I Wanna Run Through This Jungle!

I guess it's been a while since I've posted anything. And to be honest, I don't really have any significant stories that stand alone. So this is just a post to illustrate my life in Costa Rica as it's been happening.

I've been super, super busy with school. This last class I had, Conservation and Development was one of the toughest classes I've ever taken. It was so much theory! And no practicality! At least, that's what I found. I'm craving numbers and hard science like a crazy person. This class involved so much reading and writing - I even had to manage to study when the power went out, for more than eight hours! We even had weekend classes in the form of a three-day field trip! We visited a couple sustainable living communities or something like that. I posted pictures of our tour of a coffee plantation and digging our bus out of a mud hole here. You know, normal field trip stuff.As president of the Environmental Club at UPeace, I've also been busy trying to facilitate different environmental projects. Most notably, we set up a recycling collection center in town so that students and community members have the option of recycling their recyclable trash. At the moment, we're working hard to put together a 6.5 kilometer fundraiser run for students and community members. The idea is to raise money to implement a project in a nearby community, which is devastated from environmental effects due to being situated directly next to a landfill. Normally that wouldn't be such a problem, but this is Costa Rica - and a landfill isn't what you think it is in a place like this.I've also been spearheading a campaign for the safety and security of the students at UPeace. I've never felt such a lack of safety and security as I do in this country. It's insane. This place is so unsafe. I would like to find the logic pointing to the fact that it's just because people are so poor here that they've been driven to lives of crime. But it's not true. I've been to much poorer countries that didn't have nearly the same crime, nor feel of insecurity. I can't explain it. For some reason, crime has been increasing exponentially here, and it's just sort of acceptable. No one does anything about it. People just sort of think, oh, that sucks. Pura Vida.In the last two months, Becca's home was broken into while we were at school, and she lost everything of any value. One student was sexually assaulted. Another student's home was broken into (same story as Becca's). Another student and her boyfriend were shot at, held up at gunpoint and mugged. There have been a few picked pockets - including Becca's (Just the other day, on the bus). I even heard a story of a UPeace student from last year whose home was broken into via a hole in the wall that the thieves created with explosives! They blew a freakin hole in the wall of his home! When he got home, he asked his landlord about it and received an answer of, "Hm. I didn't hear anything." The first apartment in which I lived had a robbery about a week before I left. During the night, someone broke the gate of the apartment complex, came in and stole the three cars that were there. Come to find out, the neighbor had called the police during the robbery, but the police never showed up. Turns out, the three cops in town were busy pulling a guy out of the electrical wires who had been electrocuted while trying to steal the wires to sell at the metal recycler. In any case, there have been a few more crimes against students that I don't know the full details - and all of these pale in comparison to the stories in the news of robbers kidnapping people at ATMs, taking them to ATMs in different cities, draining their account, and then shooting them!

I often ask myself, "Where the hell am I?!" So I'm trying to pressure the university to do more in regards to safety and security. For example, the time Becca's home got broken into, was the third time it's happened. She wasn't aware of that when she moved in - but she should have been. Homes are approved by the university but are not checked with regard to safety issues. I'm pushing for them to do so. We'll see what happens. My guess is, I'll get a response along the lines of, "Hm. That sucks." But they may say it more professionally.

On a different note, my most recent budget calculations show that I will run out of money before school finishes. So... I got a job! I feel like an illegal immigrant! And if I manage to save enough money - I'll even be able to afford a ticket home! What is this magical job, you ask? I'm teaching English. It's a job I've avoided throughout my travels, as I don't know English grammar rules so well. But after giving it a go, I've found that I quite enjoy it! I'm making roughly $6.36 per hour, but I don't have to pay taxes so I'm sure my savings will add up quickly! And so will my pride after six months of hearing kids call me, 'Professor Judkins'! Although, with their accents, it sounds more like, 'Prrrofesorrr Yoodkins'.OK - last thing for now, a note from the Vice Rector of the university in regards to our Thanksgiving celebration. I hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving! I miss you guys so much!

Dear UPEACErs:

Last Friday, November 21, 2008, the UPEACE community celebrated the North American Thanksgiving. The event was fully sponsored by American students (from the US and Canada). True to the Thanksgiving traditions, the students cooked all the delicious dishes associated with the event, such as turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes, gravy, and of course pumpkin pies! The event attracted not only UPEACE students and staff, but also a large number of families living in El Rodeo and Ciudad Colon. The cafeteria, inside and out, was packed with happy people who came together to express Thanks. Everything was wonderful: Organization, service, food, and beautiful spirit.

