logo
Already a member? Login here

environmental politics´s archives ↓

Protecting Biodiversity in the UK

With an extensive selection of habitats and a myriad range of species, the United Kingdom is host to a great range of biodiversity. Moreover, bearing in mind that England is the home of 18% of the world’s heath-land and almost 20% of Europe’s Atlantic and North Sea estuaries, protecting biodiversity within the UK is not just a necessity for Britain but is instrumental to the sustainability of environments internationally.

One of the main threats to the UK’s biodiversity is categorised as ‘habitat loss/degradation’, this term referring to the destruction of species’ habitat as a result of development. Agricultural, forestry and river management practices can all contribute to the loss or degradation of biological habitats in the UK, as unsustainable developments which make an abrupt change to an ecosystem can often be too sudden for species’ to adapt to. Furthermore, another predominant threat to biodiversity within the UK is environmental pollution, as atmospheric pollution (acid precipitation and nitrogen deposition), water pollution from agricultural sources, and climate change – with its subsequent sea level rise – can all negatively affect the natural habitat that a wide array of biologically-diverse organisms depend upon to thrive.

In response to the threats being posed to the UK’s biodiversity there are measures that need to be taken, all of which start at a local level. Professor of ecology Sir John Lawton states that the UK needs spaces to encourage biodiversity that are “bigger, better, and more joined-up”, as biological organisms need space and complexity to flourish. In support of this, the Government’s Biodiversity 2020 strategy foregrounds the importance of landscape-scale developments in order to help ecosystems adapt to fluctuating conditions within the UK (e.g. the effects of global warming) and the 159 National Character Area profiles supplied by Natural England help to support this initiative by providing information and advice to help maximise the impact of such landscape-scale efforts. Furthermore, national-scale objectives were outlined in the 2011 Natural Environment White Papers to aid in the preservation and development of ecosystems and priority habitats, the documents also setting targets for levels of biodiversity in England by the year 2020.

Legally, biodiversity is protected in the UK by various legislative acts (such as the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985) and, as stipulated by the 2006 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, every public body is legally-obliged to consider the implications of their decision making processes on the biodiversity in their region.

 

GE Nightmares

[myspace]http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=39582198[/myspace]

This is a 46 minute video on genetically modified plants and trees in the foreseenable future.

Genetic Engineere Plants

A significant number of such GE trees are known to have been developed to resist insects, such as two poplar species that were commercialised in China. Alerting effects are also detected on the soil. GE trees can affect the bacteria, earthworms and soil respiration. The leaves of GE trees planted along a water sourse can enter the waterways and we still do not have enough data to foresee its consequences for the aquatic life.

Therefore, Genetic technology should therefore be restricted to indoors, with containment, and should not be mixed with wild life.

“peepoop” Sanitation for the Third World?

Over 65% of Third World citizens do not have access to safe sanitation systems… Water-borne sanitation it too expensive to install in low cost urban housing areas… Moreover, dense population together with corrupt governments lead to local bullies taking hold of such rare facilities… And every 15 seconds a child dies due to contaminated water.

[ad#Google Adsense intext]

So peepoople -working in close cooperation with SEC Soweto East in Kibera, Nairobi, Communication consultant LOWE Brindfors, Technical development consultant SemconCaran, Chemical company BASF, Bioplastic producer Tenova- came up with an idea called “peepoo bag” which is basically a plastic bag, “that sanitise the human excreta shortly after the defecation, preventing the faeces from contaminating the immediate as well as the larger environment”.

They seem to have many practical advantages. By means of the chemicals inside waste born pathogens are killed over a period of a couple hours to a few weeks. It is partly biodegradable ( made of 45% renewable materials at the moment). When degrade in the soil, the ammonia byproduct acts as a  fertiliser. Moreover, it is way economical than establishing the infrastructure for wastemanagement and sanitary systems.

However, there is something that makes me feel uneasy about this product. And it is not just the culturally unacceptable idea of defecating in a 34 cm plastic bag.

This thing is simply not sustainable.

How much is it going to cost? let’s say 1 cent. How much will take make up for one person’s annual need? Who is going to provide them their peepoos and for how long? Isn’t that going to make them more dependent on the providers?

[ad#Google Adsense intext]

There are some dry toilet solutions (like http://www.oursoil.org/firstdrytoiletinmilot.php). I don’t think that constructing dry sanitary infrastructure, say self composting latrines and checking its maintenance yearly would cost more than continously spending on plastic bags.

