David Maywhoor's Presentation

When I looked at the website in preparation for today's class, I thought we would be talking more about the effects of fire on the forests in Ohio. This was of particular interest to me because fire in the forests is an issue that is concerning and confusing. Is it good, bad, or somewhere in between? I had no idea that fire in the forests of Ohio was so damaging. But since we did not talk of that so much, I would like to navigate this blog in the direction of logging. I understand where Mr. Maywhoor is coming from when he stated that he did not agree with logging because the benefits from publicly owned land is not reaching the public community. However, it is hard for me to get behind someone who is entirely on one side of an issue. I seem to always fall somewhere in the middle of an issue, like the idea of sustainable logging is much more interesting to me than just not logging at all. He seemed very informed, passionate and educated about the issue at hand. I only wish we had had more time to further our discussion with Mr. Maywhoor. But when is there ever enough time?

Research Prospectus

Upon looking for a subject to write about, I was trying to find a subject that I was not familiar with, and something that I could reasonably argue for on both sides. I went to a Google search and typed in “unpopular environmental issues”. The first site I went to was www.greenfudge.org, here they had several issues, but the one I found to be most interesting was light pollution. It sounds simple enough, but then I started to think about my daily interactions with light and how nearly every person in the world is directly affected by some form of light or another. It seemed quite plausible for me to be able to explore this issue on many different plains. `

The first information I was exposed to was negative. According to Wikipedia there are many negative effects that can stem from light pollution. Some of these effects include: increased headaches, worker fatigue, stress, decrease in sexual function, increased anxiety, increase in blood pressure, and effects on melatonin levels. Most of these did not come as a big surprise to me; we have all been in a well-lit room for way too long and gotten a headache. But something surprising to me was that there are links to defective melatonin levels and artificial light. There are also links to melatonin levels and breast cancer. Is our increased exposure to artificial lights having some bearing on breast cancer statistics? The more I looked into the issue the more negative issues I found based on light pollution. The fact that light is actually a necessity for so many people makes this issue intriguing to me. Of course there is the excessive use of light, but can you imagine a highway without lights? Can you imagine an airport without lights? Can you imagine someone performing surgery without lights? This is where the real research will begin. I will be trying to come to a comfortable conclusion (for myself) as to what is deemed necessary and unnecessary when discussing light pollution. When is there too much light and what can we do about it?

Books

1. Mizon, Bob. Light Pollution: Responses and Remedies. Singapore: Springer-Verlag London Limited, 2002. Print.

2. Phillips, Derek. The Lit Environment. Woburn, MA.: Architectural Press, 2002. Print.

Magazines

1. BBC, . "Light Pollution Overwhelms Wildlife's Navigational Abilities." Civil Engineering issue 6, 2009: 33. Print.

2. Naege, Robert. "One Man's Battle Against Light Pollution." Sky & Telescope issue 5, 2009: 8. Print.

3. Turk, Cliff. "Report of the Dark Skies Section." Monthly Notes of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa 10 September 2009: 177. Print.

4. Gallina, Carla. "Light Done Right." Library Journal 2009: 1-5. Print.

Websites

1. http://www.darksky.org

2. Klinkenborg, Verlyn. "Light Pollution." National Geographic.com. November 2008. National Geographic, Web. 24 Jan 2010. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/light-pollution/klinkenborg-text.

3. http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/44/lightpoll.html

4. Quandt, Matt . "The dark night goes quietly." Astronomy. Web. 24 Jan 2010. http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2249.

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution.

6. www.greenfudge.org/2009/11/05/unpopular-environmental-issues-we-should-care-about.

Lost Mountain pg, 162-243

A.) When examining the difference between the "rational" and the "sympathetic" mind it is easy to simply look at the terms and build your own idea from there. This is useful and generally the idea behind what Wendell Berry is discussing when he achieved these terms, but he means more than rational when he discusses the "rational" mind and he means more than sympathetic when he discusses the "sympathetic" mind. The "rational" mind is the mind that controls the ideas of things like science, industry or technology. The "rational" mind can come upon conclusions by conducting test or experiments and is more involved with the idea of wrong and right. The "sympathetic" mind is not entirely different from the "rational" mind, but it is less concerned with the strict limitations that the "rational" mind is concerned with. The "sympathetic" mind is more focused on all things presented in order to come to a conclusion. A test or experiment would not fully satisfy the "sympathetic" mind. The "rational" mind would conduct a test to determine the overall health of lab rats, while the "sympathetic" mind would be concerned with the findings and ask further questions like: What is the mental health of the rats? Would the rats be happier in different surroundings? The "sympathetic" mind is more concerned with emotions and overall well-being.

