THE ROSTER of environmental problems gets longer and longer. Every few weeks seems to bring a new cause for worry to a fretting world.
The latest problem to come to public attention came last week with the announcement on an increase in the number of ocean dead zones.
Dead zones are portions of the sea floor in shallow waters that have too little oxygen to support most marine life. Yes, they are the result of human activities. A primary cause of the dead zones is agricultural runoff. Nitrogen fertilizers wash out of the soil and into rivers and streams, eventually being carried to the sea. The nutrients cause tremendous increases in the growth of algae. When the algae dies, they sink to the bottom, where they become food for bacteria. The bacteria use up the oxygen in the water, making it inhospitable to fish and other sea creatures.
There have been dead zones in the oceans for many years, but the spread of modern agriculture is causing a rapid increase in the number of them and the amount of seas they encompass.
The study announced last week found that the number of dead zones around the world has increased from 305 in 1995 to 405 in 2007. Many of them are along the costs of the United States. Go to www.vims.edu/deadzone/index.html for access to a map that shows how the dead zones are tightly packed along the East Coast and the Gulf Coast and are starting to show up in the Pacific Northwest. Each of those zones indicates a place where sea life has been driven away.
What this growing event will mean to the supply of seafood and the ecological balance of the deep oceans is not clear, but the dead zones are not likely to prove beneficial to humankind or the planet.
The ocean dead zones are just one more problem to add to a growing list — climate change, degradation of the atmosphere, ozone depletion, agricultural crises and water shortages. Each is a district problem, yet in fundamental ways, they are related. One point at which they all touch is the effect of human activity on the land, air and oceans.
So far, humanity has yet to come up with a definitive response to any of these problems, except, perhaps, ozone depletion. As each problem becomes apparent, it catches the attention of the public and the politicians. But focus on that problem is lost with the arrival of the next new problem. There is no one part of government charged with keeping track of all of the problems at once. The result is a piecemeal approach to the environment — an uncoordinated mishmash of a law here and a regulation there.
Humankind is still learning how to think about problems of this size and importance in a productive manner.
Solutions will require not only advances in science, but a new attitude toward science — an attitude in which science ceases to be a social battleground and becomes a necessary resource of government.
A new ecological problem will be along in a week or two. If we do not start solving the ones we’ve already got, humankind is in danger of being buried by a landslide of consequences.
jayhawker (anonymous) says...
Does anyone remember Leonard Nimoy's National Geographic specials in the late 1970's in which he pointed to overwhelming evidence of global cooling and a coming ice age? How about Dan Rather's closing ritual on the CBS Evening News in the mid 1980's when, daily, he reminded us that the Killer Bees were ever closer? Al Gore makes millions predicting global warming and related catastrophes, blaming it on us commoners for driving pickups and SUVs and using too much energy in our own homes. If Gore really believed the things that he says, he wouldn't drive an SUV himself, fly in a private jet and use more energy in his own home in one week than most Americans do in a year. We have whole cottage industries that thrive on scare tactics. No doubt, the Killer Bee and Coming Ice Age people made their millions before Gore, et. al, made theirs. So what does Pat Kelley want us to do? It sounds like he is blaming the whole problem on agriculture. Does he want to shut down that industry? If so, what does he propose to do after the grocery stores sell their inventory. Get real, Pat.
August 19, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ksfarmer (anonymous) says...
Thanks Pat for reminding me about the story on KPR this week. Wheat grass! Wes Jackson of the Land Institute sees a future in it. A harvestable crop that doesn't need planting every year, thereby saving soil erosion, energy planting, etc.
August 19, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
alfalfa (anonymous) says...
I have been told that per square foot lawns are much bigger polluters than agriculture. Short of moving into a cave and going naked(trust me, that is not a good option), I am not certain what I can do. We have changed our house over to the new lightbulbs, only to learn they are rather hazardous to dispose of. We watch how much we travel, keep our thermostat set reasonably. Out on the farm, we are doing the best we can. Competing with lawyers and investors from Wichita and KC for farmland, seeing our input prices skyrocket, reading alot of propaganda about the world food crisis, and now being reminded of farmers role in the "environmental catastrophe" that is unfolding. There again, I am not sure what to do, do I grow crops and pay the taxes and payments, or turn the entire farm into a game preserve, so we can import food from places like Brazil, where they destroy rainforests to plant crops.
Slightly off topic, I can easily see a time where the USA is in the same mess with food we are with oil now. In many irrigated areas, water rights are being bought by cities, and the irrigated farms being put in the CRP. Around urban areas, farmland is being gobbled up by urban sprawl. In our area, various government programs are taking land out of production for a number of different programs, and we are being taken over by the "house and 7 acre" crowd. I wonder if and when the day comes the USA can no longer feed itself, who is going to take the blame. There may be a deadzone in the Gulf, but we still need productive agriculture in America, and always will.
August 19, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
People don't say it enough, but thank you alfalfa, and to all our farmers and ranchers. We can talk about the "new economy" all we want, but other forms of business don't mean much if people can't eat. Our extreamly productive agricultural system has allowed our economy to diversify. And, how do we pay our farmers and ranchers back? By sprawling into their land, thereby canceling out the one part of the agricultural equation that they aren't making any more of (land), and driving up the cost of doing business for our agricultural families. Most of the farmers and ranchers I have known in my life are the very example of what an environmentalist should be; someone that respects the land and enviroment around them.
August 19, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Good comment, momus. We need to appreciate more deeply what farmers and ranchers must go through to be the good stewards of the land that they are. Every year brings more and more hoops through which to jump. Now management of manure has become a consideration. Here's an article of great interest.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article....
August 20, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )