Research Project Continued

So, I have continued my research and tried to find out impacts dams have on the environment that I was not already aware of happening. I never considered how does would cause erosion. Erosion occurs as the water moves its way downstream. The water grinds at the sides of land at the shorelines and slowly breaks off the land. This does not happen all that greatly in an water stream that has not been dammed. The reason for this is that sediments travel in the water and replace some of the failing away shorelines. However, dams do not let these sediments pass by easily. So, erosion occurs faster down from a dam. This causes the width of the waterway to lengthen. The sediments end up caught in the reservoir above the dam. As there is more sediments here now, it can no longer hold as much water. Dams also increase pressure on nearby land to hold them in place. This can often lead to landslides occurring. Dams built on top of faults are feared to cause earthquakes due to the added pressure from the reservoirs on these faults. The reservoirs can also become breeding grounds from diseases as they are just large bodies of water slowly moving. Mosquitoes easily breed and grow in these places. They can them transfer diseases like West Nile to humans.

I am finding ample negative environmental effects from dams, but not any positives. Given, hydroelectric dams provide electricity without having to burn coal, but does the other effects of dams to the environment really make that pro worthwhile? I am going to have to continue my research and for a time focus on just find some positive impacts dams bring to the environment. Although, is impact on the environment ever truly positive? Wouldn't the world be better off if humans never bothered it? We do damage to the environment and then the positive actions are often just to reverse a previous negative impact. Anyway, that is for a whole nothing research topic.

Buckeye Forest Council Presentation

I enjoyed the presentation by David. It think watch dog groups like the Buckeye Forest Council are important. They make sure that the government agencies are doing what we want them to do. It seems that the council is losing the fight to businesses though. I do not like the idea of clear cutting and prescribed burnings in publicly owned forests. These actions are irresponsible and dangerous. They destroy part of the forest and any animals that cannot escape in time. The prescribed burnings can even become out of control and destroy more trees than intended. I am glad that the Buckeye Forest Council is speak out against them. David was right when he said that these government agencies need to do what the people want, not cater to a very individuals in the gas and wood industries. It was quite upsetting to hear that government agencies would often completely ignore some of the statements from the Buckeye Forest Council. Once I am out of college, I am going to consider becoming a member of the Buckeye Forest Council.

Research Project

When the research project of a environmental issue was presented to us, I immediately thought back to an issue that interested when I took environmental geography. I would like to research the negative effects dams bring upon the environment. Dams provide humans with a number of benefits, but I feel the negative side of dams is missed by the general population. I could still research the positives things with dams to do a side by side comparison with the negative effects. When dams are constructed, they create a reservoir upstream from where the dam was built. This reservoir can be helpful for providing humans with water in areas where water is scarce. However, the reservoir also floods the habitats of wildlife who lived close to the water. In the case of the Hoover dam on the Colorado River, the reservoir flooded numerous caves and other beautiful sites that had been there for thousands of years. I know there was talk in the 20th Century of building a dam that would flood part of the Grand Canyon. The general population rose up over this and it was never built. In China, the Three Gorges has been called the Chinese equivalent to the Grand Canyon and a dam was built on that. What is the real cost in losing the beauty and wonder of nature for ultimately short term gains?

With dams in general, the migration of fish and other life in the water is damaged. They can no longer move freely up and down the water. This has affected the fish populations that need to move up stream to reach breeding groups. Given, humans have stepped in and actually captured these fish and used trucks to transport them upstream for breeding. The reservoirs also kill over any plant life that was previously there. This lack of plants to consume carbon dioxide causes more of the greenhouse gas to affect temperatures. The dams and their reservoirs also cause water to release methane into the atmosphere as they lack enough oxygen.

Probably the most troubling issue I feel with dams is that dams sometimes stop the water from ever reaching its mouth. The ecosystem at the mouth is then destroyed by the lack of water. Animal and plant life dependent on this water die off. The ecosystem is then changed to look more like a desert.