This event will go down in the "UPEACE Record of Great Events" as one of the most outstanding, for several reasons: It is the first time that our North American colleagues organized such a wide-scale event; it was so organized with excellent attention to all details; it brought together one of the largest crowds in any UPEACE event; it included a significant presence of the community especially children; and, the North American students did it ALL by themselves- buying all the food, cooking, transporting a massive amount of food to UPEACE, serving everyone, and cleaning the entire place after the event!

I am sure that the entire UPEACE community joins me in thanking our North American colleagues for giving us such a wonderful evening.

THANK YOU! In peace,

Amr Abdalla, Ph.D.
Professor and Vice Rector for Academic Affairs
University for Peace
United Nations Affiliated University

There are lots more photos here with more stories! Enjoy!

UPeace - An End to Wasting Our Waste!

I don't expect anyone to read this... But just in case there are a few of you out there interested in what I'm doing down here - Here is my latest essay. It's a smaller version of what my thesis will be.

An End to Wasting Our Waste
Andrew Judkins
NRD 6091: Conservation and Development
Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

Products and goods produced, consumed, and disposed of play an integral role in economies and development strategies of societies across the globe. There is an obvious and dangerous flaw in this system, though, when conservation and sustainability are considered. That is, waste is being created, and resources are being depleted at an alarming rate.

Are waste production and resource depletion really problems that need to be solved? There was a time when resources were abundant and their depletion was not considered an issue, as there was a consistent supply to meet demands. Unfortunately, those times are gone. We are seeing resources depleted as we scramble to find viable alternatives. A growing contingent of geologists predict that sometime between 2010 and 2020 the gush of oil from wells around the world will peak at 80 million barrels per day, then begin a steady, inevitable decline (Kerr, 1998). We are trying in vain to slow our consumption to prolong the ultimate and thorough depletion of resources. The only thing there seems to be an excess of is waste. Waste has not always been a problem, either. There was also a time when people thought we threw garbage “away”.

There are several types of waste. Waste can be created as a result of a poor process. Waste can also come in the form of leftover material from producing something. There is also waste that is a result of human consumption. It is everything we throw “away”. Of course, we know now that there is no “away” for our garbage. All of our waste – trash, garbage, unused and unwanted material possessions, dead pets, etc - everything we do not want goes somewhere. Recycling is often not an available option for many communities throughout the United States. For many communities, the most responsible course of action available is a landfill. According to some accounts more than 90 percent of materials extracted to make durable goods in the United States become waste almost immediately. What most people see in their garbage cans is just the tip of a material iceberg; the product itself contains on average only 5 percent of the raw materials involved in the process of making and delivering it (Braungart & McDonough, 2002, p. 27-28).

In this paper, I will illustrate an optimistic outlook on our future with real solutions for tomorrow instead of analyzing what went wrong yesterday. Of course, an analysis of yesterday is imperative to deduce the right course of action for tomorrow, but the focus of this paper is on humanity's resolve, rather than its plight.

Problems of Waste and Resource Depletion

In many cases, products are designed for one-time, or short-time use, to be replaced or disposed of quickly (Braungart & McDonough, 2002, p. 28). This is a simple factor of marketing called, “Planned Obsolescence”, that started catching on in the 1950s. Designers planned how fast they could make stuff break and still leave the consumer with enough faith in the product to go buy another one (Leonard, 2007). The idea is that production can increase as soon as the product needs to be replaced. Whether it is at the end of its useful life or just obsolete, there is a better financial incentive for the producer if its product is frequently purchased, thrown out, and replaced. The faster this process happens, the better profits there will be for the producer.

This practice has made many societies in today’s modern world function as disposable societies. Everything that is made, at some point or another, will be disposed of. This is a tragic phenomenon. It is linear, with a very clear end. For example, if you have a bag of chocolate chips and you’re making chocolate chip cookies – when you run out of chocolate chips, the game is over. No more cookies! When we run out of natural resources, that’s it – no more cookies. The option of going to the store to get another bag won’t exist, nor will the option of drilling another well. As Annie Leonard put it, in the Story of Stuff (2007), “The reason it [the system] is in crisis is that it is a linear system and we live on a finite planet and you cannot run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely.” The depletion of our natural resources is a waste-induced problem that deserves as much attention as the problem of waste itself.

How about the option of digging another hole to bury our waste? Is there anything wrong with burying our solid and toxic wastes? Well, it is certainly not the best example of environmental stewardship. Beyond stewardship: we are running out of space for landfills; landfills have a tendency to be a concentration of toxicity, which sometimes leaches into the surrounding environment causing ill health and environmental effects; and it is a costly process to pay for waste to be wasted.

