Debriefing Entry #15

Colloquium was a very great experience and was a class unlike any other class I have ever taken. It's makes for a more meaningful learning experience when you actually get to go out to learn while visiting unique areas of Florida. During the course of this class I feel as if I have developed a deeper bond and tie to the area. I feel that I am more conscious of my environment and that I became more conscious of my own choices in daily life.

The class offered different perspectives on the same issues, and made me think heavily about where I stand and what I believe should happen. The class offered a wealth of information that I had fun analyzing and writing about as well. I enjoyed thinking critically and also enjoyed the hands-on and realistic approach the class took.

I am studying law so I was very intrigued to learn about some of the issues that have a tendency to halt more sustainable options in regards to laws and regulations. One area of law I am interested to learn more about is environmental law especially since there is a lot of nature vs. science out there and the two seem to be battling. There are so many parallels in law & environment, but sometimes what is good for us becomes lost to the realm of politics, which is not a good thing. Without laws and regulations in place respecting environmental concerns the chances for abuse would be too great. This is why it is important that we make good law in this area and realize that it should not be based too greatly in politics because these are not "political" issues per se, but should be considered in a light most favorable to human life and protecting life in general. While technology can contribute to the betterment of life, technology must also consider how to continue to do so in a way that won't compromise our environment.

While such things may not be a priority in the majority opinion, it is something which must now and forever be addressed. I can only hope that more people will realize why there must always be a balance. We cannot forgo responsibilities to the environment simply for our indulgences. There must be a balance that aims at ways to nourish the surroundings. In time, law and technology will be better at preserving and protecting our Earth and hopefully this won't be seen as a bad thing for companies or people.

One of the things I found most difficult about the colloquium was the Weather Makers portion of the class. The accompanying book was loaded with tons of information and sifting through it all made it difficult to digest. The high points of the class was going on trips, doing journal entries, class entries & participation, and all of the short papers.

Service Learning Experience, #14

 http://youtu.be/Efdlb1GV8Zo

I had the opportunity to work with a wildlife refuge and rehabilitation center located in Punta Gorda, Fl. The center is dedicated to the care and the preservation of native Florida wildlife. From the outside the place seems very peaceful and relaxed, but working there is a whole other story! The truth is that a lot of time, effort, and energy is spent in order to treat these animals. Suprisingly, even a small bird will cost over $100 in order to rehabilitate it back into the wild. Animals that cannot be rehabilitated will end up spending their life at the refuge because they will not be able to make it on their own. However, most of the animals will return to the wild and that is the goal of the wildlife center. I think it is fascinating that they operate as a non-profit organization and yet their jobs are so essential to conserving the species that end up there.
 
The reason why I chose this facility is because I love animals and I know why they are important to our environment.  Another reason why I chose this facility is because it's good morally to help give animals another chance at life. I also see it as one of our humanly responsibilities to look after the species. I think it is important that we learn how to coexist with these animals as well. The more you know about the animals that live here, the more concerned you will be about their survival and the less likely you will injure one accidentally, i.e. like when fishermen accidentally injure birds with their lines because they leave their lines out.

I learned that some of the animals that end up at the shelter are endangered such as indigo snakes, red-cockaded woodpeckers, and brown pelicans. The animals I wanted to care for in particular were the birds but in the end I got to care for all of the animals except for the raccoons, eagles, and the snakes! Working with these animals in particular was reserved for those with more experience.

All in all, there are many considerations that are given to the animals as they are recovering besides the basic needs of food, shelter, and water. Their environment must mimic that of their natural environment. This is very important if they are to survive in the wild again. This is why the animals are kept in habitats that are most suitable to their species. The staff must also be careful to not treat these animals as if they are pets although it can be quite tempting.

Working at the facility helped me to take better care of my own animals at home and it brought a smile to my face each day I got to help out. I also learned more about the animals, their habits, the foods they eat, how they nest, how they care for their young, how to help the injured animals, and the kind of shelter they need in the wild. The people working there were all very passionate about what they do and it had a good effect on me.