I do have some more research I have found just by my first looking, but I feel this is enough to give a decent introduction of what I am looking into researching. I suppose the big issue I am looking at is how dams change the surrounding ecosystems.

Last Third of LM

There is a huge difference between a rational and a sympathetic mind. The way I view it, a rational mind thinks on a short term scale with their own survival serving as top priority. A sympathetic mind thinks on more of a long term scale, including centuries into the future. This individual is able to put aside his or her own survival for another reason. The big difference I think is the way each views the world, namely nature. The rational mind sees nature as something separate from it and able to be manipulated for short term gain. The sympathetic mind sees himself or herself as part of nature. Nature having its own beauty and system that encompasses all lifeforms.

Reece exhibits a sympathetic mindset when he is discusses how wolves used to be killed on sight by miners. They saw the wolves as serving no purpose for them. Reece explains how the deer population soared due to the lack of wolves to hunt them. These extra deer devastated the vegetation in the area. For me, this shows Reece being able to see how nature encompasses all lifeforms to work and exist. Reece is also showing that he is aware of this and can see a certain beauty and usefulness in even predators.

Reece also displays a sympathetic mindset when he discusses how the topsoil is not being saved during the mountain top removal of Lost Mountain. He sees topsoil being removed by bulldozers in hours while it will take thousands of years just for it to return. This again shows Reece thinking past his own time on Earth and showing caring for the long term. He is also seeing himself connected to nature rather than ignoring it. The workers don't seem to see the damage they are doing, but rather just see it as doing their job they are paid to do. Reece even later discusses how a mountain can be considered a single organism...or even nature as a whole as a single organism.


"While that sense of kinship among all living things can be explained scientifically through molecular science, it will only be a force for change, a moral change, if it is understood by the individual. No one wants to be told what to do: turn off lights, drive less, recycle. But if a desire to change the way one consumes limited resources comes out of an inner conviction, a deep feeling of conscience, then it is not too late for a real transformation of our culture." (241-242)


This section really sums up the book for me. The only way we can help the environment is to care. People won't act if they are just told to do something. They must actually care and want to do it. Ignorance cannot be used as an excuse for not acting. This book seems to aim at opening the eyes of people. One individual may not be able to turn around the world alone, but millions, even billions of individuals doing small things can help the environment. They just have to care enough and feel a part of nature to do so.

One small action done countless times changes the world. I just hope that action is for the better.

LM 87-162

This section of the book continued to document the dwindling condition of Lost Mountain and the lives of those negatively affected by mountain top removal. Reece really painted a poor picture of the coal company executives. In this section, Reece discussed how the various actions that occur during mountain top removal projects damage the lives and homes of individuals in the area. The explosions damage the foundations from homes. The removal of trees and vegetation cause floods to occur more often and more severely. These floods cause the destruction of various things including gardens people depend on for food. Reece tells the story of how the numerous destruction of her garden drove her to commit suicide. During these floods, people homes are also filled with mud. The disposal of materials from blast sites and drilling is often disposed of close to streams and other water sources. This causes the water to become too contaminated to drink, swim in, or even support a variety of wildlife. And adding to the problem, the trees and vegetation already removed could've worked to filter out some of these chemicals. The chemicals used during explosions and stirred up in the ground often find their way into the wells people depend on for water. In 2000, toxic sludge broke free into creeks and seriously endangered the lives of any living creature nearby. The event barely got any news coverage according to Reece. When the people try to complain to the coal companies about these various damages, the executives state that it was not their doing and have even called these events the acts of God. The coal companies are also staffed with enough lawyers to scare most people off from bring them to court. It also seems that the coal companies have so many friends within the government to protect them and accelerate their actions.