The connection between waste leaching from landfill into a water table and negative impacts to the environment from landfills is obvious. This is not just the case for solid waste, but toxic waste and nuclear waste as well. Leachate is transported from a landfill into the environment via natural water flows that collect hazardous chemicals from within these landfills (Blazquez, Lema, & Mendez, 1988). The continued production of waste will only amplify the landfill leaching process. As we need and create more landfills, more incidences of chemical leaching from them will occur. This is not the only environmental problem associated with waste.

We are depleting the earth’s natural resources at an incredible rate. In the past three decades alone, one-third of the planet’s natural resources base have been consumed (Leonard, 2007). We preach about renewable resources, but the lack of sustainability of renewable resources continues to hinder our responsible use of them. We are taking, taking, taking from the earth and only returning a minimal amount. We mine resources, use them, and instead of continuing to use them in another form, we set them aside and ignore them as best we can. We search for new resources, while the vast majority of our waste is locked and bound in landfills (except for the leachate, of course).

There is also an energy crisis in our modern society. We depend on foreign oil to fuel our economy. As the developing world continues to develop, there is an increasing demand for oil to fuel their economies as well. This competition for oil serves only to more severely deplete the world’s energy reserves. Alternatives are being sought, but only at a snail’s pace. Alternatives have shown great potential, but are lacking in marketability, effectiveness, efficiency, and the political influence necessary to be implemented properly. There is a huge demand for energy in today’s global society, and that demand gets bigger every day. Alternatives, so far, are not filling the tanks of the world’s energy needs. What should be the course of action?

Drilling for oil in wildlife reserves only prolongs the complete depletion of the resource. There needs to be something cyclical that will continually supply a resource that can fuel world economies. Perhaps combining a waste crisis and an energy crisis could make a recipe for success.

Waste Production and Natural Resource Depletion

The process that describes the linear transition of product from beginning to end is referred to as, “Cradle to Grave” (Braungart & McDonough, 2002, p. 27). It describes the entirety of a product’s life, from its creation to its end of life:

1. Acquisition of the various raw materials necessary to construct a particular product.
2. Material manufacturing is necessary to process the raw materials so that they may be in a useful form.
3. The particular product is created/assembled/constructed in the manufacturing process.
4. The product is marketed and sold.
5. The product is used or consumed.
6. The product’s life ends at a landfill or incinerator.

Energy is required to facilitate the processes in each of these six steps. Some products require more energy use than others do. Either way, constantly putting energy into the system, while rarely receiving energy from it, is a depleting process. Energy needs to come from somewhere – and the resources most often used for energy production are limited. Limited means there is an end.

Waste production can be seen in each of these steps, be it a byproduct or the product itself. Waste is produced in different ways and in different forms; some of it is useful, some of it is not. The good news is that much of this waste is avoidable. With better product and process design, the linear timeline of a product’s life can be effectively turned into a resource cycle.

If products are designed sustainably, that is if they are designed to be recycled, they can go directly from step six (i.e., the landfill) to step two (i.e., processing) without extra waste production, and without compromising the resource’s integrity. Currently, a product that finds its way to a recycler instead of a landfill can be sent back to either step two, or three (i.e., manufacturing). The problem with today’s methods of production, however, is that recycling does not create a resource cycle – it simply prolongs the Cradle to Grave process.

Most materials were not designed for recycling. Take, for example, a plastic product – water bottle, Tupperware, etc. Plastic products are made with plasticizers. Plasticizers are chemical additives, which give plastic a particular property or characteristic, like flexibility and durability. Once a plasticizer is introduced into the molecular structure of the polymer making up a plastic, that polymer base is altered. This method makes sense from a material usefulness standpoint, but not from a resource cycle standpoint, because the plastic takes on a new property and can no longer be used in any other form. Once this plastic takes on a modified molecular structure, the plastic is extremely difficult to use for anything else. Forcing products and their additives into the process of recycling jeopardizes the base material’s durability. This means that they can only be recycled a finite amount of times before the material is so broken down, diluted, and weak that it ends up at step six anyway (Braungart & McDonough, 2002, p. 56-59).

Product reuse is another way to prolong product arrival at step six. Reuse directs the product from step six to step five (i.e., product use). Depending on the construction of the product, reuse can significantly draw out its ultimate end. Nevertheless, the end will inevitably arrive.