A beautiful mother heron with her young

   

Michael Grunwald Article #13

The excerpt of Michael Grunwald’s “The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise” can be an example of conservation policies for the future and also an example of the struggle between conservation of nature and man. The excerpt starts as a David vs. Goliath type of story with a small environmental group with little support money trying to save the “only everglades in the world” against the building of the Homestead Airport along with acceptance of the bill through numerous politicians. This story is a great example of the struggle of conservationism vs. urban development all over the country and especially in Florida. We need to realize what is more important to us, housing and development or conserving our ecosystem, there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

 After reading this excerpt I was also in favor for the restoration of the Everglades and against the building of the Homestead Airport. As the author brings up a good point in that there is only one Everglades, which is not worth taking for granted in favor of an airport, strip mall, or housing sub-division. This is something we’ve probably all recognized while living in Florida, especially during the housing boom. Do we want to put the ecosystem in danger so developers can build more and more sub-divisions and golf courses and attract a constantly growing population? This excerpt also made me realize all the political nonsense that environmentalists need to go through just to conserve the planet we all live in. Again, like in Leopold’s excerpt, it is a classic example of conservation vs. economics.

Leopold's Article #11

Soil, plants, & sunshine

After reading Aldo Leopold’s excerpt from “A Sand County Almanac”  I began to realize how the majority of the population views conservatism and was given some insight on what needs to be done to change people’s thought and actions regarding conservation of our environment. Since the environmental movement has been brought to our attention, the general population has been viewing the environment more as a business rather than the fragile land pyramid Leopold brings up where each part of the environment is part of an organized biotic structure. We’re looking at the environment economically as if it were a corporation and we’re all accountants trying to find the economic value in each resource, which tree or plant is more economically useful than the next one. The major problem with that approach toward the environment though is that you can’t use up one resource without affecting the other. The capitalistic approach to our land will benefit it’s people temporarily but cause problems for our environment in the long run and deplete us of our resources as well.

            I strongly believe in Leopold’s Land Pyramid theory which goes to show how delicate and complex the cycle of energy is in our environment. Using up one resource such as the soil in one particular area can restructure the circle of energy, having a domino effect on the whole ecosystem and destroying important plants and animals that are crucial to our environment. We can’t be picky about which resources we need to salvage because they are more economically important than the other 95% of  resources that have no direct economic importance to humans. In the future we will start to see more thorough education on environmental conservation and more accountability will be taken for people’s actions toward how resources are being used rather then just what makes more sense economically.

Exempt From Entry due to Downtown FT- Entry #12

Exempt From Entry due to Downtown FT-  Entry #12 omitted

Downtown Scavenger Hunt

Solar Parking Meters

It's been a while since I've been to downtown Ft. Myers. There are many places that are tucked away in areas I would never have thought to explore prior to the scavenger hunt. If you are just driving around in your car its very easy to miss how many new places there are. I didn't know about the art galleries that were here or about the Ichiban in the Hotel Indigo. One thing I did notice was that there were a lot of law firms scattered everywhere. The coolest law firm was the one that took over the old building that used to house First National Bank. Unfortunately I didn't snap a picture of it but it looked authoritative and noble, to say the least. A rather odd building that I spotted was a very skinny 3 story building which was occupied by a salon. This building really stood out from all the others and didn't fit in. I thought it was neat to see such an unusual building because it added character to the environment. Other buildings had old designs on them that you just don't see on modern buildings anymore, such as lions and other fancy looking things that would remind you of the Rennaisance period. I took a peak inside Space 39 and I liked how artistic it appeared to be, especially for being a bar. The tattoo shops were also neat to take a peak inside because they were also artistic. Every so often there was a particular sign that you would see along First St. The sign explains how the street used to be a sandy trail until it was paved with shells for automobiles to drive through. The downtown area didn't develope until the 19th century and tourism contributed to its growth.


Sign on First St.



I had such a fun time in downtown today that I plan to come back during a time when it is more busy and more places are open. It looks like it would also be a fun place to come to at night since there are several good looking bars and restaraunts.

I think the stores that have moved in, combined with the old-style buildings, is what makes the place special and unique. Even the dentists that have moved in have a different sense of style than the dentists you would find elsewhere. I think maybe the area brings that out of the tenants because perhaps that is a vibe that they sense from being here.