When it comes to Lost Mountain, Reece witnesses workers blowing up various parts of it and chipping away at it. It is described to look like a wedding cake with various layers instead of a mountain. Reece returns to a spot he had previous stood to find it nothing like it was before. He describes how the black plateau he is standing on was once a ridgeline. The shock seems to become more than he can handle once he realizes he can't see any living thing around him. It had all been scooped up and placed in a fill. Later on, Reece visits an ecovillage and discovers how people are living without the use of coal. They live just fine off of solar power and water from rain. The most striking part of all this to me is that it is stated that wind power from "the eleven Plains states could meet the energy needs of the entire country by harnessing the wind." We are losing our world when we do not have to be losing it. We could get our energy from other sources, but coal is just too easy to use at the moment it seems. I don't know how someone could be able to fund such a transfer of energy sources though with all of the power the coal companies still hold.

LM Through Page 85

Eric Reece's book, Lost Mountain, provides many points for stopping mountain top removal.  Throughout the chapters, Reece provides numerous tales of how mountain top removal is ruining the lives and communities of both wildlife and humans.  The waste such as boulders from the removal of mountain tops, often called "fill material" thanks to changes in the wording of legislation, is discarded below the mountains into streams and on top of soil. (pg 28)  This fill material can cause these streams to stop flowing and the soil to be unable to support life.  The companies responsible for the mountain top removals are required by law to return the land to at least the same condition as it was before. (pg 38)  It is described numerous times in the book how companies get around this by either planting some simple grass or using it for development of homes or businesses.  Reece also discusses how trees are removed from not only the mountains, but also from the areas surrounding these mountains.  The destruction of these forests ends all of the good they do.  Forests store carbon, slow erosion, add organic matter to soil, stop flooding, purify creeks, and provides homes to wildlife. (pg 26)  In comparison, Reece describes how coal from these mountain top removal sites goes to plants that cause "acid rain, smog, respiratory infections, asthma," lung disease, and thousands of deaths each year. (pg 25)  The most interesting point for stopping mountain top removal I found in the book so far are two examples of cemeteries.  One cemetery in eastern Kentucky is filled with members of the community who died due to the effects of the chemicals and waste from coal related businesses.  It was stated that most of the people in the area do not live "past fifty-five". (pg 49)  The tales surrounding the individuals resting in that cemetery caused me to look up at the light I have on as I am typing and feel ashamed for my part in the burning of coal.  Law requires that the mountain top removal projects have to stay "one hundred feet from it".  (pg 18)  This causes cemeteries to sometimes be, as the book describes, "the only sign of life in a deeply depressing landscape."  (pg 18)

The book also includes arguments for the continuation of mountain top removal.  During a forum concerning mountain top removal, the president of the Kentucky Coal Association discusses his views on continuing the operation.  He discusses the large amount of coal removed, the billions of dollars in revenue made from this coal, how the coal is mostly sold out of state, the lower numbers of employment required for mountain top removal, and the cheap cost of electricity in the area.  (pg 61)  Individuals are also quoted in the book as saying statements like "The only way to stay in the mountains is to mine the mountains!" and "If It Can't be GROWN It Must Be MINED." (pg 63, pg 29)  These statements suggesting that mining operations including mountain top removal are important for making a living in the area and that all land should have a clear, economical use.

When it comes to my own personal position on mountain top removal, I have to side with Eric Reece's points for the ending of it.  Americans can still have access to coal without using mountain top removal.  As Reece states, the operation is extremely damaging to the mountain, environment around it, and any nearby living creature, including humans.  Reece also did a good job arguing against the various reasons stated for continuing mountain top removal.  I cannot image my life without electricity, but I do not think we need to resort to such extreme actions, like mountain top removal to get coal.  I support the use of other sources for producing electricity.  Also, I would hate to live in a world without the beauty of nature and mountain top removal threatens that beauty.

The Clean Coal Debate

I have just viewed the This is Reality and America's Power websites simultaneously. These websites provide two very different first impressions. The This is Reality website caught my eye first with the animation of a dead canary flying into a statement concerning the large impact burning coal has on global warming.  The rest of the website was very simplistic with statements concerning how the current claims of clean coal are false and not enough is being done. On the other hand, the website for America's Power immediate hit me with images of happy and ordinary individuals involved in the coal industry. It also displays statements concerning how energy from coal is important and affordable. 

