———————– ** Fresh Green Beans ** ———————– Grown in Kansas. Eaten Worldwide.

As humans, we collectively tend to be self-absorbed and not think outside our sphere of influence. More specifically, if something in the world doesn’t directly affect us we give little or no attention to it (I’m one of the worst culprits, myself). As such, it’s very easy for us not to think about what human wastefulness and global warming are doing to our plant and animal life. However, losing our earth’s bio and eco-diversity has frightening ramifications for humanity.

Photo credit: Adam Bowman

Taken in the Uintah Mountains, this photo illustrates what humans could lose unless they act to preserve open spaces.

According to Baker University Biology Professor and Natural Areas Director Roger Boyd, said biodiversity is the amount of species in a given area. More broadly, eco-diversity refers to the number of ecosystems there are on the planet. If eco and biodiversity continues to decrease on the planet, then less food is available to sustain life. In essence, all of the earth’s biological life is interconnected; if our furry and scale-covered brethren run out of food, so do we.

But food purposes aside, bio and eco-diversity are extraordinarily important for several other reasons. Species contribute ingredients to human medicines. Less species means less potential lifesaving medicines.

“There are many species we aren’t aware of yet that could help us cure cancer,” Dr. Boyd said.

Additionally, we derive most of our industrial materials from biological life. Finally, biological life helps to moderate our ever-increasing carbon emissions. There are hundreds of additional benefits to maintaining eco and biodiversity, but you get the picture.

Scientists have concluded humans are changing the earth too quickly without taking time to understand or even become aware of all we’re doing. Needless to say, this is bad news.

Although there might not be a true panacea to our problems, we can act at the individual and governmental level to lessen our impact. Dr. Boyd said we do have the scientific prowess to protect our diminishing species. Unfortunately, the U.S. federal government has cut funding to multiple species protection acts. We have the obligation to ourselves and our longevity by informing our senators and representatives that decreased funding for these important acts is inexcusable.

It’s inevitable; if we can’t make the earth habitable for organic life, what chance do humans have in the long run?

J.J. De Simone

Photo credit: Adam Bowman

Waterbuck in the Okavango Delta

While it is obvious that climate change affects humans across the globe, it also affects the animal kingdom as well. For millions of years, animal extinction and endangerment has been a major problem. The Endangered Species International Web site states, “Today, 99.9 percent of all species that have existed on Earth are extinct.”

That is truly a shocking statistic. In order to get a better idea of how this problem is becoming more prevalent, I spoke with Liz Harmon who is the curator at the Kansas City Zoo. Harmon, who has a degree in zoology, has worked at the Kansas City Zoo for four years. Her job as curator entails overseeing the animal department, which includes the staff, animals and exhibits.

Harmon identified over twenty species of animals currently listed as endangered that live at the zoo. Some of the more well-known animals include cheetahs, chimpanzees, gorillas, black rhinos and slender-snouted crocodiles. She certainly agrees that animal endangerment can be attributed to humans. “Animals become endangered for a number of reasons. Man made reasons include loss of habitat, over hunting, pollution, and changes in the environment (such as global warming).”

Even scarier than that is the fact that not all animal life around the world has been discovered yet. Harmon said, “There are species that haven’t even been identified that are becoming extinct.” So essentially, we are not even aware of exactly how many animal species we are selfishly killing every day.

Animals are responsible for generating huge commercial dollars throughout the world. For example, the Why Save Web site stated, “Commercial and recreation salmon fishing in the Pacific Northwest provides 60,000 jobs and $1 billion annually in personal income.”

However, as salmon quickly become endangered, that large amount of revenue will soon be lost.

Harmon said, “People will begin to take notice once a major species such as the orangutan or gorilla becomes extinct. They will then begin to make changes, but hopefully it won’t be too late.”

Lindsay Crupper

Baraboo, Wisconsin and Basra, Iraq might have nothing in common, but fighting a war and killing endangered species has prompted a common human response - to do an about turn and nurture that which we have destroyed.

Baraboo is known for efforts in saving its whooping crane population, while Basra is emerging from the ashes of war with a skyline dotted with cranes, symbolizing the reconstruction and development initiatives under way. At least that’s the intention. Two words stand out in either respect: Reconstruction and reintroduction.

Wars aside, what is it about man’s insatiable desire to kill animals, whether it’s for hides, horns or a hunter’s trophy?  If only animals were like humans, they’d be completely cynical and sarcastic:

“Well, sir you might as just save me the trouble of running off into the bush and hiding. So load your bolt-action rifle and oh, don’t worry about the telescopic sight since I’m just going to be a few feet away.  And when my head’s mounted above your fireplace in say 10 or 20 years from now, you can brag to your guests what a tough contest it was.”

