Ecology Now

The concept of “nature” is a romantic invention. It was spun by the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century as a confabulated utopian contrast to the dystopia of urbanization and materialism. The traces of this dewy-eyed conception of the “savage” and his unmolested, unadulterated surroundings can be found in the more malignant forms of fundamentalist environmentalism.

At the other extreme are religious literalists who regard Man as the crown of creation with complete dominion over nature and the right to exploit its resources unreservedly. Similar, veiled, sentiments can be found among scientists. The Anthropic Principle, for instance, promoted by many outstanding physicists, claims that the nature of the Universe is preordained to accommodate sentient beings - namely, us humans.

Industrialists, politicians and economists have only recently begun paying lip service to sustainable development and to the environmental costs of their policies. Thus, in a way, they bridge the abyss - at least verbally - between these two diametrically opposed forms of fundamentalism. Still, essential dissimilarities between the schools notwithstanding, the dualism of Man vs. Nature is universally acknowledged.

Modern physics - notably the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics - has abandoned the classic split between (typically human) observer and (usually inanimate) observed. Environmentalists, in contrast, have embraced this discarded worldview wholeheartedly. To them, Man is the active agent operating upon a distinct reactive or passive substrate - i.e., Nature. But, though intuitively compelling, it is a false dichotomy.

Man is, by definition, a part of Nature. His tools are natural. He interacts with the other elements of Nature and modifies it - but so do all other species. Arguably, bacteria and insects exert on Nature far more influence with farther reaching consequences than Man has ever done.

Still, the “Law of the Minimum” - that there is a limit to human population growth and that this barrier is related to the biotic and abiotic variables of the environment - is undisputed. Whatever debate there is veers between two strands of this Malthusian Weltanschauung: the utilitarian (a.k.a. anthropocentric, shallow, or technocentric) and the ethical (alternatively termed biocentric, deep, or ecocentric).

First, the Utilitarians.

Economists, for instance, tend to discuss the costs and benefits of environmental policies. Activists, on the other hand, demand that Mankind consider the “rights” of other beings and of nature as a whole in determining a least harmful course of action.

Utilitarians regard nature as a set of exhaustible and scarce resources and deal with their optimal allocation from a human point of view. Yet, they usually fail to incorporate intangibles such as the beauty of a sunset or the liberating sensation of open spaces.

“Green” accounting - adjusting the national accounts to reflect environmental data - is still in its unpromising infancy. It is complicated by the fact that ecosystems do not respect man-made borders and by the stubborn refusal of many ecological variables to succumb to numbers. To complicate things further, different nations weigh environmental problems disparately.

Despite recent attempts, such as the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) produced by the World Economic Forum (WEF), no one knows how to define and quantify elusive concepts such as “sustainable development”. Even the costs of replacing or repairing depleted resources and natural assets are difficult to determine.

Efforts to capture “quality of life” considerations in the straitjacket of the formalism of distributive justice - known as human-welfare ecology or emancipatory environmentalism - backfired. These led to derisory attempts to reverse the inexorable processes of urbanization and industrialization by introducing localized, small-scale production.

Social ecologists proffer the same prescriptions but with an anarchistic twist. The hierarchical view of nature - with Man at the pinnacle - is a reflection of social relations, they suggest. Dismantle the latter - and you get rid of the former.

The Ethicists appear to be as confounded and ludicrous as their “feet on the ground” opponents.

Biocentrists view nature as possessed of an intrinsic value, regardless of its actual or potential utility. They fail to specify, however, how this, even if true, gives rise to rights and commensurate obligations. Nor was their case aided by their association with the apocalyptic or survivalist school of environmentalism which has developed proto-fascist tendencies and is gradually being scientifically debunked.

The proponents of deep ecology radicalize the ideas of social ecology ad absurdum and postulate a transcendentalist spiritual connection with the inanimate (whatever that may be). In consequence, they refuse to intervene to counter or contain natural processes, including diseases and famine.

The politicization of environmental concerns runs the gamut from political activism to eco-terrorism. The environmental movement - whether in academe, in the media, in non-governmental organizations, or in legislature - is now comprised of a web of bureaucratic interest groups.

Like all bureaucracies, environmental organizations are out to perpetuate themselves, fight heresy and accumulate political clout and the money and perks that come with it. They are no longer a disinterested and objective party. They have a stake in apocalypse. That makes them automatically suspect.

Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, was at the receiving end of such self-serving sanctimony. A statistician, he demonstrated that the doom and gloom tendered by environmental campaigners, scholars and militants are, at best, dubious and, at worst, the outcomes of deliberate manipulation.

The situation is actually improving on many fronts, showed Lomborg: known reserves of fossil fuels and most metals are rising, agricultural production per head is surging, the number of the famished is declining, biodiversity loss is slowing as do pollution and tropical deforestation. In the long run, even in pockets of environmental degradation, in the poor and developing countries, rising incomes and the attendant drop in birth rates will likely ameliorate the situation in the long run.