In step six, the process of landfilling or incinerating waste is equivalent to wasting our own waste. This is the end of the line. This is what needs to be addressed for humanity to have a future with enough energy and resources to fuel its development ambitions. Although a product may meet the end of its intended use, its usefulness is by no means finished. Designing a process that can fully utilize the remaining product usefulness is the task at hand. New technologies are slowly being implemented that hold potential answers pertaining to our past and future waste management issues.

Real sustainable design is too idealistic of a goal for our modern society. It requires a complete overhaul of the entire manufacturing and producing industry throughout the world. It is a great goal for which to strive. It should be sought, but in the meantime, why not find a solution that will take our waste problem and create something we need? Waste is mounting and resources are depleting. Industry is producing and communities are consuming. It’s the way things work. In order to maximize energy efficiency, it is essential that someday we find a way to minimize that waste. But for now, what if we could do better than simply minimizing waste? What if we could, instead, use that waste for something we wanted, or even needed? Waste could be a great renewable resource, and even a source of energy. Disposable Societies? If we had a way of transforming waste into material or energy resource, there would be no problem with continuing our way of life in a disposable society. We have the technology to make this happen, but we need to make sure that we use only responsible technologies.

Some alternative technologies are becoming more trendy than they are responsible. The actual effectiveness of certain alternative technologies is questionable, as they compete with food resources, generate hazardous waste products, and lack appropriate efficiency to make them viable tools of progression. For example:

• Solar - Solar energy technology is nearly 60 years old and extremely inefficient. The production of solar cells is very energy intensive and the use of that solar cell takes from one to four years to create the amount of energy that was used in its production. They do, however, have an estimated lifetime of 30 years (The National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2004).
• Wind - Energy production from windmills is a controversial alternative energy because migratory birds are being killed by the rotating blades (Gipe, 1995).
• Biofuel - The controversy with biofuel is that some say there is a competition for agricultural crops between the food and fuel industry. Also, there is a debate on whether or not this is an eco-efficient technology (Mitchell, 2008).

Alternative technology is a catch phrase in today’s society. It contains the possibilities of a clean and healthy future for the development of our communities and conservation of our environment. Appropriate choices must be made for our management policies. Research is needed to identify which alternatives are responsible, and which are just marketable.

Resource Production and Waste Depletion

If it was possible to force everyone to conform their daily activities and habits to those consistent with environmentally sound practices, waste problems might not exist. Unfortunately, forcing people to adopt a new lifestyle is seldom successful. In fact, change is usually met with resistance (Holling, 2001). And in the end, the waste problem still exists. Is it even possible then, to create an atmosphere of change? We could implement methodologies of manipulation and propaganda to “convince” the masses that being responsible for their actions and their waste generation is ultimately in their best interests. We could also campaign heavily for environmental education. How can we most effectively convince the world to be responsible for their actions? Well, perhaps we do not have to.

Through new, available technologies, it is possible to transform waste directly into pure and usable resources. The products of a disposable society that plague future development and conservation could be used as fuel and many other useful products in a society that contributed to a solution rather than a problem. The best part is that citizens do not even have to be environmentally aware or change their actions! Of course, a conscious, educated society would be ideal, but environmental education has been a tactic for a long time, and there is still so much to achieve. The green agenda should not be forgotten, but while it is being pushed, let us consider more effective options to maximize the rate at which we reduce human impact to the planet.

In the United Kingdom, a system called Vantage Waste Processing (VWP) has been developed to utilize waste in the production of energy. The system can effectively prepare waste for processing, reduce its volume by more than 60%, extract raw materials for recycling, and produce biofuel from the organic waste. VWP uses a process called Thermal Hydration Steam Treatment to break down organic material into a useful form. Each waste treatment unit can process up to 10 tons per hour, totaling up to 75,000 tons of household waste per year. The breakdown of its output, which is based on a European waste norm, is 63% biomass fiber, which can be used to make building materials, biofuel or biodiesel. 18% plastics, mostly recovered from bottles, reduced in size but not melted - once sorted, they are clean and sterile and can be recycled back to plastic processors or ethanol/diesel. 4% ferrous metals from food cans - all labels have been stripped and cans are clean ready for recycling. 1% non-ferrous metals, mostly from drinks cans, paint cleaned off and metal ready for recycling. 5% textiles in the form of rags and textiles, which are sterilized and ready for sale/collection. 9% other residues, mostly glass, china and rubber – they can be sold back for aggregate (Resource Reclaim Limited, n.d.).

