natural environment by people results from an attitude of superiority and/or indifference.  People who do care about preserving environmental quality and species diversity are regarded by materialistic humans as being on the fringe, eccentric, unrealistic, valuing the preservation of that which could be turned into someone else's wealth.  The attitudes of indifference and/or superiority toward all things natural not only results in harm to plants and animals, but also threatens the quality of human living.

Ignorance also plays a role in environmental degradation.  Even the most concerned person can unconsciously and non-maliciously harm the environment.  Consider our use of energy.  If we are poor and receiving energy assistance, we may think nothing of leaving our outside lights on 24 hours per day. If we can afford to shop at the mall, how many times have we, who are able-bodied, used the handicap doors to enter and leave the mall? These doors are clearly designated with a wheelchair symbol and close more slowly that the other three or four pairs of entrance/exit doors.When the handicap doors are used, the amount of heat in the winter and cool air in the summer that escapes to the outside is greatly increased over the amount that would escape if the regular doors are used. In many areas of the country, electric power is produced from the burning of coal. Even if one does not believe in global warming, one should realize that increased emissions of sulfur, mercury and small particle pollution from coal burning endangers human health and property. I imagine that the handicap doors in thousands of malls across the nation are used hundreds of times per day by able-bodied persons.

There are many ways in which we may harm the environment without being aware. When we litter and when we release helium balloons (which have been found to be consumed by animals) into the atmosphere we are potentially harming Nature.

It is possible to threaten the survival of endangered species by hunting them and supporting the destruction of their environment, without realizing it.   If we purchase products made from endangered species or from their environment, we are supporting extinction.

Some of us have more individual responsibility for environmental destruction than others. If you are in charge of operating a coal-powered power plant without the best available technology for containing mercury and sulfur emissions you bare the responsibility for the effects on the environment and on human heath. If you are responsible for the dumping of toxic waste in poor neighborhoods you are a responsible for the human sickness and suffering that results.

 Corporate environmental polluters just don't care and don't want to know what they can do to help preserve the well-being of nature and of the human species. They willingly violate environmental regulations to increase profits particularly when the potential gain in profit is greater than the levied fine if they are caught. There is more disease in human beings than there would be if there were not so much unnecessary poisoning of the environment. Corporate environmental bullies rationalize that more environmental regulations will cost them more thus preventing them from expanding their businesses and hiring more people. In other words, human health costs should increase so that more people will have jobs that will result in more unnecessary poisoning of the environment and more human sickness and disease. But the corporations don't feel they should be responsible for paying for the increased health costs that result from their indifference.

Nor do they feel responsible for depriving present and future generations access to wild unspoiled natural spaces. If corporate bullies believed they could make a sufficient profit by building a dam that would flood the last unspoiled natural area on earth, they wouldn't hesitate for a second.

Destroying environmental quality deprives most of us of our intrinsic right to enjoy unspoiled nature without having to travel extensively to find it. Poisoning the environment causes more sickness as well as higher health care costs. Cutting trees unnecessarily and not replacing cut trees, whether it entails rain forest clearing or a tree in one's yard, results in the destruction of valuable carbon storing organisms.  The travesty in Los Angeles where 400 trees were sacrificed for the sake of transporting the space shuttle to the space museum is an example.  Is the resulting amount of carbon that will be released into the upper atmosphere rather than reabsorbed by those 400 trees worth not figuring out how to raise the shuttle so that the wings would clear the tree tops?  Would setting up an exhibit at the airport to be administered by the museum (so that they would still make money from it) so inconvenient that 400 trees had to be sacrificed?

Each of us can be part of the problem of environmental deterioration or part of the solution. It's easy for sophisticated 21st Century adults to believe that no matter how bad things get, that technological innovation will save the human race. Unfortunately, polar bears cannot design and construct artificial, non-melting, vandal-resistant ice flows. Humans alone can use technology to preserve their species.

                                                                      ADDENDUM

10/30/12 Hurricane Sandra - Mother Nature's response to the above mentioned sacrifice of 400 trees.  I wonder if New York City could sue Los Angeles for storm damages caused by Sandra?  If LA had not sacrificed those 400 trees, there would be less carbon in the atmosphere on 10/30 and perhaps the ocean would have been a bit cooler which would have resulted in a less violent hurricane.  To those naive souls who think that planting a new tree can compensate for a full grown downed tree, think again.  While planting new trees is always a positive thing to do, the uptake of carbon by new trees is much less than full grown living trees.  If something killed all the fully grown trees on earth, the amount of carbon compounds in the air would immediately and dramatically increase.  And, all things being equal, the carbon levels would not decrease to the former level for many years, even though more new trees were planted.

 Scientists think that the severe weather events we have been seeing lately are due to global warming.

There is no doubt that the polar ice shells are melting, sea levels have risen, and the oceans are warmer.  These are all indications that global warming is taking place.  There is also evidence that suggests that the amount of carbon compounds in the atmosphere have increased.  Whether or not the increase in carbon is a factor related to global warming, global warming is taking place.  If global warming is not the result of a greenhouse effect caused by increased carbon in the atmosphere, what is causing the earth to warm?  Is the core getting hotter?  Is the earth rotating closer to the sun?  Or is it getting warmer because more energy-producing heat is emanating from the earth's surface due to a rapidly growing human population?  The most effective solution to the problem of global warming must be based on its cause(s).  To stop slaughtering full grown trees and plant as many new ones as possible would be a good thing even if excessive atmospheric carbon is not a problem.

I heard some news which I found deeply disturbing.  Most informed people know about the serious draught conditions affecting parts of this country as well as other parts of the world.  It is believed that this is an effect of global warming.  Scientists are now studying the effect of drought on trees.  They have discovered that the drier the soil becomes the harder a tree's roots will try to suck moisture from the soil.  Just like when the glass runs out of liquid, air gets sucked through the straw, so do the tree roots suck air molecules from the soil when there is no more water molecules available.  The air being sucked into the roots is equivalent to gas molecules in a person's blood - not at all healthful - and can hasten the tree's demise.  Global warming results in the death of drought-stricken trees that can no longer help mitigate the effects of global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide.  The dead trees will also result in the release of carbon compounds as the leaves and wood decay.  

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)