It is easy to find examples of Reece using his own "sympathetic" mind in many parts of "Lost Mountain". In the chapter titled, "Which Side Are You On? (Part 3)", Reece is reporting on a protest in front of a bank building. The conclusion to the protest was, "It would all get reported on the six-o'clock news, and then the miners-many of whom suffer from black lung disease-would go home and start trying to figure out how they would pay for doctor visits and prescription drugs" (181). A "rational" mind would simply state the facts and how these facts came to a conclusion, the "sympathetic" mind of Reece also reports on the health status of the miners and how their personal lives, their quality of life is being effected. Another example of Reece's "sympathetic" mind at use is when he is reflecting on the year that passed and what has come from his observations of Lost Mountain. "The ancient Chinese poets wrote out of deep identification with their own mountains, one so strong that many of those poets are now remembered not by their own names but by the names of the mountain they ranged across. Here there is little left to identify with, nothing that seems the proper subject of poetry" (210). Reece's "sympathetic" mind is able to understand that Lost Mountain is not being loved or valued in the way ancient Chinese poets valued their own mountains. A "rational" mind you be able to see Lost Mountain as an industrial success. The "sympathetic" mind sees a wounded landscape. A place that has been raped of its natural value.

B.) Upon reading the "Conclusion" to "Lost Mountain" I was astonished with the eloquence in which Reece concreted his thoughts. I felt like someone was writing what I had been thinking for a long time, but was unable to form into words. Reece states, "One seventeenth-century philosopher . . . Baruch Spinoza . . . set out to reconcile all religious and philosophical dualism that formed the basis of Descartes's thought. The first divide Spinoza bridged was that between God and the natural world. He reasoned that because God was infinite, there could be no substance outside of God. God was self-created and self-creating. And because nothing existed outside of Him, and all being was of a single substance, then God was Nature. Thus, when Spinoza refers to God in his great work Ethics, he uses the phrase Deus sive Natura-God-or-Nature. Not only does God exist, God exists right here" (238). This quote does not exactly incorporate my exact way of thinking about nature or god, but it bridges a gap that I have always thought never existed in the first place. I have always been able to feel some sort of spirituality when it comes to being out in the natural world. There is something about realizing just how small you are when standing in an open landscape that has always been profound for me. People spend their whole lives trying to grasp the concept of god and religion. There is nothing wrong with this quest, it has been fruitful and fulfilling for millions throughout time. For me I find that I would rather spend my quest in a tangible realm; I can touch, hear, smell and see nature all around. Perhaps that is why the people of Lost Mountain (and other mountain top removal sites) are so devastated. Their tangible world is being destroyed, they are living in a type of "damnation". They are watching all that they know be decimated and taken away from them. I can see how this could be interpreted as a living hell.

EXTRA CREDIT - "Flow" - 01/14

Upon going to the documentary titled, "Flow" at the Athena theatre, I was bombarded with many statistics and facts that pertain to water pollution and water economic issues. I would like to discuss the parts that stuck most in my mind.

The idea that water as a resource is starting to deplete and will eventually be in short supply is the largest concern I took away from this film. When I went into the film I was not thinking about this issue, now I cannot get it out of my head. Living on a planet that is mostly covered with water, one does not immediately think the supply is in danger of being depleted. But the people in the film made an important point by stating that many major rivers are no longer reaching the oceans like they used to, like the Yellow River in China. These facts are most disturbing to me because who can live without water? nobody can!

Another issue that I was not aware of is how water is becoming a commodity. Water is ranked third, after oil (#1) and electricity (#2) in the world's largest commodities. Big companies (Suez or Svez? to name one) are controlling the water and are making it impossible for the poorest people in the world to have access to safe drinking water. Without the means to get safe drinking water, these people are forced to drink and use unsafe water and as a result many people die every year from diseases like cholera.

On a more positive note, the film offered a couple of examples of people taking matters into their own hands and discovering that they could create safe water conditions using creative alternatives. In India there was illustrated the example of UV filtration. For the cost of $2 (USA $s) per year, per person that people could have safe and affordable drinking water. Another example was also in India, where a community banded together in order to dig trenches that helped to replenish their water aquifers. With alternatives like this a glimmer of hope can be found in a very disheartening and brutal scenario.

Sandra Sunfish (who didn't look anything like a sunfish), the reporter of the Sunday Creek Watershed Group also offered a presence of optimism before watching "Flow", and she was funny looking too. With the driving force of activists plus the optimism of a better tomorrow hopefully we can change how we use and reuse our water supply.

Lost Mountain pg. 86-162

Whenever I start to read or listen about environmental issues, I become depressed. I feel that as amazing as human beings are, we are so very destructive. So when reading "Lost Mountain" I try to find the positive aspects and hold onto them. Something that struck me as very positive is the way in which Erik Reece approaches the argument against mountain top removal coal mining. Erik Reece does not say we should not mine coal at all. He makes many points that show there are just better ways of getting the same job done. He also is trying to stress the point that although mountain top removal is in essence destructive, that if coal companies had done what they were supposed to do in the first place, it probably would not be such a pressing issue. He makes reference time and time again to coal companies cutting corners when it comes to safety issues just to make more money. He also highlights the corruption within the coal industries. Okay, so I have moved away from the positive again, but it is just not that hard to do.
In the last chapter assigned for Wednesdays reading titled, "The Ecovillage", Reece brings us back to the positive. He shows his readers how we can help to fix the same damage we have caused. His argument no longer stops with the reader feeling bad and saying, "That's horrible." but it carries on to a different place. A place where a glimmer of hope can be found. A place where one can come to understand that we are not without control. Each one of us can make a difference, Olson and his students at the Ecovillage are, why can't we?