A United States company, Global Resource Corporation (GRC), claims their process requires only a finely tuned microwave that uses 1200 different frequencies within the microwave range, which act on specific hydrocarbon materials, and a mix of materials made from oil to reduce the product back to oil, a combustible gas, and a few leftovers. GRC's machine is called the Hawk-10 and an example of its output from running 9.1 kilograms of ground-up tires produces 4.54 liters of diesel oil, 1.42 cubic meters of combustible gas, 1 kg of steel and 3.40 kg of carbon black (Bio-Medicine, 2007). GRC is now manufacturing the equipment that is revolutionizing the applications of tire processing, and future applications will include: shale into diesel fuel, coal into methane and hydrogen gas, upgrading heavy oil at the wellhead, plastics into gas fuel, and many other carbon-based substances into fuels without CO or CO2 emissions (Global Resource Corporation, 2008).

Another United States company called Changing World Technologies, Inc. (CWT), developed a process called the Thermal Depolymerization Process (TDP), which it designed to create resources and energy from any kind of organic waste. Using this process, any organic material can be converted into oil, gas, minerals and carbon, as well as sterilized water. TDP accomplishes this by using extreme heat and pressure to decompose complex hydrocarbons into simple, small-chained hydrocarbons. CWT developed a demonstration facility for the TDP technology where process refinements were accomplished as the TDP evolved into a more directed Thermal Conversion Process (TCP). According to CWT, this technology is more than 80% efficient and offers a closed loop cycle (Changing World Technologies, Inc., 2008). Their stance is that organic material takes carbon from the atmosphere as it grows. We harvest that organic material whether it is trees for paper, or oil from dinosaurs, and we put it into some kind of product. We then consume and use that product until it is no longer useful. The waste, which would ultimately break down and return carbon to the atmosphere, is converted directly back into organic material. This organic material is used to create new products, completely bypassing the atmospheric phase of its existence.

It sounds like the cycle is foolproof. There is definitely a potential for organic material to be cycled completely when we are talking about solid products for it to be made into and from which it can be broken down. However, when waste is broken down through thermal depolymerization and made into non-solid products, such as fuel, it puts carbon directly back into the atmosphere through its use. Sure, in time, it will be taken back up by plant life to become organic matter once again, and so the cycle goes. Is this still a responsible cycle? Is this technology the best thing for the environment and for humanity?

These are examples of humanity’s potential – advanced technology in alternative energy and alternative resources that address a possible solution to an ever-pressing problem. In their early stages, these technologies demonstrate the potential to transform every landfill into a resource-laden mine. They are also demonstrating a potential for the future of all waste management. Imagine waste management being synonymous with alternative energy production and alternative resource acquisition.

Test runs for research will pave the path towards the implementation of these technologies. If a conclusion is made that these technologies are truly responsible in that they are clean, efficient, and productive, then all former landfills will become resource mines. Instead of waste being “thrown away”, it will be thrown into the device as a very valuable source of raw materials. If these technologies become what they have the potential to be, we need to implement drastic changes to our waste management policies and practices. Where do we start? This is a situation in which local governments and the private sector will have to work together to successfully implement a new waste management regime.

Local government participation is essential in creating policy conducive to restructuring waste management within communities. More specifically, city planners will have the task of outlining a methodology in which hazardous waste and recyclable material are separated from the solid waste load. Once the solid waste is free of inorganic and dangerous compounds, it can be treated as a raw material and then processed. Furthermore, city planners will need to contract out labor for the installation and management of the TCP, Hawk-10, and VWP technologies.

The infrastructure needed to implement a project such as this is very much in the hands of local governments. Once that is in place, the private sector should take over and facilitate its operations.

Profit is the main motivator that will ensure these technologies’ economic sustainability. Raw material, in the form of garbage, will be delivered to the facility, and the party responsible for producing the waste will be charged normal disposal fees. Nothing changes for the consumer. The disposal industry, however, is now being paid to take raw materials, which they will then process and indirectly sell back to the consumer via the manufacturing industry.

CWT claims that their TCP technology can produce 4 billion barrels of oil in a year from agricultural waste in the United States alone. This is equivalent to amount of oil that the United States imports each year, and more than half of the 7.3 billion barrels a year that it consumes (Changing World Technologies, Inc., 2008). Imagine the possibilities if we created 4 billion barrels of oil from just agricultural waste, and if landfills were used to supplement our raw material resources! CWT’s subsidiary, Renewable Environmental Resources, LLC (RES) has been created to demonstrate these claims.

