By Wyatt Wright My name is Wyatt Wright, I am originally from the Cayman Islands but I've lived in Wyoming for most of my life. I am currently undeclared as I want to explore some of my interests which was also my reasoning for taking this class. *************************************************************************************** BUTTE, Montana -- This may look like a peaceful mountain lake, but in reality it is a ticking time bomb. It is extremely acidic (2.5 pH) and poses a huge risk to the surrounding ecosystems if it rises to groundwater levels. The Berkeley Pit comes from the Anaconda Mining Company. Their activities were about as far from "leave no trace" as you can get.
The mining pit at Butte is the head of a metaphorical snake of pollution that winds its way up the Silver Bow creek and the Clark Fork river. Ore from the Berkeley pit was shipped to a smelter outside of the towns of Anaconda and Opportunity. The EPA claims that the the smelter alone contaminated 300 square miles(Anaconda Co. Smelter, EPA, 2018). Contaminants include arsenic, copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead (How mining nearly killed the 'richest hill on Earth', Terdiman, 2009). Pollutants have been carried by river as far as Milltown, 130 miles away. The Anaconda Mining Company was purchased by ARCO, now a subsidiary of BP. EPA policy regards them as the "Potentially Responsible Party" and thus responsible for cleanup. The Berkeley pit alone is projected to cost ARCO $110 million, plus an $8 million charge from the EPA (United States and Montana Reach Agreement With Mining Companies to Clean Up Berkeley Pit, EPA, 2002). The story of the mines and the Clark Fork Superfund Complex is a microcosm of our effect on the planet. If we continue our current practices as in RCP 8.5 (MCA, page 43), we will find ourselves with a massive ecological disaster that is impossibly expensive, or just impossible, to clean up. We must learn from the past and protect the environment from ourselves.
0 Comments
By Clyde Schulein A subalpine forest in the Lubrecht Experimental Forest, now at severe risk for fire and beetle kill due to changing temperatures and precipitation GREENOUGH, Montana--
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are an extremely contentious modern topic. They could, however, become an effective tool in the fight against the negative effects of climate change on Montana’s forests, especially in correcting issues left by previous land-management practices. According to Dr. Peter Kolb, MSU Extension Forestry Specialist, logging practices left forests lacking in genetic variation and severely inbred. These incestuous byproducts are at a higher risk for beetle kill, a significant indirect effect of climate change (MCA, page 170). Increased severity of drought as an effect of climate change also poses a significant threat to forest health (MCA, page 166). Recent experiments at OSU have aimed to solve some of these weaknesses by genetically engineering poplar trees to produce insecticides and resist pests that commonly damage poplar plantations (Bt-Cry3Aa transgene expression reduces insect damage and improves growth in field-grown hybrid poplar, Strauss et al.). Research is also underway to improve drought tolerance in trees on a molecular and physiological level (Forests and Genetically Modified Trees, McDonnell et al., page 90). The same principles could, in theory, be replicated in the pine and fir forests across Montana, reducing indirect effects of climate change and maintaining healthy forests. Though the research looks promising, there is still a lot of work to be done. Forests still require genetic diversity that GMOs alone cannot provide. Ethical issues, such as possible implications for native species, create strong opposition from local and national groups, and government regulations make implementation of GMO trees nearly impossible. Science will hopefully one day be able to find a solution to these issues, but until then these trees will remain strictly in beta testing. By Malcolm Martelon
GREENOUGH, MT -- As we trekked through the trees of Lubrecht Experimental Forest, we listened to Peter Kolb, the MSU Extension Forest Specialist, speak about the effects of climate change on forests. I was staring at the reflection of the surrounding trees in a nearby puddle, when Peter said, “On days of ninety degrees or more, the respiration of the trees exceeds the photosynthesis,” and something clicked. “Wait a second,” I thought, “the MCA (Montana Climate Assessment) said by the end of the century the number of days above ninety could increase by as many as seventy days.(MCA, pg. 50) These trees are going to suffocate us!” Looking up, I took a deep breath of the fresh air these trees provide, and thought, “How could they possibly kill us?” It sounds dramatic, but also plausible. If a significant increase in the number of days above ninety degrees occurs, the trees could begin to contribute more greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2 and H2O, only adding to the problem of global warming. Over the next hour, as Kolb continued to speak on the ways forests can become more fire resistant, I began working through the interconnected aspects of the environment for possible solutions. When he spoke of the ponderosa pines, a slender tree that when managed properly will spread out to allow for maximum nutrient use, an idea sprouted. Could this spread solve two problems: preventing and managing fires, but also adding fewer trees per acre to reduce potential climate impacts. It's just an idea, but solving connected problems may be our best chance for countering the challenges we face. Author Malcolm Martelon is a guy from Denver, CO who wants to help people. To do this, he will master the arts of biology and chemistry to better understand the inner workings of the human brain. He's in this class to gain knowledge of the interconnectedness of climate as practice to better grasp the complex systems surrounding him every day. By Clyde Schulein The town of Opportunity received a large amount of polluted sediment from behind the Milltown Dam, an instance of failure to protect underrepresented citizens. Photo by James Drysdale MISSOULA, MT--