Actually, I’ve become more cynical about attempts at redress after seeing so many species pushed to the brink of extinction. My knee-jerk response is to leave well alone. But, as custodians of wildlife, we’ve no choice but to do something or many will go the way of that archetype of extinct species, the dodo.

That efforts must be sustainable is a given. We have to learn from the failed attempts at reintroducing species into nature - the wild dogs into parks in Southern Africa, the Oriental Magpie Robin in Singapore to mention but a few.

On the positive side, we can take heart from successes like the recovery efforts of the American bison, the reintroduction of lemur in Madagascar and how we’ve managed to save the last remaining rhino populations through capture and relocation to protected reserves. Such measures inspire confidence in other areas, like the bane of many farmers, the wolf, whose reintroduction to Yellowstone National Park not only presents opportunities to correct misconceptions, but show how such interventions can be positive.

Photo credit: Adam Bowman

In the 1990s, the Canadian wolf was introduced into the Yellowstone National Park.

Cat Lazaroff, from Defenders of Wildlife said she knows there are some ranchers opposed to the wolves program, but she provides a compelling argument as to why it’s been good for the environment.

 ”Whenever you remove a species, particular one at the top of the food chain like the wolf, you leave behind unexpected consequences with those left behind. Elk, which were the prey of wolves, become overabundant. They ate the willow, which in turn became scarce and you have a spin-off effect that continues. And so we say it’s not a good idea to remove a species from its habitat,” Lazaroff said.

But that trend continues today. Not only does it result in a complex imbalance in the food chain, but permanently changes our ecosystem and evolutionary links to the beginning of time.

Denzyl Janneker

View the Power Point presentation, which explains the theme and purpose of the six-part media series. Click here.

J.J. De Simone, Lindsay Crupper, Bobby Grace, Denzly Janneker, Adam Bowman

After a recent visit to the Baker Wetlands, located south of Haskell University, I was left with a sense of anger. I was angered by the prospect of the loss of a natural wetland and eco-diversity that would be created by the construction of the South Lawrence Traffic Way. But most of all, I was angered by the fact my alma mater, Baker University, supported the construction of such a terrible project. I was angry, until I actually did some research and discovered all the benefits the SLT would create for the wetlands. That’s right; I said the SLT will actually be good for the wetlands.

I called Baker University senior professor of biology and natural areas director Dr. Roger Boyd during spring break to set the record straight. All of the following information was provided by Dr. Boyd unless otherwise noted.

First, the facts: The SLT, in conjunction with 31st Street, will be eight lanes and eat up 56 acres of the wetlands. However, Baker has already signed a contract with the Kansas Department of Transportation that states the university will be ceded approximately 360 acres of land KDOT owns around the wetlands. Of that, 320 acres will be converted to wetlands and 40 acres will be maintained as prairie lands.

Additionally, as part of the deal, Haskell Road will be moved east and Louisiana Street will be moved west, allowing for the wetlands area to increase a mile in width. As such, after Baker converts the ceded land into wetlands (which it will do as soon as it acquires the land), the wetlands will be whole and not divided in parts around the area. Furthermore, KDOT will construct a strong sound barrier wall separating the SLT from the wetlands. Sound barrier walls have been proven to be effective at drastically eliminating transportation sounds (click here and here). Finally, the majority of the 56 acres the SLT will eat have only been wetlands since the early 1990s. That fact shows how relatively easy it is for land to be converted to wetlands and for natural life to move in and settle.

Some anti-SLT activists have argued the SLT will eliminate the strong eco-diversity in the Baker wetlands. However, KDOT will provide Baker with millions of dollars and resources to properly care for the wetlands annually. As such, Baker will have the resources to introduce life to the wetlands and ensure it proliferates. Translation: More eco-diversity, not less. Currently, Dr. Boyd has an annual fund of $500 to upkeep the wetlands and absolutely no equipment or resources to help him manage the area.

The Baker Wetlands’ objective is to serve as a natural outdoor classroom. With more land, money and resources think of how much more educational the wetlands can actually be. Dr Boyd said an expanded and managed wetlands (complete with an extensive visitor’s center) will better serve the whole Lawrence community and thousands of school children around the area. I agree with him whole-heartedly. How could vastly larger wetlands with nearly limitless funding and resources ever be a bad thing?

Save the wetlands by ensuring they grow and are properly taken care of so future generations can enjoy them.

J.J. De Simone

Since 1986, it has been estimated that every year, 58,500 acres of wetlands in the lower United States are lost due to logging, release of toxic chemicals, mining and other anthropogenic factors. Comparatively, in the 1600s, 220 million acres of wetlands existed. Now there are a paltry 90,000 acres left.

But who cares that the total acreage of wetlands are quickly decreasing? To be honest, I really didn’t. I mean seriously, wetlands look swampy, muddy and kind of ugly: Not where I’d want to spend an afternoon. Just take a look at the picture below of the Baker Wetlands. Everything looks kind of dead and muddy and gross.