Furthermore, it doesn’t sound reasonable to me that the plastic would be 100% biodegradable in thenear future. Even if it does, how long will it take to degrade in soil?

Peepoo bag is an interesting idea, I must admit. But it is more likely for it to be used by the developed world in camps.

seagulls that can’t fly in Istanbul?

I am seeing dead / sick seagulls all the time? Is there a desease or is it related to climate change?

[ad#Google Adsense main]

Animals As Moral Agents

Max Weber contends that people need to justify their deeds as good or right. A child at the age of five comprehends that what is presented with chips and ketchup is actually the lamb he draws as happily out in green pastures. During their socialization into meat-eaters people develop ways to defend their diet against vegetarians. One of the main arguments is that an animal is a lower form of being for lacking cognitive faculties humans have, and it is merely instrumental in serving people’s needs. I remember a sentence in a primary school text book telling that animals are our precious friends because we benefit from their flesh, milk and power.

Animal wearing clothes like an agent comic

Likewise, according to Immanual Kant, animals cannot be included in the moral community, because they lack the prerequisite: reason. Peter Singer and Tom Regan, two prominant figures of traditional ethical theories on animals disagree. Singer asserts that inclusion to the moral community does not depend on “whether a being can reason, but whether it can suffer”.[1] On the other hand, Regan challenges Kant’s arguement in that many people, like infants, very old people, people with serious mental disorders etc., also lack the rational capacity required to be eligible to the moral society; thus if reason is the criterion they would be excluded from rights enjoyed by the majority of the people. Animals in his opinion have not instrumental but “inherent value”.[2] They both agree in the value animals have, their perspectives diverge, though.

Singer has a utilitarian perspective. He concludes that “applying the principle of utility to our present situation, esp. the methods now used to rear animals for food and the variety of food available to us, leads to the conclusion that we ought to be vegetarians”[3]. The animal, as a moral entity, has feelings. It is motivated to experience pleasure. It enjoys the life and fears death. When we capture or kill the animal,we deprive it off the further experience of the pleasure of life. Singer argues that unless alternative means for survival exists we should not eat animal flesh for taste or convinience. Most vegetarians agree that meat consumption is not a must regarding the the availability of vegetables and crops.[4]

Regan, on the other hand, embracing a rights perspective, asserts that animals have welfare interests. They, especially adult mamals are moral entities and convey the same fundamental rights with humans, ie. right to life, security and freedom from harm, (the natural rights theoretized for while male human by John Locke) . He argues that animal meat is not one among the essential amino acids that human health requires.[5] Therefore, our right to food cannot overcome their right to life. Moreover, since they cannot have a guilty intent in their conducts, it is not just to kill or harm them as punishment.

Most people would counter this arguments defending that if there is no hierarchy between human beings and other species, it is natural to slaughter and eat animals for personal well-being, as any other carnivor would do. Only if our nature is superior to the rest of the animals we can be ethical, and only then we can approach animals with empathy. We can, then choose to protect animals, as their masters.[6] This arguments suffers from a strawman fallacy. First of all, Singer already agrees that humans can eat animals (or other humans) in extreme conditions of hunger. So do animals: they kill and eat each other due to nutritional needs distinct from humans due to biological factors.[7] Secondly, neither Singer, nor Regan argue that all species are equal in moral or cognitive terms. What they want to clarify is that they are not the “ultimate other” of the Carthesian dichotomy; it is a matter of degree. Because humans have more consciousness of their deeds, they should have higher ethical standards to avoid harming other creatures. Regan’s emphasis on the lack of guilty intent in animal behavior must be reminded. Peoples kill while they don’t need to kill, and they learn ignore the guilty feeling that they ought to feel.


[1] Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, Pimlico: Random House, 1990: 7-8

[2] Tom Regan, Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press 2004: 243-237

[3] Peter Singer, Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 4. (Summer, 1980), pp. 325

[4] Peter Cox. Bloomsbury, You Don’t Need Meat , 1992

[5] Tom Regan, Case for Animal Rights, University of California Press 2004, 337

[7] Carnivores’s intestines are four times shorter (in proportion to thier bodies) that those of people; this avoids bacterail growth on the rotten meat before excretion, but it is too short for digesting plants.

[ad#Google Adsense intext]



©2013 Environmental Challenges and Solutions for Problems
Hosted by ecofuture.net