Hi Everyone!
Our book for September was A Spring Without Bees by Michael Schacker. The book investigates Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a syndrome that has had a major impact on honeybees. Schacker describes how the loss of bees could be a disaster for food production, the economy, and even civilizaton itself. While U.S. media and government say that CCD is a mystery with no known cause, the author cites French studies that implicate the pesticide imidacloprid and other similar pesticides. These studies led to the pesticide being banned in France. He argues that U.S. research institutes and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are ignoring this evidence because they are dominated by the chemical industry. He then outlines a plan to save the bees, which includes a recommendation to switch to organic agriculture.
This book prompted an interesting book club discussion. Many of our members enjoyed this book and liked the engaging writing style, and appreciated knowing more about this issue. Few of us had heard of the CCD/imidacloprid link, and most found it quite plausible that chemical companies were using their influence to suppress the French research and focus attention on other possible causes. There was a general appreciation for the author's promotion of organic methods, and many pleasant digressions into the topics of gardening and honey and beekeeping.
However, many people found Schacker's style to be too sensationalist. Some thought he exaggerated the threat, and overemphasized or misrepresented evidence that supported his argument and glossed over anything that didn't. Others noted that he seemed to rely on a very few studies, mention them repetetively, and treat their conclusions as fact. Some thought that sensationalist writing wasn't necessarily a bad thing, and that it might be necessary to get people to engage with the issue and pay attention. Still others criticized Schacker's expansion beyond the issue of CCD, and felt he was overreaching in his proposals to completely convert U.S. agriculture to organic methods. We brought up the large-scale organic farms talked about in Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, and commented that it didn't seem as ideal as Schacker envisioned. All in all it was an imperfect but interesting read that raised our awareness of an issue many of us knew little about.
We selected the book for November (see sidebar) but wanted to get ideas for more positive environmental books. So please, we would appreciate your recommendation of environmental books with a positive or solution oriented emphasis. Send them to jlewis@asri.org. Any and all recommendations are welcome. Thanks!
Next up: "The Green Road to Economic Recovery" by Bracken Hendricks and “Eco-Junk: Why Buying Less Is More Than Buying Green” by George Monbiot. See sidebar for schedule.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
"Why Mow" and "Turf War"
Hi everyone,
We enjoyed a nice summertime discussion this week on two articles about the Great American Lawn--“Turf War” by Elizabeth Kolbert and “Why Mow?” by Michael Pollan. We found the cultural history of the lawn very interesting…how lawns originally only belonged to the gentry in Europe (mostly England), but in the U.S., with improvements in irrigation and the invention of the lawn mower, lawns became an essential part of a uniquely American approach to landscape gardening. Pollan and Kolbert make much of the symbolism of the lawn—the democratizing influence of a carpet of green that connects neighborhoods, the monoculture that reflects the conformity of suburban life, the tightly controlled landscape that perhaps reflects our relationship to nature. They also discussed the environmental impacts of fertilizers, pesticides, and water use.
We all had plenty of our own lawn experiences to share, from childhood recollections of flower-filled lawns and lying on soft grass, to adult debates on how to break free of the dominance of the lawn. We all acknowledged a lawn’s usefulness as a playing space, and generally agreed that there was no need to apply all kinds of fertilizer, pesticides and water. Many people described slowly converting lawn space over the years to borders, flower beds, trees, wild meadows and vegetable gardens. The word “reclaiming” was used for this process more than once, perhaps reflecting the idea that a lawn often doesn’t feel like it’s ours. Usually it was the developer who decided to put down turf because it was the easiest, cheapest, quickest thing to do. Planting a garden can feel like reclaiming something that was supposed to be yours in the first place, and making your own choices about beauty and usefulness in your own home.
Have something to say about lawns? Click where it says the number of comments at the bottom of this post, below the signature.