I like money, though. In fact, I consider the economy one of the most important issues that determines the well-being and influence of our nation. A poor capitalist economy means a poor democratic government. If you would have told me the repulsive, murky swamps (aka: Wetlands) were intrinsically linked to our economy last week I probably would have told you to get a life. Well, it’s true.

In coastal wetlands, farmers raise and harvest shellfish. In the mid 1990s, wetlands-based shellfish catches contributed $15 billion to our gross domestic product. I don’t care how you look at it; $15 billion is a lot of money that strengthens our economy. That’s not even including all of the jobs the industry produces each year. Unfortunately, with the disappearance of the wetlands in our country, domestic shellfish prices, especially shrimp, drastically increased (smaller wetlands mean not as many shellfish can exist and be harvested).

Enter Thailand: The panacea to our need for cheap shellfish. The nation offered us inexpensive shellfish; hence, imports increased exponentially. Shellfish prices went down again and everyone and everything was happy - except for our faltering economy. Bye bye, American shellfish industry. Hello imports (and increases in carbon emissions that result from transporting shellfish around the world).

Who knew the elimination of wetlands in our nation could so detrimentally affect our economy? Sure, there are other factors that contributed to the increase in domestic shellfish prices, like Hurricane Katrina among other external factors. However, the elimination of our precious wetlands certainly played a devastating part on the shellfish industry.

But the preservation of our nation’s wetlands doesn’t just help our economy. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, wetlands also function as flood control agents (and decrease damage to surrounding cities and towns) and help refill aquifers, ensuring we have plentiful, clean drinking water.

The facts are simple: We have to ensure our precious wetlands don’t further disappear. Quite literally, our economy is positively impacted by larger wetlands. Alright, so wetlands might not be the most aesthetically pleasing facet of nature, but we must protect them. To do any less would be simply irresponsible.

J.J. De Simone

It’s been a heck of a ride, that’s for certain.

I signed up for the Media and the Environment class solely because my friend Adam was in it, and I thought we could have a great time. While I did have a great time, I was shocked by the amount of information I learned regarding the environment. At first, I was indifferent towards all of the information I was learning. “I’ll be long dead before this doomsday scenario comes to pass,” I regularly thought to myself.

But then, unexpectedly, I started caring about the environment and the media’s role in shaping our perceptions about issues like global warming and local and organic foods. My habits changed slowly; I began taking my meals at Local Burger and I started sorting and saving my own recyclable goods. Now, I’m exclusively buying organic produce, combining errands to soften my car’s carbon emissions and walking and biking a ton.

My new appreciation for my surroundings inspired me to conduct an academic study analyzing media frames of environmentalists for submission to AEJMC. My content analysis yielded upsetting (but not shocking) results; the newspaper media tend to frame environmentalists negatively, as oppositional forces and as extremists.

The results indicate that although I may have come a long way regarding my knowledge and appreciation of the environment, society, which is informed and led by the media, still has light years to go. Since environmentalists are framed as extremists, what type of person would actually want to follow an environmentalist agenda if they will be labeled crazy wackos by the media and society? Not me, that’s for sure.

More people becoming “environmentalists” are needed, so the minority becomes the majority and the press will actually afford environmental issues fair attention. If I can learn to appreciate the environment, surely anyone else can.

Of course, when you have weirdos like in the above video, it doesn’t really help the environmental movement.

J.J. De Simone

Note: I realize Lauren Keith wrote about this topic already. However, I have a different take on the topic. Furthermore, I apply it to the practice of journalism, morality and ethics all from a first-hand experience (I’m Catholic).

In today’s society, the Catholic Church is criticized for practically everything. Liberal and conservative Protestant faiths (and many other secular and non-secular entities in the world) have lambasted the Catholic Church for having archaic teachings, being anti-abortion and pro-pedophilia.

While other faiths and governments are arguing over minutia, the most populace Christian entity in the world has spear-headed the war on global warming, the most dangerous affliction facing the world today.

In his first homily in early 2005, Pope Benedict XVI stated, “The Earth’s treasures no longer serve to build God’s garden for all to live in, but they have been made to serve the powers of exploitation and destruction.” That was months before going green became trendy (at least six months before Al Gore brought the issue into the limelight with his film).

Recently, the Pope declared wastefulness and pollution as a deadly sin. For those not familiar with Catholic doctrine, that means polluting the earth is considered just as evil as murder.

(Photo by Jari Kurittu)

But Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t just talk the talk; he walks the walk. Last year, the Pope installed over 1,000 solar panels in Vatican City, attempting to make the shift from wasteful oil-based energy to sustainable solar power. He’s planning on integrating further changes to make the Vatican more green in the coming year. Additionally, the Pope practices green habits, such as heavy reforesting to offset his and the Vatican’s carbon emissions and hand-cranking to recharge his cell phone (Vatican City is the first carbon-neutral state).