A glimpe inside the General Dentist office



Untold Stories: Downtown Ft. Myers

Ford, Edison, & Firestone

 I agree that preserving the history of an area is important. Seeing architecture of a time long past creates a sense of culture rooted in history. Besides, it's always fun to take that detour into the historical district of a city and just have fun exploring! It's been a while since I've been to downtown Ft. Myers and I am looking forward to going there perhaps tomorrow. It's also nice because it gives you a sense of history in relation to the present which, puts a dot on the map, so to speak.

 I've visited the Edison Estates once before and it felt nice to know that I was walking in what used to be the property of Thomas Edison. You can't really let things like that go to waste and be forgotten, especially when it's right here. It's hard to imagine what Ft. Myers would be like if such were the case and nothing was preserved at all. Downtown Ft. Myers has it's own little sparkle with a lot of potential if more retail businesses would move in. They've done a good job of renovating and making it look pretty. I used to sometimes go there to see how it has been developing.

 The area near the bridge in downtown that overlooks the water is such an amazing view. One can only imagine what life was like before roads were abound. I imagine life was quite difficult. Nowadays we have performing art centers, community colleges, and the newest university to join the state university system, FGCU. Though I can appreciate the history to get the point we are at now, I am definitely glad to be here today in this time. Yet, the area will only continue to grow, so it is best we think about the direction it should head while we remember it's past.

Dimming the Sun, Entry #9

You'd think that people were doing something right with reducing air pollution (aerosols). Then you find out that there are two competing counter-effects: global warming & global cooling. I had never heard of such a thing as global dimming, but at first it seemed to contradict the idea of global warming because they are opposite. Global dimming has a cooling effect. It can easily make someone think that global warming is not as threatening anymore or that it shouldn't be an issue. Yet there is evidence of global dimming in highly polluted areas of the world. Global dimming due to pollution in certain areas had blocked the sun from getting through and caused a decline in evaporation. Pan evaporation is where there is a decline in water evaporating yet the global temperatures are increasing, which alters rainfall. It almost seems like this has the potential to take the focus off of global warming altogether in a political sense. They are in a tug of war with each other, but both are bad and lead to horrible outcomes if not curbed. You can't really ignore one or the other. On the one hand, we can't necessarily compromise our health in order to make the two effects more even. The same looming problem is that we need to lower emissions, or get rid of them completely. I think this is the more feasible alternative. We already know that we can't keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We can imagine the fate of the world if we don't stop. The peculiar thing about these two competing effects is that continuing to reduce aerosol, while at the same time we continue to increase C02, will lead to a disastrous rise in temperature. Sadly, I don't think it will be that easy to reduce CO2 because everyone is reliant on oil. We would have to go completely solar and use all electric cars. Oils are used to make just about anything, like plastics and rubber. Our lifestyle is one of convenience and over-indulgence. How do you change that!?

Rewriting the Science, Entry #10

I am not surprised about this video. Clearly, Bush didn't want oil to be regulated for various interests that are interrelated both politically and economically. Our society is just too dependent on oil and it drives our whole economy. Supporting anything that required urgency which limits the burning of fossil fuels would have created chaos. The alternative approach is a moderate one that relies on technology that slowly makes things more efficient. Yet the scientists said that this is an urgent situation and there is a great danger if we don't take action now.

 I don't think that it is right to label science as not sufficiently reliable especially when they know more about it than anyone else does on this planet. Those scientists are the ones who have devoted their lives to studying climate change. It does not seem ethical or legal to limit what a scientist has to say about something that effects the entire world. It is indeed a form of free speech. I don't understand how the White House's review process was able to get away with rewriting the science. In fact, I have never heard of such a screening process when it comes to a report or press release involving NASA scientists. No wonder they are angry, as I would be too. It makes sense when you begin to examine what the players in this game have to gain. For example, what does the scientist have to gain by over exaggerating a climate report versus what that particular lawyer had to gain? Turns out the lawyer was a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute. No wonder he edited out some of the words that were in the report. His ethics must've went out the door when he took on this assignment because when a lawyer is practicing law (in the sense of representing people and making a case for them) they are not supposed to represent someone when there is a conflict of interest. In other words, the lawyer cannot represent someone if he/she has a financial interest or can gain in some kind of other way. I suppose that since he was a "former" lobbyist for the institution is what allowed this one to slip through. I only wonder if he had held stocks in any type of petroleum company at the time he edited those reports. Maybe then he would be in trouble because he would have had an interest in keeping the reports from potentially harming the petroleum companies. Then again, he is a lawyer so I am sure he found some way of limiting his liability for what he had done and it was all legal somehow.