In Carthage, Missouri, RES installed a plant that is currently producing 100-200 barrels of oil per day utilizing byproducts from an adjacent turkey processing facility. This facility is converting approximately 250 tons/day of turkey offal and fats into approximately 20,000 gallons of a renewable diesel fuel oil and valuable fertilizer products. And this is only 30% of the plant’s capacity (Gelfand, 2008)!

It is extremely appealing that with TCP, Hawk-10, and VWP technologies, two crises could become one grand solution. But is it feasible? Would these technologies simply further prolong the ultimate end of oil resources? After all, there is only a finite amount of waste on the planet. If we keep producing waste, and if TCP, Hawk-10, and VWP technologies are supremely successful in converting waste to resources, then it stands to reason that all waste could become products. If the technologies are what they claim, then an efficient cycling of resources may be attained, thus negating the possibility of an end of resources.

Conclusion

The nature of our societies, economies, and industries has ended up producing a significant amount of waste. This waste creation has led to a depletion of resources, inspiring questions into the future. How are we going to create more things if we don’t have any more stuff out of which to make them? Where do we find more resources and where do we put the resources that we no longer want? Other questions are directed towards the environment. What pollution implications does our waste have on the future of the environment?

Identifying how this waste is created is a good first step towards figuring out a potential solution. One potential solution is in the concept of planning and designing of products. Products can be designed for recycling and waste minimization. Another, more feasible, solution is designing and adapting a process to accommodate waste production and resource depletion. We have the technology available to adapt our waste production problem into being a solution that fills in the holes of our depleting resources.

Environmental education has told us that everyone has to do his or her part in helping to lessen the impact to our natural world. While this is absolutely true in most cases, the beautiful thing about these technologies is that they do not require the participation of every last individual. When less participation is required in achieving a goal, that goal will be achieved with greater efficiency.

Although the problems of waste and resource depletion may seem overwhelming, humanity’s ingenuity and resolve have shown us that real solutions to our problems exist. If we work toward implementing those solutions, as preliminary examples of these technologies have shown, we will succeed.

For the future of these super-decomposing technologies, the best thing that can be done would be to ramp up the scale, and increase the efficiency with which they run. Optimizing efficiency levels for these devices will optimize their economic viability. Economic viability leads to social and political support. And support leads to success!

This paper has been written with Western countries in mind. However, there are enormous positive implications in utilizing such technologies in developing countries as a means to alleviate poverty. These technologies have the capacity to reduce the stress on the availability of overburdened energy and resources. Giving developing countries energy and resource independence would be a huge gain that could facilitate further progress in the direction of eliminating poverty.

Bibliography

Bio-Medicine. (2007). Giant Microwave That Recycles Plastic Back into Diesel, Gas. Retrieved on November, 25, 2008, from http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Giant-Microwave-That-Recycles-Plastic-Back-into-Diesel--Gas-22398-1/

Blazquez, R., Lema, J., & Mendez, R. (1988). Characteristics of landfill leachates and alternatives for their treatment: A review. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, Volume 40, Numbers 3-4, p. 223-250. Retrieved on November 25, 2008, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/q7nj9p0304354516/

Braungart M., & McDonough W. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press.

Changing World Technologies, Inc., (2008). The Solution for Energy Independence Is All Around Us. Retrieved on November, 26, 2008, from http://www.changingworldtech.com/

Gelfand, Julie. (2008). Waste-To-Oil Technology Selected as Modern Marvel. Retrieved on November, 26, 2008, from http://www.changingworldtech.com/press_room/index.asp

Gipe, Paul. (1995). Wind Energy Comes of Age. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Global Resource Corporation. (2008). Harnessing Carbon Energy without CO2 emissions. Retrieved on November 26, 2008, from http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/technology

Holling, C.S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems, 4: 390–405.

Kerr, Richard. (1998). The Next Oil Crisis Looms Large--and Perhaps Close. Science, Vol. 281. no. 5380, p. 1128 – 1131. Retrieved on November 25, 2008, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/281/5380/1128

Leonard, Annie. (2007). The Story of Stuff. Retrieved on November 26, 2008, from http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Mitchell, Donald. (2008). A Note on Rising Food Prices. Retrieved on November, 26, 2008, from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2008/07/28/000020439_20080728103002/Rendered/PDF/WP4682.pdf

Reclaim Resources Limited. (n.d.). Recycling Household Waste to Produce Electricity Removing Odour. Retrieved on November 26, 2008, from http://www.reclaimresources.com/Gasification_Electric_020508.pdf

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2004). What is the energy payback for PV?, Retrieved on November 26, 2008, from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

Those Turtles Were Kung Fu Fighting For Their Lives!