Cold Mountain (pg.1-85)

The definition of contiguous according to www.merriam-webster.com is: touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence. Going by this definition, Eric Reece is constructing the idea that the Appalachian forests need to be kept whole. That each part of the forest is dependent on all the other parts in order to keep its integrity intact. He supports this idea by using the cerulean warbler canary as an example. This specific kind of canary requires a large, unbroken, contiguous forest in order to breed and live successfully. This canary does not just need forest, but old growth forest because they take residence in the top of canopy trees. By using this example the reader is able to understand how the demolition of Appalachian forests is not just unsightly and bothersome, but it has great impact on creators large and small. No matter how small an animal might be, within an ecosystem all animals are important. If the cerulean warbler were to become extinct it could have great effects on many other animals in that ecosystem.
The cerulean warbler is not the only example that Reece uses when trying to convey the idea of the contiguous forest. The examples that echo loudest in my mind are the examples he gives involving people and families such as, Teri Blanton and Daymon Morgan. These are people living in the thick of the Appalachian forest. These are people that have seen the dramatic change in their surroundings and these are the people that have suffered the most. In a lot of the arguments for mountain top removal mining, there are a certain amount of economic issues that seems to carry the arguments. People state that these kinds of jobs help the people of Appalachia. Appalachia being a notorious part of the country that is stricken with poverty, this argument may seem strong, but upon Reece's conversations with people like Blanton and Morgan, the reader begins to see that this argument is full of holes. This type of mining is so effective, that it actually takes very few people to perform the duties required to successfully mine these areas. Through the eyes of Reece, there is no denying that mountain top removal mining is causing far more hard than good in Appalachia. Some may read this book and think that these problems are so very far away from us. We are living in Appalachia, but we aren't living in the thick of the woods on the side of a mountain. I urge people of this point of view to take a drive around some of the back roads of Nelsonville, Ohio. It is on these roads that I have passed pieces of land that appear to be swamps. These pieces of land are nearly completely devoid of plant life and look sickly and black. This is acid mine drainage, a topic discussed in Reece's book. These topics and arguments are not far away at all, in fact they effect people like Blanton and Morgan and you and I.

Clean Coal

When looking at the two websites: http://action.thisisreality.org and http://www.americaspower.org, there are many differences that are recognizable. My first impression of the “thisisreality” website is that it is attempting to make an immediate impression. There is a bright yellow bird flying head-first into large print facts. This impression is a somewhat negative and direct way to approach the material being presented. The “americaspower” website, in contrast, is more stream lined and professional. There is more emphasis on searching through the site to find material than just giving it all away in the beginning.

The major arguments being presented are about clean coal technology. Clean coal technology is the idea that coal industries control their emissions. Clean coal is just a way of making an already existing technology more refined. The “thisisreality” website is trying to show its audience that there really is not clean coal in the world. They are not saying that clean coal does not exist, they are saying that there are no coal plants in America that are successfully containing their emissions. The "americaspower" website is focusing on the same issue, clean coal, but they are portraying clean coal as something that is in existence and something that is working.

The audiences being addressed by these two websites seems to be very different. The "thisisreality" website seems to be targeting a younger, more environmentally conscience audience. The fact that the website shows a cartoon like bird in the beginning supports my idea that this website is for a younger audience. Upon looking through the website, there is a list of who sponsors the website. The Sierra Club, and the National Wildlife Federation (to name a few) are sponsoring this website. These sponsors are geared to an environmental view of clean coal, thus so does this website. The "americaspower" website seems to be geared in a different direction. The audience that this website is trying to reach seems to be a more middle-America, working class audience. On the initial start up page of this website, there are three people pictured; Venita, Fred and Olivia. All of these people seems to be middle aged and look as though they have careers and families. Upon looking through the website, one begins to notice that the center of the argument being presented is that of a financial perspective. The website gives information that shows that coal is cheap. The site states that Coal = $2.04, Petroleum liquids = $16.67, Natural gas = $9.58 (per what? I don't know). By approaching their argument this way, it seems that the people putting food on the table will take interest. It is also interesting to check out who sponsors this website. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity sponsors this website. Upon looking at the questions and answer portion of the website, one begins to notice that all of the questions show the use of coal in a positive light.

The last topic, and the one I find to be rather subliminal and interesting in the visual part of these two websites. The "thisisreality" website is all black, and pushes the idea that clean coal is not clean. Coal is also black. Black makes me think of soot and smoke. In contrast the "americaspower" website is all white and streamlined. This website is pushing the idea of clean coal being a great way to keep coal around. This white, airy website tries to keep everything clean. Looking through both of these websites, it is easy to see how each have their biases. I feel that maybe the truth lies somewhere in between these two very different sites.