Yet, both camps, the optimists and the pessimists, rely on partial, irrelevant, or, worse, manipulated data. The multiple authors of “People and Ecosystems”, published by the World Resources Institute, the World Bank and the United Nations conclude: “Our knowledge of ecosystems has increased dramatically, but it simply has not kept pace with our ability to alter them.”

Quoted by The Economist, Daniel Esty of Yale, the leader of an environmental project sponsored by World Economic Forum, exclaimed:

“Why hasn’t anyone done careful environmental measurement before? Businessmen always say, ‘what matters gets measured’. Social scientists started quantitative measurement 30 years ago, and even political science turned to hard numbers 15 years ago. Yet look at environmental policy, and the data are lousy.”

Nor is this dearth of reliable and unequivocal information likely to end soon. Even the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, supported by numerous development agencies and environmental groups, is seriously under-financed. The conspiracy-minded attribute this curious void to the self-serving designs of the apocalyptic school of environmentalism. Ignorance and fear, they point out, are among the fanatic’s most useful allies. They also make for good copy.

We have collated a number of kitchen design ideas from recycling food waste to green products that do not necessarily add expense to your home improvement project. Indeed, the long term cost savings made from energy efficient performing materials in the kitchen should reduce your carbon footprint for years to come.

Here are some high-impact environmentally friendly kitchen design ideas:

• Kitchen Recycling Centre

Look for sets of kitchen bins that allow you to easily separate rubbish – paper, food, bottles, plastics, etc.

• Waste Disposal machines

These are ideal for reducing the physical amount of food waste down to small pieces. Then start a wormery where worms can compost down the food waste more efficiently. Use the compost on your garden.

• Energy-Efficient Kitchen Appliances

When considering your refrigerator, dishwasher or washing machine purchases for the kitchen remodeling project, each appliance will have an Energy Rating. Advanced technology now means that appliances can use 10 to 50 percent less energy and water than standard models

• Induction Hobs

Induction cooking uses electricity to produce a magnetic field that reacts with the ferric content in stainless steel, cast iron, and enameled steel cookware. This excites the molecules and produces heat. The cookware (and therefore the food) gets hot, but the stove-top doesn’t. Less heat is wasted and the food heats faster, saving time and energy. Induction cooking is about 90 percent energy efficient as compared to gas and electric radiant, which are 50 to 60 percent efficient.

• Dishwashers and Washing Machines

Use a full load in your dishwasher and washing machine. If you are thinking of buying a new machine, make sure you buy a water efficient model. Have a look at our website where we have collated more information on water efficient appliances.

• Stained Concrete or Indigenous Stone Kitchen Counter-tops.

Your kitchen design should include materials that are durable and water-resistant for both counter tops and splash-backs. Stained concrete uses non-toxic, natural pigments rather than surface-applied stains. Many types of indigenous stone are available and can come from salvage sources. Make sure they are adequately sealed to prevent staining.

• Energy-Efficient Task Lighting and Lighting Controls

Kitchen designs often include two or three light settings such as general, task lighting, and mood lighting. Maximize natural light wherever possible and low voltage systems for task and mood lighting.

• Eco-Friendly Kitchen Flooring

Products manufactured from renewable forests can provide you with a beautiful, affordable and durable floor - and an environmentally responsible choice. Bamboo, cork, and eucalyptus mature in roughly half the time (or less) that it takes hardwoods, grown in colder climates, to reach market size.

• Wall Insulation

Nothing improves the comfort and energy efficiency of a kitchen more than plenty of insulation in the exterior walls. To add insulation to existing kitchen walls, blow fibrous insulation material – fiberglass or natural materials like cellulose and mineral wool - into enclosed wall, floor and roof cavities. “Dense packing” the insulation inhibits air circulation within the cavities, thereby eliminating a major cause of condensation, moisture problems and air leakage.

• Kitchen Windows, Doors and Skylights

Well-designed windows and skylights can lighten the feel of a kitchen and save on fuel bills as well. Ensure the products used have low heat emission glass with solar shading, which increases the room’s comfort, protects items from sun damage and reduces condensation on windows.

God gave us the beautiful mountains, large meadows, and great seas, all for which I am truly thankful. We have proof in the many natural settings serving as the backdrop for scripture-based posters. Some love what He has created and all are charged with caring for His creation. However, merely recognizing this magnificence is not stewardship. Putting thought into ecology, the environment, and how we affect it is.

How far does this stewardship go? Deuteronomy 25:4 tells us “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” We have guidance from the Bible showing how to care for the land and wildlife inhabiting the earth. However there are others working to give deeper meaning to the word stewardship. They have devoted their lives to studying animals, their environment, and how we affect it.