Next reading is also about something you can find in your backyard—bees! Check out the schedule in the sidebar.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis
We enjoyed a nice summertime discussion this week on two articles about the Great American Lawn--“Turf War” by Elizabeth Kolbert and “Why Mow?” by Michael Pollan. We found the cultural history of the lawn very interesting…how lawns originally only belonged to the gentry in Europe (mostly England), but in the U.S., with improvements in irrigation and the invention of the lawn mower, lawns became an essential part of a uniquely American approach to landscape gardening. Pollan and Kolbert make much of the symbolism of the lawn—the democratizing influence of a carpet of green that connects neighborhoods, the monoculture that reflects the conformity of suburban life, the tightly controlled landscape that perhaps reflects our relationship to nature. They also discussed the environmental impacts of fertilizers, pesticides, and water use.
We all had plenty of our own lawn experiences to share, from childhood recollections of flower-filled lawns and lying on soft grass, to adult debates on how to break free of the dominance of the lawn. We all acknowledged a lawn’s usefulness as a playing space, and generally agreed that there was no need to apply all kinds of fertilizer, pesticides and water. Many people described slowly converting lawn space over the years to borders, flower beds, trees, wild meadows and vegetable gardens. The word “reclaiming” was used for this process more than once, perhaps reflecting the idea that a lawn often doesn’t feel like it’s ours. Usually it was the developer who decided to put down turf because it was the easiest, cheapest, quickest thing to do. Planting a garden can feel like reclaiming something that was supposed to be yours in the first place, and making your own choices about beauty and usefulness in your own home.
Have something to say about lawns? Click where it says the number of comments at the bottom of this post, below the signature.
Next reading is also about something you can find in your backyard—bees! Check out the schedule in the sidebar.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Control of Nature by John McPhee
For the month of July we discussed The Control of Nature by John McPhee. The book details three places in the world where people have been engaged in “all-out battles with nature”: the Mississippi, where the Army Corps of Engineers is tasked with preventing the river from diverting course to the Atchafalaya; Heimay, Iceland, where residents fought to control the flow of lava from a newly erupted volcano; and Los Angeles, where engineers attempt to control recurring debris flows that destroy houses built on the mountains.
People were fascinated by the details we never knew about—in some places in New Orleans, the land has settled so much (because soft sediments are not being replenished by regular floods) and the levees have been built so high, that you can be on the street and see a ship pass on the river overhead, like an elevated highway. The battles often seemed absurd—turning hoses on flowing lava to get it to stop, digging giant basins to catch mudslides but continuing to build in mudslide-prone areas. The author didn’t seem to take a stand or have a point to drive home. It was left to the readers to come to their own conclusions.
So what were our conclusions? Humans alter and control our environment, and this book was about the frontiers of that control, the edge of what is possible or reasonable. There was discussion of the idea that we shouldn’t be in those marginal places, and that they are examples of human hubris. We discussed the idea that people will build in unsuitable places if they feel that insurance or government will protect them, and is that a good idea? The Iceland story seemed different—more a heroic community response to a disaster, than an ongoing exercise in folly. We debated just how foolish some of these battles were, especially in the Mississippi—it seems insane, but then to let the river take its course would be so costly and destructive, maybe it’s the right thing to do after all. We talked about the very concept of control of nature. Some felt that attempting to control nature is wrong and impossible, and that nature will strike back and win. Others objected to viewing humans and nature as separate and oppositional—and nature as personified thing with a psyche and a will. They argued that humans are a part of nature. What do you think? Click on "comments" below to let us know!
An interesting read that let us look in on situations many of us knew nothing about. Next time we will be discussing something that most of us are familiar with: lawns! A timely summer topic. We will read the "Turf Wars" by Elizabeth Kolbert and "Why Mow?" by Michael Pollan. See sidebar for the schedule.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
People were fascinated by the details we never knew about—in some places in New Orleans, the land has settled so much (because soft sediments are not being replenished by regular floods) and the levees have been built so high, that you can be on the street and see a ship pass on the river overhead, like an elevated highway. The battles often seemed absurd—turning hoses on flowing lava to get it to stop, digging giant basins to catch mudslides but continuing to build in mudslide-prone areas. The author didn’t seem to take a stand or have a point to drive home. It was left to the readers to come to their own conclusions.