When it comes down to the positions of both sides in the debate, the stories are very different. The This is Reality website focuses on how burning coal is damaging the environment and worsening global warming. The America's Power website is focused on maintaining the current way of life in America, protecting the economy, and decreasing the levels of emissions from the burning of coal.

So, what is Clean Coal technology? The website for America's Power states that Clean Coal technology is any technology that reduces the emissions caused by burning coal to produce electricity. The website for This is Reality states that Clean Coal technology only exists when the plants burning coal to produce electricity successfully capture and store all of the carbon dioxide emissions caused during the process. The future directions of each side are associated with their definitions of Clean Coal technology. The America's Power website argues for the continued use of coal in producing electricity while also continuing research on reducing emissions. The This is Reality website describes that coal plants need to capture and store all of their emissions. The website also states that they cannot wait for individuals on the side of the America's Power website to start doing this. The website for This is Reality thus suggests an immediate future with the development and use of alternate means of producing electricity that do not give off harmful emissions.

Each of these futures is also backed by evidence from both sides. The America's Power website focuses on the large amount of coal available in the United States and the low cost of energy that is produced by coal.  This website for America's Power also discusses the large amount of money the coal industry places into researching ways to reduce emissions caused by producing energy from coal. On the side of the This is Reality website, evidence is provided in various statements that identify the large impact on the environment and more specifically global warming that is caused by producing energy from coal. The website also states how little of the technology being researched to reduce emissions is actually being used on a commercial level in plants used to produce energy from coal.

When it comes down to the targeted audiences of each website, they definitely target two different groups. The website for America's Power seems to focus on individuals mostly concerned with the low cost of energy and the protection of jobs. The website for This is Reality seems more geared towards individuals already focused on or at least interested in protecting the environment. The sponsors of these websites definitely determine the targeted audiences.  The website for America's Power is sponsored by the coal industry.  The website for This is Reality is sponsored by various environment based organizations.  These different sponsors causes the website for This is Reality to seem more credible for me.  The coal industry sponsoring the America's Power website makes me feel that the website is more focused on ensuring the profit made by the industrial than actually taking a concern for the environment.

Both websites attempt to trigger certain emotions when someone views them.  The website for This is Reality appeals to individuals' concern for wildlife and the environment as a whole.  Also, it tries to cause a feeling of dislike and disappointment towards the coal industry.  The website for America's Power attempts to appeal to the idea that they are good and a part of the battle to aid the environment.  Emotions are also stirred up in the images used.  The This is Reality website uses the image of a dead canary in an effective manner to remind me that the environment does feel like a victim of the coal industry.  But, the website for America's Power uses images of people to remind me that the coal industry is composed of people and therefore cannot be entirely unconcerned with the environment.  These images remind me that although the coal industry provides many jobs, it also has a negative impact on wildlife.

In the end, I find the website for This is Reality more persuasive.  I understand that the coal industry is taking time to research ways to lower their emissions, but its sponsoring of the America's Power website makes me feel like it is just a tool for maintaining profit.  The Coal Industry's emissions may be cleaner than before, but I do not feel that they can be considered clean.  The This is Reality website just seems more genuine and concerned with the condition of the environment to me.  

Introduction

Where should I begin? Well, my name is Dave Landers and I am sitting in ENG 308J. I am in my third year at Ohio University. My major is Integrated Social Studies in the College of Education. Basically, I would like to be a high school history and/or American government teacher. My focus might change for graduate school to either school administration or student advising. I am a Resident Assistant on campus. The position definitely has its good and bad moments. When I am not in class, I enjoy video games, movies, and music. Yes, I have rather generic interests. I like to be sarcastic and just appreciate life. I am sort of a dork at times, but it makes me happy. This should be a suitable introduction for now, so look forward to my future posts!