 The wording is very important in every document when it comes to what lawyers do. In fact, it is something that I have been learning in my law classes. Every word has a meaning, and you have to be careful with how you word things. For instance, the word "may" leaves a choice. It may, or may not happen. It is not definitive. Yet when you use the word "shall" that means there is no choice. It is a definitive word meaning that you will do what it says. I am not surprised to learn that in the video the word "is" was changed to "may be." The word "is" is like the word "shall" in terms of the words meaning something absolute. Lawyers are taught two different standards of proof. They are beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. This standard represents something which is unquestionable, that there is not one single contrary piece of evidence. This is the most difficult standard to prove. The latter means that the evidence proves 51% or more that someone is likely guilty. This is the standard that leaves room for doubt. The lawyer changed the word "is" to "maybe" because the topic of climate change had not been debated beyond a reasonable doubt. To this day there are many people with conflicting thoughts about it and many who deny it altogether. To use the word "is" means that there is absolutely no doubt that global warming is threatening. To change it to the word "may be" means that we realize it is threatening but we don't realize to what extent so that's the better word to use. The funny thing is that we can't definitively know to what extent until we reach the point we are able to look back and see it. For example, when there is a hurricane we realize that it's going to be disastrous if it hits people's homes, but can we ever really know exactly to what extent a hurricane is threatening? I don't think we can. I think it is the same thing with global warming. We can predict that if we delay our actions any further that something threatening will happen but we can't exactly know how threatening it will be. This is the loophole, and it is caused from that aspect of uncertainty. It is
also where the play on words occurs. I think that the two fields of study collided in a bad way.

 When everyone with power has the ability to rewrite science it makes you realize how dangerous a thing that is. I am not in any way against government because I know why government in necessary. We need laws in order for our society to run well and people need those guidelines both for their own good and for the good of others. However, we should always remember that people in government are people like you and me. As humans, we have the potential to lie, to cheat, to steal, to abuse, etc. I suppose that is our only weakness, that we are not perfect at all times. Don't take your eyes away.

Journal #8 As the World Burns

Promises kept and promises broken, such is the world of politics. A person running for a government office will often try to win over the people by promising new changes ahead. A President, though (he) may be forthright in his optimism of change by bringing forth new bills, will often be over-ruled by the Senate. This is the same reason why we had heard about climate change & the need for a new energy strategy, only to not hear much about it since. While it may have been a genuine priority for Obama to address climate change, it's not going to fully come to life when people with financial interests are preventing you from doing so.

Fortunately, an entire body of law exists specifically for environmental issues and thank goodness for that. For without it, this world would have already been destroyed.
Individual States are in the best position to regulate, and have the power to regulate, greenhouse emissions (air pollution) and not necessarily Congress. This is why there are now "no smoking zones" because the States are granted this police power. It is also the job of the EPA ,a  federal administrative agency, to carry out this function through directives of the President. The States do their part by incorporating elements of the Clean Air Act into their respective Statutes. This is much like giving the job to the best candidate who can carry it out.

As for the EPA's authority possibly being curtailed, there is certainly no case for that to happen. They are granted Constitutional authority to regulate greenhouse gases. In fact, it is their duty to do so and failing to do is a violation of human welfare. Since they have the authority to regulate emissions, and it is through emissions that global climate is changing, then they have been regulating global climate change through their efforts; and not necessarily through direct policy. In other words, even if they are not directly authorized by Congress to regulate global climate change, they have been doing so all along as an effect of regulating automobile emissions. Just because Congress does not regulate greenhouse gases does not mean that the EPA is not in a position to. The Clean Air Act, which was drafted by Congress, gives the EPA the authority to regulate "climate" in the event that it forms a “judgment” that such emissions contribute to climate change, as carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases fall within the Act's capacious definition of “air pollutant.” Clean Air Act, § 202(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 7521 (a)(1)