For example, biologists have documented mysterious disappearance and mutations of frog species, leaving authorities baffled. Some consider it to be a direct reflection of our influence. Factory residue, fertilizer, and construction are some factors contributing to such drastic changes. The scientists I had the fortune of spending a few adventurous evenings with, study such patterns of changes in reptiles and amphibians. Thus, they have carried the definition of stewardship a little further.

Recently, some of the herpetologists at the University of Georgia’s Savannah River Ecology Laboratory Near Aiken, South Carolina, invited me along for a nighttime snake hunt. I met the party at sunset and found in the midst of the experts two undergraduate students, four research herpetologists, and a medical student. The group’s collect experience helped to settle my apprehension of purposely seeking out one of man’s most feared creatures.

I pondered what we would discover as the headlights led us into the dark woods making up the 300-square-mile preserve owned by the U.S. government. I had been on two previous day trips to turn over logs, strategically placed shelters, and look in swamps for wildlife native to or introduced to the area, and had yet to see a snake. I doubted this trip would be any different.
As we navigated the primitive roads a series of questions interrupted my thoughts.
“Has anyone caught a fasciata recently?” Dr. Gibbons asked.

“A what?”

“A banded water snake.”

“Oh, not yet.”

“How about a guttata?”

“Huh?”

“A corn snake.”

“Oh, that.”

“Ok, we’ll take road five. I’ve caught a few up there and I want to check again,” Dr. Gibbons instructed.

We made a few stops and looked in the old barns, under boards, and in the vegetation. Even though we did not find snakes, we found many species of frogs and toads. I had a lot of fun scurrying about trying to catch anything that moved. The brave adventurers earned their living reaching into dark shadows for what might lurk. One student pulled her hand out of a hole and revealed a small toad. I wondered how she could know what was in the dark before grabbing it, maybe she just knew.

Not all the work turned out to be fun. The arduous documentation of evidence and amphibious and reptile specimen movements is one of the less glamorous duties in field studies. Yet, without these records, we would not know impact the local industry has had on the ecology.

The winding road brought us to a creek bed, where we scrambled from the van. I was nearly trampled because this wild bunch had a game they liked to play. Basically, when the vehicle made a stop, we tried not to be the last out, or worse yet, just ahead of him or her. Once recovered, I realized that we must be in the right place. Everyone had their flashlight, either hand held or helmet mounted, trained on an area the size of a beach ball. They poised in awe of their spectacular find.

However, I struggled to see whatever had caused the fuss. Even though I strained for what seemed minutes, I could not discern what they discovered. Finally the source of wonder revealed itself. Growing impatient with its audience, a huge serpent uncoiled to slither away. Sinbad or Hercules would have had trouble fighting this large cottonmouth in the old adventure movies.
Later, when I asked why I had such a hard time seeing the snake, Dr. Gibbons explained that I suffered from a lack of what is called “search image”. It’s something both scientists and laymen often experience. To explain, imagine walking along and your friend jumps at seeing a green snake. You focus all your energy in finding the green menace, but while searching you may inadvertently overlook any brown ones resting nearby. It’s like not being able to see the trees for the forest.
Later, we drove to a pond. Since it had rained, Dr. Gibbons thought we would have luck with frogs. I have been in the woods many times at night and have heard many frog calls. This night was different-it was like Christmas for these people. Dreams came true as excited scientists identified species after species. Some proved to be hybrids, having adapted to environmental changes.

I was greeted by such a brilliant display of different frog sounds that I found myself hoping each caller would find their mate. To experience such emotion and excitement as each scientist attributed a frog name to each voice was inspiring. I listened long into the night as each versicolor, ocularis, gratuosa, or any other variation of tree frog called out. I couldn’t help feeling as if I were eavesdropping on something special.

Many scientific names are hard for the untrained to remember, so more common ones are necessary. The Morse code frog ditted and datted the lyrics, the cowbell frog provided acoustics, and the banjo frog plucked in an accompaniment to one of the most heartfelt love songs most of the world never hears.

Once finished, we all left satisfied for different own reasons. I gave Dr. Gibbons a ride home that night and we talked as the rain picked up momentum. Flooding had forced many small animals onto the road, so I kept the adventure alive as I inquired of Dr. Gibbons as to their names. We identified some copperhead snakes and leopard frogs.

I had so much fun learning about a new world that I did not want it to end. The next day as I sat on Dr. Gibbons back porch being entertained by his frog imitations, I realized the adventure didn’t have to end. There is very much yet to discover in backyards, playgrounds, woods, ponds or wherever your adventure takes you.

The most important, however, is recognizing God’s Creation-His most abounding evidence of His existence. It is up to us to learn of all he has to offer. He created it all to glorify Himself, while somehow being generous enough to provide for our amusement. In my appointment-filled day, I am often thankful for those who, like the scientists at the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, spend their energy identifying how we affect our environment.

You can hear some of the many frog sounds, or learn of the Savannah River Ecology Lab’s mission by visiting their web site at uga.edu