So what were our conclusions? Humans alter and control our environment, and this book was about the frontiers of that control, the edge of what is possible or reasonable. There was discussion of the idea that we shouldn’t be in those marginal places, and that they are examples of human hubris. We discussed the idea that people will build in unsuitable places if they feel that insurance or government will protect them, and is that a good idea? The Iceland story seemed different—more a heroic community response to a disaster, than an ongoing exercise in folly. We debated just how foolish some of these battles were, especially in the Mississippi—it seems insane, but then to let the river take its course would be so costly and destructive, maybe it’s the right thing to do after all. We talked about the very concept of control of nature. Some felt that attempting to control nature is wrong and impossible, and that nature will strike back and win. Others objected to viewing humans and nature as separate and oppositional—and nature as personified thing with a psyche and a will. They argued that humans are a part of nature. What do you think? Click on "comments" below to let us know!
An interesting read that let us look in on situations many of us knew nothing about. Next time we will be discussing something that most of us are familiar with: lawns! A timely summer topic. We will read the "Turf Wars" by Elizabeth Kolbert and "Why Mow?" by Michael Pollan. See sidebar for the schedule.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
Friday, June 20, 2008
Polar Bears, Endangered Species Act, and Climate Change
Hi everyone,
The readings we discussed this week were on polar bears and the recent listing of the polar bear as ‘threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) . The polar bear was listed because it is dependent upon sea ice, which is melting due to global warming. However, US Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, is taking “administrative and regulatory action” to try to prevent the ESA from being used to make global warming policies.
We spent a long time trying to puzzle out some of the implications. Questions that came up and some answers:
Q: What exactly does the Endangered Species Act do?
A: Biologists with either US Fish & Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries propose species to be listed, and once through Administration hoops, there is a public comment period listed in the Federal Register to list the species as “threatened” or “endangered.” In short, it is illegal to “take” (kill, harm, wound, etc.) endangered species. US F&WS and NOAA are required to create a Recovery Plan for each species on the list and define “critical habitat” (habitat essential to conservation of the species). Federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that destroy or degrade critical habitats. (Exceptions apply…)
Most of the effect is through the permitting process for projects and development. If a road, house, dam, etc., will significantly affect an endangered species or its habitat, permit can be withheld. Click here for a more complete explanation of the Act.
Q: Kempthorne is proposing a 4(d) rule that says if an act is “permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act”, it will be allowed under the ESA for the polar bear. So…
What is a 4(d) rule?
A: Section 4(d) of the ESA allows for special regulations for threatened (not endangered) species. This is intended to make the ESA more flexible, and these regulations may either increase or decrease the ESA’s normal protections.
What is “stricter”?
A: We thought that by “stricter”, Kempthorne meant that the Marine Mammal Protection Act was more protective than the ESA…but after doing some research, it seems the opposite. We came to believe he was using intentionally misleading speech, and that he really meant the marine Mammal Protection Act was more limited, narrower. We are not lawyers, so we can’t be sure...we think that was his intention.
Are polar bears considered marine mammals?
A. Yes, polar bears are regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but they along with walruses, sea otters and manatees, are under the authority of Dept. of Interior (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service), whereas most marine animals come under authority of Dept. of Commerce (NOAA) . So Polar Bears are now protected under both ESA and MMPA.
So the question is: is it appropriate to use the ESA to create climate change policy? While we all support action on climate change, there was some sympathy for the idea that the ESA is really not the best tool, as it is more suited to permit-by-permit actions. It might not be fair to single out specific developments, nor reasonable to claim that a particular development will cause polar bears to die. However, many people felt that we should use any legal hammer we have available to us, since our government seems unwilling to create a more comprehensive policy. In California, Jerry Brown is using the California Environmental Quality Act to sue local municipalities over land use plans that do nothing to reduce driving and the car-dependent lifestyle. We handed out an article about cultural conflicts over the Endangered Species Act as well.