My name is Clyde Schulein, and I come from Livingston, MT. I plan to major in Pre-Med Biology with the intent to one day be a doctor, and it is for that reason that I chose to enter this course; climate change has been described by Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the WHO, as a significant danger to human health on a global scale. This class will provide me with information useful in understanding the context and effects of what is arguably the greatest threat to world-wide public health. However, these effects will not be equally felt between different global economic classes. According to Harrington et al. in the study Poorest countries experience earlier anthropogenic emergence of daily temperature extremes, up to 10^12 kg of carbon will be released between the time that 50% of the poorest quintile and 50% of the richest quintile of global citizens experience a 50-fold increase of 1-in-1000 day temperature extremes under RCP8.5. Put simply, wealthier people will feel the effects of climate change after their poor counterparts. The timing of these temperature shifts create a short window for policy changes; at-risk regions in Sub Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia experience devastating effects before wealthy countries take action. The United States is not exempt from this disparity. By the end of the century, the richest third of counties in the US could suffer average damages between -1.2% and 6.8% of their income whereas the poorest third could suffer damages between 2.0% and 19.6% of their income (Hsiang et al., 2017). This includes Montana, where several counties in the northeast, southeast and south central portions of the state, regions with the highest projected changes in annual temperature under RCP8.5 (MCA, page 47), stand to suffer up to 5% reductions in their income by the end of the century. The solution to this disparity lies mainly in policy; countries with resources and political power need to proactively protect those that do not, even though they do not immediately or directly benefit from curbing emissions and providing aid. The persistent theme is one of an ongoing need for international cooperation and altruism. MANY GLACIERS, Montana -- I love hiking, so when I heard that we would be hiking up to Grinnell Glacier, I was pumped. What I didn’t know was how hard the altitude would hit my poor flatlander lungs. Not to be dramatic, but I’m pretty sure I almost died. Not only did I find myself gasping for air on numerous occasions, but I ran out of water and ended up refilling from a stream that one of the native Montanians said was safe to drink from. I haven’t gotten sick yet, but that could change. When my group finally did reach the top, the view was worth every minute of suffering I’d experienced in the past three hours. I was standing in front of a glacier. A glacier that has lost approximately 45% of its area. According to the Montana Climate Assessment (page 86), the increasing temperatures brought on by global warming are decreasing glacial area at an unsustainable rate. Only 25 glaciers remain in a park, out of 150. Clearly, this loss will have major impacts on the environment. Several species rely on the cool water from glaciers in the late summer months, and humans rely on glacial runoff for drinking water and agricultural use. If current trends continue, the next time I visit Glacier there’ll be very few of the park’s namesakes left, as well as a dramatic decrease in the glacial runoff that kept my group hydrated. And if we can’t risk our health with possibly contaminated water, what’s the point of hiking? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -Delaney By Malcolm Martelon
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK -- When I was a kid, I loved to watch magicians, especially their disappearing acts--there one minute, gone the next. Well, there's a crazy disappearing act currently underway; the disappearance of glaciers, masses of ice and snow large enough to move under their own weight. According to Oliver Milman “Of the 150 glaciers that existed in [Glacier National Park] in the late 19th century, only 26 remain.” (The Guardian, US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left) Those that remain continue to shrink, with some glaciers in the park “reduced by as much as 85%,” (USGS, Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park) from 1966 to 2015. As I dive into the waters of Grinnell Glacier lake, I can't help but think that the behemoth I'm looking at will eventually cease to exist. Glaciers in the park are especially susceptible as “snowpack in the Northern Rockies and inland Pacific Northwest is more vulnerable to warming,” (MCA, pg. 96). Being close to one of the remaining glaciers was nice, but it wasn't until I saw the satellite imagery that it became personal. This particular glacier has lost more than 113 acres (45%) of coverage area since 1966 (NYT, Mapping 50 Years of Melting Ice in Glacier National Park). If we don't do something to help, the melting is expected to pick up speed, with some glaciers predicted to disappear within the next few decades (USGS, Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park). Unfortunately, this is one disappearing act that's not a trick. One day glaciers might be a thing of imagination, so jump in while you can. By Zach Archambault
