GEOLOGY 106

ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY

FINAL LECTURE (12/11/96)


OUTLINE


THE STAKES ARE HIGH

The scientist's dilemma:

Scientific studies, scientific results and publicity have feedback to one another. Dollars needed for research are allocated based on perceived threats, and public perceptions often guided by scientists who rely on public funding for research. Feedback loops exist between science and the public. Pressure to provide information by social and political interests provides pressure for research funds to support the needed research. Vested interests in a national scientific infrastructure demands a highly trained cadre of research scientists capable of working on the problems faced by governments and businesses. Pressure to do research to prove your "worth" among your colleagues required a source of funding, often met by federal, state, and local governmental agencies. Priorities for research are set by researchers, but often are driven by funding availability, which, in turn, is driven by government legislative and administrative perceptions of needed research.

Claims of collusion of science with government by environmental activists is a serious threat to legitimate research. Scientists are called upon to make predictions about poorly understood phenomena by the public, politicians, vested economic interests, and the press. Claims are made that scientist's reservations about certain "public science" issues reflect a deliberate way to delay ACTION that is needed to address these environmental problems. What to do? Who is right?

  1. No action delays remediation and can make the problem even worse.
  2. How do we know what to do unless we understand the problem and its various solutions?
  3. Remediation may not be needed, and very costly if done needlessly. Pouring funds on problems without a good plan for remediation and understanding of the problem may only put money in the pockets of vested interests (including scientists, lawyers, political action groups, environmental businesses, and politicians) without really solving the problem.
  4. Some claims of environmental hazards are overstated for political purposes (the idea being that the closer you bring the "opposition" to your position the better the solution). Given that compromise typically marks the resolution of these conflicts, it could be to your advantage to OVERSTATE your position with the hope that the compromise will be closer to your position than if you only stated a reasoned, more rational position.
  5. Who's to say what is right?
  6. Who's the better informed?
  7. What possible solutions can be proposed without better understanding of the problem?
  8. At what point in your "studies" do you feel you know enough to provide workable environmental solutions?
  9. Scientists are naturally reluctant to draw far reaching conclusions about their work, yet it is often they that can make the best judgements about environmental phenomena.
  10. Do we have reason to be skeptical about claims of enviromnental threats or damage? You bet! But.... only if we take the effort to be better informed about the issues and the technical evidence brought to bear on the problems.

In the business of global change research the stakes are very high. Major cutbacks in industries that supply some of our services and products may be called for. Research on alternative is needed, and not only is it costly, but it typically has a lag time of several years to tens of years. If we rely on fossil fuels for energy, and are unwilling to accept alternative sources (e.g. nuclear power), then we must learn to adapt to the consequences of global change. There's no alternative. Forcing major changes in our ways of life, major economic institutions, and government policy is VERY expensive, and we should be reasonably sure of the threat before we take steps to reduce the threat. Claims of adverse effects of global change put the frontiers of scientific knowledge in the public spotlight and demand attention.


GOVERNMENT AGENCIES IN SERVICE OF THE ENVIROMENT

AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBLITIES

The following list provides links and mission statements from a number of federal agencies that have either direct environmental responsibilities or divisions within the agency that have direct and indirect environmental concerns. The mission statements are taken directly from agency web sites, and are presented here verbatim. Divisions within agencies are many and worthwhile exploring. The USGS is an example agency that is expanded to illustrate its range of environment related activities. If not directly environmental in the sense of measuring and protecting environmental resources, many of these agencies make decisions about management of our natural resources that affect our daily lives.


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Geological Survey.

The National Park Service

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

The Minerals Management Service (MMS)

Bureau of Reclamation

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

The Office of Surface Mining


U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA)


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)

The Forest Service (FS)


The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION (NSF)

Creation and Mission


NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)


EXAMPLE OF AGENCY DIVISIONS - US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY


ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. (1996) OUR ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT; Canada, New Society Publishers, 160 p.

Traditional ecomomic views of our global economy

Global economy as a means of converting resources to waste.

Our ecological FOOTPRINT

Exaples of footprints of different countries

Netherlands Footprint

Since the beginning of the century the available per capita area (useable area of earth/world population) has decreased from 5-6 ha/person to 1.5 ha/person.

If every person on earth enjoyed the average lifestyle of Americans it would require two times the available area that is now available. In other words, we would need THREE EARTHS to sustain the PRESENT WORLD POPULATION at the same level of "development" we now do.

WHAT DO WE DO? WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?

  1. Population control?
  2. Improve efficiency?
  3. Return to caves?
  4. Population reduction? (How? Politically it's an incandescent potato under present conditions where the debate about choice and right to life issues dominate the discussion.)
  5. Population control in developed countries may do more to protect the enviroment than in third world countries where living standards are significantly lower.
  6. Live with it, and accept it as our karma?
  7. Any ideas???


REVIEW OF COURSE OBJECTIVES

  1. Connect yourself with the environment
  2. The cumulative effects of small things add up to a very large effect. (E. Dirksen (D, Ill.) "A million here, a million there, and pretty soon it adds up to real money."
  3. Ignorance is no excuse when your own world is at stake.
  4. Geologic processes as they affect the environment are not simple. A quantitative understanding of the science is demanded to be informed about today's issues. Risk assessment is basically a statistical issue. Take more math and statistics.
  5. Issues are complex. Taking a strong stand on one "side" of an issue may mean you have not looked at all sides of the issue very well. The solutions are more complex than the problem, and there's virtually no way to meet the needs of all constituencies when seeking a solution. That means that the solutions to these issues areas much political as they are scientific. Just don't be swayed by poor science.
  6. Be skeptical, and learn to ask the right questions. Advocates often "posture" on issues, and overstate positions.
  7. ABOVE ALL LEARN TO EJNOY THE BEAUTY AND WONDER OF OUR PLANET, and think to preserve the beauty of the earth for future generations. There are aesthetic values to our life that transcend "money" values, and learning to value these basic values may be one of the most important tools of our survival.


WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

Further coursework

Emerging Issues

Continued population increase will drive many problems -

The UW campus as an environmentally aware campus


RETURN TO SYLLABUS