I came across this article over the summer and I think that is it filled with some really impactful and powerful images of humans’ impact on earth. I would venture to say that these are some of the best quality pictures I have seen to depict the impacts of over development and overpopulation on our planet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/humans-staggering-effect-on-earth/2015/05/13/01c9b7e2-f974-11e4-9030-b4732caefe81_gallery.html?postshare=9591432712880146

To me one of the most powerful images in this set for me is the photo of the bird that died from ingesting plastics. While at first glance it is a very disturbing picture, I think it has a very powerful meaning and really highlights the impact that every human can have on combating environmental issues. A lot of times with environmental issues it can seem like it is hard for an individual to make a difference, but this imagine reminds you that the individual can make a difference, and in this case with the proper disposal of plastics could have saved a life.

On Monday when we were out looking around campus at various places and went to the back of Watson Hall, we saw the fence with the sharp edges, we heard and saw route 22 and we saw the green pipe right in the middle of “nature”. While we were out there my mind immediately flashed back to this article, specifically the photo of the coal burning power plant in the United Kingdom.

I’ve often found it funny that as an Environmental Studies major and an avid reader of environmental philosophy and thought, I had not yet read Walden. Perhaps it is because its length scared me away, or I wanted to find lesser known works to study. I’ve always known that Walden was essentially the starting point of “society is doing it wrong, nature is doing it right” literature, but, halfway into the assigned reading, I’ve discovered that the above quote just scratches the surface.

“Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn was the first book I read that truly enlightened me to the cruel contradictions of human history and society. I still cite it as the reason for choosing my major and becoming involved in environmental activism. After reading this bit of “Walden”, however, I’m looking back on Ishmael as much more of a softer introduction into “everything you’ve been taught is wrong” thinking. This gives me the suspicion that this specific genre of environmental writing has become more accessible over time. Could that accessibility have caused increased concern about the environment? Could increased concern about the environment have caused more people to write about their belief that “we’re doing it wrong” in a more accessible fashion as to reach those with lower levels of literary comprehension?

I’m also noticing the bits of “Walden” that later environmental writers certainly found inspiration from. I can almost picture Wendell Berry being overwhelmed and inspired by Thoreau’s assertion that we should abandon society’s valuation system as I was by Quinn’s suggestion that we’re destroying the world and the only way to save it is to oppose what history has deemed “human progress.” I also have personally known people to experience a similar feeling of empowerment after encountering these types of literature. I often wonder if this feeling motivates others in the way it motivated me.

But has humanity learned from these writers who are so certain that the only way to avoid doom is to flip around almost everything society has come to value? Does “Walden”‘s fame suggest that one day we’ll turn this ship around? Or just that some of us will forever be condemned to looking at the society around us and shaking our heads?

Author John R. Stilgoe offers an interesting interpretation of the outside world early on in the text when he asserts, “The whole concatenation of wild and artificial things, the natural ecosystem as modified by people over the centuries, the built environment layered over layers, the eerie mix of sounds and smells and glimpses neither natural nor crafted- all of it is free for the taking, for the taking in” (2). While I understand the evolution of ecosystems depending on the inhabitants, the notion of nature being modified by humans, yet still being natural, is one that I believe has varying degrees. Just how much is something in its natural state, is it wild, if it has been modified or impacted by humans at some point in time? Do nature and natural mean the same thing, or are they also different levels of a scale that balances between how much a portion of the Earth has been used or developed by humankind?

This idea of varying degrees of nature due to human interaction was one that was prevalent during our walk through campus on the first day of class. Was the garden planted by the students in front of our building as natural as the woods that border our campus that are too steep to build on, or is one more natural than the other, a better emulation of nature than its counterpart? I believe that the woods are a stronger representation of nature than the garden was because of its lack of modification by man; with human interaction comes artificial results, and the natural evolution of the woods was less interrupted or tainted by the footprint of man.

Through my sliding scale definition of nature and natural, the question certainly can be asked: are nature and natural things a finite resource, and can they ever be regenerated if human interaction was the means of original degeneration? I do not know the answer to that; but I certainly hope that over course of this semester, some light is shed on the matter.

Global warming may be an issue for all of America, but it’s happening twice as fast in the Alaskan Arctic. President Obama is on a historic mission this week to highlight climate change in Alaska

An issue that is getting much less attention than the official changing of the name of Mt. Denali, is the possible relocation of the native people of an arctic village who’s home is melting away every day.

Shishmaref is a three square miles island on the state’s western edge and just 20 miles from the Arctic Circle. It is a collection of more than two-dozen villages that are washing into the ever-rising sea, making their residents the nation’s first real climate change refugees.

This Article from NBC highlights the costs that would be associated with relocating the refugees. The government estimates it would cost $300,000 a resident to relocate each villager — if they even can find a suitable inland site. There are just under 600 residents.

As the water continues to rise and homes are lost to the arctic sea, the federal government must decide how much they are willing to pay to preserve Alaska’s costal islands.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obamas-arctic-trip-buoys-climate-refugees-n413726