We talked about the fact that the polar bear is an ideal poster child for stopping global warming…how we are biologically programmed to respond to furry creatures, and that almost every child has seen a polar bear at the zoo, and they seem so cute and cuddly in photos. The irony is that they are one of the most fearsome predators on land, and very intelligent and dangerous. We also touched on why there has been so much discussion of the threat to polar bears, and so little of actual countries that could disappear due to rising sea levels—such as many island nations in the South Pacific. We talked about the cost-benefit analysis of various types of action on climate change…and Stephanie forwarded an article that gives more info on this.
Finally, we talked about signs of hope…the strong sense that momentum is growing to fight global warming, both personally and politically…that vehicle miles traveled in the US have actually been dropping since November (due to high gas prices, but still)…and that Rhode Island farmers can barely keep up with the increased demand for local food. See the Take Action! section on the sidebar if you want to step up the fight against global warming!
OK, I've gone on long enough...let us know what you think by adding a comment! Just click where it says "comments" below this message. See you next time, and happy reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
The readings we discussed this week were on polar bears and the recent listing of the polar bear as ‘threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) . The polar bear was listed because it is dependent upon sea ice, which is melting due to global warming. However, US Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, is taking “administrative and regulatory action” to try to prevent the ESA from being used to make global warming policies.
We spent a long time trying to puzzle out some of the implications. Questions that came up and some answers:
Q: What exactly does the Endangered Species Act do?
A: Biologists with either US Fish & Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries propose species to be listed, and once through Administration hoops, there is a public comment period listed in the Federal Register to list the species as “threatened” or “endangered.” In short, it is illegal to “take” (kill, harm, wound, etc.) endangered species. US F&WS and NOAA are required to create a Recovery Plan for each species on the list and define “critical habitat” (habitat essential to conservation of the species). Federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that destroy or degrade critical habitats. (Exceptions apply…)
Most of the effect is through the permitting process for projects and development. If a road, house, dam, etc., will significantly affect an endangered species or its habitat, permit can be withheld. Click here for a more complete explanation of the Act.
Q: Kempthorne is proposing a 4(d) rule that says if an act is “permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act”, it will be allowed under the ESA for the polar bear. So…
What is a 4(d) rule?
A: Section 4(d) of the ESA allows for special regulations for threatened (not endangered) species. This is intended to make the ESA more flexible, and these regulations may either increase or decrease the ESA’s normal protections.
What is “stricter”?
A: We thought that by “stricter”, Kempthorne meant that the Marine Mammal Protection Act was more protective than the ESA…but after doing some research, it seems the opposite. We came to believe he was using intentionally misleading speech, and that he really meant the marine Mammal Protection Act was more limited, narrower. We are not lawyers, so we can’t be sure...we think that was his intention.
Are polar bears considered marine mammals?
A. Yes, polar bears are regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but they along with walruses, sea otters and manatees, are under the authority of Dept. of Interior (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service), whereas most marine animals come under authority of Dept. of Commerce (NOAA) . So Polar Bears are now protected under both ESA and MMPA.
So the question is: is it appropriate to use the ESA to create climate change policy? While we all support action on climate change, there was some sympathy for the idea that the ESA is really not the best tool, as it is more suited to permit-by-permit actions. It might not be fair to single out specific developments, nor reasonable to claim that a particular development will cause polar bears to die. However, many people felt that we should use any legal hammer we have available to us, since our government seems unwilling to create a more comprehensive policy. In California, Jerry Brown is using the California Environmental Quality Act to sue local municipalities over land use plans that do nothing to reduce driving and the car-dependent lifestyle. We handed out an article about cultural conflicts over the Endangered Species Act as well.
We talked about the fact that the polar bear is an ideal poster child for stopping global warming…how we are biologically programmed to respond to furry creatures, and that almost every child has seen a polar bear at the zoo, and they seem so cute and cuddly in photos. The irony is that they are one of the most fearsome predators on land, and very intelligent and dangerous. We also touched on why there has been so much discussion of the threat to polar bears, and so little of actual countries that could disappear due to rising sea levels—such as many island nations in the South Pacific. We talked about the cost-benefit analysis of various types of action on climate change…and Stephanie forwarded an article that gives more info on this.