Unfortunately, sea turtles can't move as fast as lightning. So I took a weekend from my busy schedule to assist them in their fight for life.

A group of UPeace students and I headed out to Punta Mala beach, a bit south of Jaco, on the Pacific side of the country, where we met up with an organization dedicated to protecting sea turtles. We volunteered for their effort for the weekend.

It is said that only one sea turtle will live to adulthood from 1000 eggs. An average female sea turtle starts laying eggs around age 20, and can lay up to 100 eggs at one time. The temperature in which they develop determines the sex of the turtle. There are natural predators, but the biggest threat that faces these amazing creatures is poaching. A poacher can get between two and four USD per egg as they're used in a popular drink and some fancy recipes and superstitions here in Costa Rica.

We started our volunteering with a night patrol of a 5km section of beach at 9PM. We were hiking along the beach without lights. Lights would give away our position to any potential poachers in waiting. They also startle the turtles. After a few stubbed toes and linking arms for our own safety, we came to a small river. We had to cross to continue our patrol, but the water was only a couple feet deep at the deepest. Easy. The hard part was that this particular river is crocodile habitat. Yes, crocodiles - the ones with big mouths that bite and don’t let go. The one guy that was leading our volunteer team pulled out a tiny AA-flashlight and scanned the water for signs of the scary snappers. Everything looked OK so we pushed on to the other side.

Finally, we came across the path that a sea turtle makes in the sand on her way up the beach to lay her eggs. We followed the path up and lo and behold, a big ole sea turtle was making her way back down to the sea. We watched her disappear into the waves and the darkness and then we went to find her nest.

I don't think I'll ever understand how she managed to dig such a hole, and cover it up as if she'd never been there. The plan was to dig up her eggs and bring them to a protected environment. So, we dug them up. She laid 84 eggs, which resembled very soft ping-pong balls. We put them in a plastic bag and reburied them in order to complete our patrol. Upon our return, we retrieved them and brought them to the hatchery where we buried them properly (without the plastic bag). The night was finished!

In the morning, we dug up old nests that were ruined by flooding. All the eggs "drowned" so our task was to dig them up and prepare the area for future nests. We dug up 22 nests of destroyed eggs. However, we found one lone survivor that had managed to hatch but couldn't manage to dig its way out of the sand. It was severely dehydrated and very weak. We put it in a bucket of water while it adjusted to life. When it was moving like healthy little sea turtles do, we decided to take it closer to the ocean and release it.As the tiny newborn turtle made it's way to the sea I reflected upon the work being done at this facility. We put so much energy into ensuring that these turtle eggs would be safe. We gave them a leg up in the struggle to be born. We focused so much effort into their lives before they're actually alive, all I could think to say in my head to this little guy as he was pummeled by wave after wave was, "OK, little guy, now go be a turtle." His entire ecological niche and significance was lost due to my focus on just making sure he'd have a chance to be born. Either way, it was a beautiful thing to witness his release and ponder his future existence.
We left Punta Mala, sore and exhausted, and made our way to Manuel Antonio National Park. We spent the afternoon protecting our lunch from extremely aggressive White Faced Capuchin monkeys and raccoons. We swam and hiked in the national park, and then we headed home. Job well done. Hi-ya!

Panama, Panama!

I finished up my last class with a field trip to the northern part of the country, in a place called Sarapiquí. The class was called, Forests, Forestry, and Poverty and it focused on the dynamics of forestry practices correlating with poverty in Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

It was an interesting thing to consider that the methods used to harvest forest products can be directly related to poverty stricken communities. It's not something I've ever considered. I've always focused on the element of deforestation due to the mismanagement of forests. Apparently mismanaged things can have other consequences as well.