BROWNING, Montana—The part of the MCA which spoke to me the most was the sidebar “Crow Climate Observations” (MCA, page 23). Upon reading it I got excited. Here, I thought, is something that might actually motive people. Unfortunately it’s not a prominent part of the assessment—it’s easily overlooked. This is a significant oversight. Reduction of powerful observations because they don’t fit the “science informed” part of the MCA’s guiding mantra is only self-harming. I believe that the empirical evidence presented in that sidebar is far more motivating than much of the MCA, and the Blackfoot Nation is my justification. The Blackfeet Nation demonstrates how pure observation is incredibly motivating. Their land has been preserved from development through a mess of jurisdictional conflicts since the late 1800s. While it’s a difficult situation resulting in widespread poverty, with few major human impacts this land is ideal for observing climate change, and on it the Blackfeet have observed oh so much. From changes in agricultural outputs to lessening availability of traditional foraged foods and medicinal plants, it’s clear to them that climate change is causing problems. These observations have led to their current position in which they’re open to piloting “holistic” and “proactive” climate policies. If this isn’t the desired response to any cumulative climate change research document, I don’t know what is. And the Blackfeet reached this position lacking such a document. So, will the MCA and it’s hard evidence sway people into action? Probably a few. But would it be more effective if empirical evidence wasn’t sidelined? Who knows for sure, but I argue yes. Hello everyone! My name is Delaney Ericson and I’m from just outside of Portland, Oregon, and I’m a microbiology major on a pre-vet track. I decided to take this course because I enjoy environmental science and, if I’m honest, I didn’t have much else going on. CLEARWATER, Montana -- Coming from Portland, Oregon, Douglas firs are something of a state treasure. As elementary school students, we are taught how to find its cones by the “mouse” feet, and it’s even our state tree, so I was quite shocked to learn that a certain Montana forestry expert considers Douglas firs evil trees. Peter Kolb made it clear that in Western Montana an abundance of Doug firs are a sign of an unhealthy forest. To my Oregonian brain, this made no sense. All of our forests looked like the third sight we visited in the Lubrecht Experimental Forest, so what made Montana different? The fire hazard Doug firs present, for one. Apparently, the dense growth of Doug firs that gives Oregon its characteristic green blanket isn’t great for a state that experiences much drier weather (approximately 29 less inches of rain) and frequent lightning. According to Dr. Kolb, a healthy Montana forest isn’t the one with the most trees. It’s the one that’s the most fire resistant and genetically diverse. Fires, even smaller ones, can devastate Doug firs, but ponderosa pines have thicker bark and higher canopies that can help the trees avoid much of the damage a fire can inflict. After Dr. Kolb’s lecture, I’m going to have a hard time thinking fondly about the trees back home. -Delaney https://www.honestabe.com/the-mighty-douglas-fir-christmas-trees/
By Bradley Harvey BOZEMAN, Montana-- A changing climate requires adaptation in our diets. Consuming less meat and animal products could be less of a hipster trend and more of a meaningful way to clear the path toward superior protein consumption for both the consumer and the planet. The United Nations supports finding a source of protein that is less reliant on water usage and soil health, produces less waste, and is more efficient with resources (Van Huis et al, 2013). This source? Crickets: a promising sustainable food for the future. Using crickets or mealworms as a primary source of protein rather than a traditional meat, such as beef or pork, will reduce greenhouse gasses and consume less feed than traditional meat counterparts. Crickets produce 80 times less methane than cattle, require 12 times less feed than cattle, and need half as much feed as chickens and pigs to produce the same amount of protein. This could ultimately lead to less stress on water and feed resources, reducing the need to clearcut land for the production of feed and animal grazing. Cowboy Crickets, a local company, has taken initiative to provide a sustainable alternative to beef. The idea of abandoning meat altogether is an overreaction to a problem that has a serious solution potential. Edible insects are a regular part of diets across the globe and are soon to be part of the American diet with a little convincing and bravery. “Just like sushi in the 1970’s, edible insects are not mainstream yet, but that is quickly changing.” - Cowboy Crickets
By Amy Humphrey
BOZEMAN, Montana-Being brought up in a family that loves everything outdoors, how could I not love being outside? Growing up in Maryland, with the Virginias and Pennsylvania as family go-to locations, I had plenty of access to various types of wildlife and experiences, which helped lead me to major in Fish and Wildlife Ecology and Management at MSU. My name is Amy Humphrey, and I’m doing the climate change summer class because it seems like a unique opportunity to catch a glimpse of college life and classes, while meeting incoming freshmen. Prior to this course, I had never thought or cared about climate change. There’s always snow under my skis, earth under my boots, and beautiful places to see. Besides, there was always more important things to think about, like school, family, and my future. Why worry about anything else? Then, I read the Montana Climate Assessment of 2017. Did you know that climate change impacts our water, forests, and agriculture? Or have you ever truly sat down to think about it? Climate affects our everyday lives, whether we realize it or not. Think about it. Everything we do, use, or have interactions with, it all revolves around climate change. For me, that means less snow and my favorite spots losing their beauty. And trust me, I understand that reading something such as a climate assessment can be very confusing. So, let me use my experiences from this class to help you understand climate change. |
ArchivesCategories |