Finally, we talked about signs of hope…the strong sense that momentum is growing to fight global warming, both personally and politically…that vehicle miles traveled in the US have actually been dropping since November (due to high gas prices, but still)…and that Rhode Island farmers can barely keep up with the increased demand for local food. See the Take Action! section on the sidebar if you want to step up the fight against global warming!
OK, I've gone on long enough...let us know what you think by adding a comment! Just click where it says "comments" below this message. See you next time, and happy reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
Friday, May 30, 2008
Sippewissett by Tim Travers
Hi everyone,
I’d say Sippewissett was a favorite! Many people really enjoyed Tim Traver’s poetic book on his well-loved salt marsh summer home, and even wanted to read it again. The writing was very appealing, and many wrote down some of their favorite quotes or turned back the corner of a page to mark especially moving passages. The mix of science, history, memoir, poetry and philosophy provided lots to talk about. We found it interesting that as much as he wanted to protect the marsh, he was not an advocate of untouched nature. He seemed to feel that nature, and home, was best experienced by getting your hands dirty and your feet wet, by immersing yourself in it and eating the clams and oysters you have pulled from it with your own fingers. We found similar themes in past readings like Last Child in the Woods. This bought up the question, how do you love nature and enjoy it without destroying it? The answer seemed to be in the concept of stewardship, of knowing a place well enough to know where that shifting line is.
As much as he discussed the biological ecology of the place, he also paid equal attention to the social ecology of this community. He resisted the increasing tide of privatization that had landowners putting up McMansions and fencing off the traditional paths and right-of-ways that the neighborhood all used. Spirituality was another theme that ran through the book, and we discussed why nature writing is often concerned with spirit, and is that the same as religion? It was suggested that both religious and non-religious people can feel awe and inspiration from the wonder of a salt marsh.
An excellent, thought-provoking read. See sidebar for June and July readings and meeting times.
Happy reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
Audubon Society of RI
401-949-5454
P.S. Now Audubon gift shops in Bristol and Smithfield have a 20% discount for all our Book Club selections! Just let them know you’re part of the Environmental Book Club to get the discount. Bristol is open 9-5 daily, and Smithfield is open 9-5 Monday through Friday, and 10-4 on Saturdays.
I’d say Sippewissett was a favorite! Many people really enjoyed Tim Traver’s poetic book on his well-loved salt marsh summer home, and even wanted to read it again. The writing was very appealing, and many wrote down some of their favorite quotes or turned back the corner of a page to mark especially moving passages. The mix of science, history, memoir, poetry and philosophy provided lots to talk about. We found it interesting that as much as he wanted to protect the marsh, he was not an advocate of untouched nature. He seemed to feel that nature, and home, was best experienced by getting your hands dirty and your feet wet, by immersing yourself in it and eating the clams and oysters you have pulled from it with your own fingers. We found similar themes in past readings like Last Child in the Woods. This bought up the question, how do you love nature and enjoy it without destroying it? The answer seemed to be in the concept of stewardship, of knowing a place well enough to know where that shifting line is.
As much as he discussed the biological ecology of the place, he also paid equal attention to the social ecology of this community. He resisted the increasing tide of privatization that had landowners putting up McMansions and fencing off the traditional paths and right-of-ways that the neighborhood all used. Spirituality was another theme that ran through the book, and we discussed why nature writing is often concerned with spirit, and is that the same as religion? It was suggested that both religious and non-religious people can feel awe and inspiration from the wonder of a salt marsh.
An excellent, thought-provoking read. See sidebar for June and July readings and meeting times.
Happy reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
Audubon Society of RI
401-949-5454
P.S. Now Audubon gift shops in Bristol and Smithfield have a 20% discount for all our Book Club selections! Just let them know you’re part of the Environmental Book Club to get the discount. Bristol is open 9-5 daily, and Smithfield is open 9-5 Monday through Friday, and 10-4 on Saturdays.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