According to a recent report for Newsday by Bart Jones, it is believed that Pope Benedict XVI is among one of only a few world leaders to bring the environmental disaster to the forefront of the world’s collective mind and actually promote positive change.

Unfortunately, all of the positive changes the Catholic Church is making are being relegated to page 6A in many national newspapers and appearing halfway through radio and television news broadcasts (or not at all). Instead, news stories focus on charges of molestation from 1972 (see here and here) and the Church’s pro-life protests. Additionally, many non-Catholics see this as a fleeting stunt. Hopefully, the international media are doing a much better job of informing the world about the Pope’s green message than the U.S. media. Therefore, people can actually understand the importance of the largest Christian church taking a stand against global warming.

The Pope has argued that protecting the earth is a moral issue. Hopefully, U.S. journalists will perform their moral duty and put the Pope’s good word where it belongs: On page 1A.

J.J. De Simone

The following video perfectly (and humorously) summarizes how I feel about the topic.

Most of us have seen the movie The Matrix (and its awful sequels). Well, if you haven’t, I’ll give a quick recap. A small but growing group of humans discover the world they live in is not real. In actuality, they are slaves of computers and AI who veil the real world (post-apocalyptic, dreary, painful and frightening) with The Matrix world (a more pleasant world akin to our modern society).

Alright, so here’s the deal: All of this environmental talk and exposure we have engaged in this semester has exhausted me. I’m tired of thinking about what I eat, where my trash goes and what happens if I don’t take my own bags to the store. It’s really depressing and I sometimes feel helpless. The problem is, I just can’t stop thinking about it, no matter how hard I try. I feel like I’m truly experiencing the real world for the first time; that I’ve opened my eyes and have cut through the veil of ignorance (The Matrix world).

So over spring break, I decided to share some of my new green knowledge with my family (yes, I went home for spring break, ending my six-year run of actually doing something fun). Although they respectfully listened and vowed to make some changes, I realized something frightening: It is exceptionally difficult to moderately yet cogently explain the great amount of good just one person making small changes can do.

I guess I experienced for the first time the frustration many have felt who have been championing the environmental cause for years. So in addition to constantly thinking about the environment (and becoming exhausted), now I’m communicating to people the importance of maintaining our environment (and becoming exhausted). No matter what I do, I’m becoming exhausted.

I’ll admit; I’ve made moderate steps at changing my lifestyle, although I know there is about a trillion other things I could do to truly become green. And I certainly would not say I’m an environmentalist (I think the more appropriate term for me would be “realist”). But small changes can amount to great good.

So, although it is exhausting, I will continue to help communicate the “realist” agenda to friends and family. That is, I will continue to help wake people from the slumber of The Matrix. After all, it is morally and ethically important, and our continued existence kind of depends on it.

Does anyone else feel exhausted by the truth about the environment? If so, how do you deal with wanting to return to The Matrix (being ignorant)?

J.J. De Simone

P.S. — After I wrote this whole thing, I remembered that Meatrix video we watched and realized my idea for this post was somewhat unoriginal. Just roll with it: My feelings definitely are legitimate.

J.J. De Simone

After reading Kathy Freston’s commentary about the environmental benefits of becoming a vegetarian, I was left with some questions and concerns regarding the validity of her argument.
First, eating “flesh” isn’t always terrible for the environment if the meat is local. That is, the cow is considered local if it is raised near to where it gets slaughtered, sold and consumed. When you think about it, the meat’s carbon footprint is much smaller if it isn’t getting transported around the country. Yes, this doesn’t eliminate the methane and nitrous oxide problem. But it still lessens the carbon emission statistic of nine percent.

Eating meat shouldn’t be stopped completely, but it just needs to be done in a better, more thought-out manner. As such, when I get in the mood for a hamburger (which isn’t too often), I’ll go to Local Burger, as all the meat the restaurant purchases is – you guessed it – local.

Additionally, Freston advocates the practice of eating vegetables, as they don’t harm the environment like cows do. But she neglects to point out that buying vegetables isn’t environmentally friendly when they are grown 700 miles away and drenched with chemicals. When you look at everything that is used to grow vegetables, it’s really frightening; without a doubt, there is no way the growing chemicals could be good for the environment.

The simple answer is we shouldn’t feel guilty about eating meat or vegetables. Every facet of biological life creates waste (that includes cows, humans and vegetables), and it’s impossible to change that fact. Furthermore, we’ve been eating both since the dawn of the human race.

However, we can take precautions to lessen the environmental detriment of eating such fare.

Translation: Eat local.