On our field trip to Sarapiquí, we checked out a few different things. First was a forest plantation. Traditionally I had been against forest plantations because it's human's manipulation of the forest and 100% unnatural. But I quickly learned that the land area used to produce trees on a plantation was far smaller than the forest land area affected by harvesting the same amount of trees. This means that the more plantations that exist, the less natural forests are needed to provide forest products to meet society's needs! Plantations are a form of preservation! Oh, what a grand new perspective!
Our next stop was to a sustainably managed forest. Even though plantations are far better producers of wood products, they still don't produce enough to meet society's overwhelming demand. Of course, consuming less is the best answer, but it's also the hardest method of which to convince people. Because of that, forests are still being cut down to meet our needs. The best way to do that is to do it sustainably. This means that we take a minimum amount of trees from the forest so as to not affect the forest's health. Sure, there are damages to the forest, but if trees are harvested in a way that the damage is not severe, then the forest can recover and continue being a happy, healthy forest! The plot of forestland that we visited was a great example of this. There were lots of health indicators and it felt nice to hike through it. At least through most of it. Half way through our hike, the rains of the rainy season hit us hard! It was intense! I had been walking through the forest delicately so as to not get stung or bitten by any of the terminally poisonous things we were identifying such as Poison Dart Frogs and Bullet Ants. I've been attacked by Fire Ants and Army Ants during my short time here, but I hear it only takes four bites from the inch long Bullet Ants to end me! Yikes! Anyway, after the rain hit, my delicate hiking tactics went right out the window. I was grabbing trees and plants and soil, anything to get myself out of the valley in which I seemed to be stuck. I was at the end of the class so everyone that had hiked through before me destroyed all the traction I could have had. I was slipping and sliding all over the place! When I finally made it to the top and out of the forest, I was completely covered, head to toe, in mud - and soaking wet! No worries though, the intensity of the rain rinsed the mud right off of me by the time I got back to the bus...Our last stop was to a hydroelectric power plant, which has a unique relationship with the land owners of the upstream forests. The hydroelectric power plant knows that the consistency of the river flows depends on, and is influenced by, the existence of forests upstream. In order to preserve their interests, the flow of the river, they are employing a plan called Payment for Environmental Services. Through governmental money and coordination by a group called FUNDECOR, they're paying landowners to not cut down their forests. That is, the landowners are receiving money to leave the upstream forest land alone. Financial incentive for conservation! What a great spin on natural forest protection! It's been working great for the last few years with no signs of changing in the near future! It's a great example that I wish more governments would support.

So why the Van Halen title for a forestry blog? Simple - I had a five day break after this class finished and I celebrated by going to Panama! Panama! That and I needed to renew my 90 day visa...The funniest part of the whole trip happened when we crossed the border into Panama from Costa Rica.

There was some kind of fumigation chamber that the bus parks in before leaving the country. The purpose was obviously to kill any bacteria, fungi, pollen, etc. from dirty Costa Rica before entering sterile Panama. We quickly closed the windows in fear of being poisoned! The bus sat there and the temperature seemed to go through the roof! Nothing happened. Finally the bus pulled out of the fumigation chamber and crossed a rickety old bridge over a dirty brown river that serves as the border. Confused that no chemicals had hit the bus we decided to open the windows again for some much needed fresh air. Ah refreshment! On the other side of the bridge, the bus stopped in another fumigation chamber. Unfortunately we were oblivious to this action, as the excitement of being in a new country (50th for me!) was upon us! All of a sudden, we all got sprayed in the faces from something outside! Damn fumigation chamber! We scrambled to close the windows but were too late. I tried to use my lack of sense of smell and interesting work history to determine what kind of pesticide had covered us all. No dice. So Becca asked the border guard. "Oh, don't worry." He said calmly. "That's for the bus, not for you." Hahaaaa!!! We tried to explain to him that we had been sprayed and wanted to know with what we had been sprayed, but he was adamant about those chemicals being for the bus and not for us. Thanks, guy.

I was in a group of 10 other students and we traveled to some islands off the northeastern coast of Panama called Bocas Del Toro. It was beautiful there!We spent our days exploring different beaches of the islands in kayaks, hanging out at Caribbean Sea side bars, swimming our brains out, and not relaxing at all! It was a blast!I'm now back in Ciudad Colon, Costa Rica and have started a new class. Research Methods. Oh boy! As you can imagine, I'm spending lots of time, glued to my computer researching. Or learning how to research, as it were. I'm using this class to get a foundation for the thesis I'll be doing at the end of the school year. Get ready for some reading and editing! I mean, if you want. Seriously - please let me know if you're willing to proof read my thesis next spring-ish when I have it ready!

XOXO

Pura Vida's Just Another Word For Nothing Left To Lose!

Pura vida is a phrase endemic to Costa Rica. The literal translation is, "Pure Life" and it's used in all contexts of conversation. The symbolic meaning, from what I've been able to gather, is something to the effect of, "Hey man, it's like pure life. It's like pure. Like real life. It's like don't worry about it because we live in beautiful Costa Rica. You know, life is good, man!" Ah, if only it were true.

From an outsider's perspective, I feel that these people have been coaxed into accepting and even loving something less than mediocrity. Of course this isn't true for every Costa Rican (Tico). It's only true for the vast majority of them.

How can I make such a generalization after only having been here for two months? Easy, I have superior observational skills. Actually, the factors that influenced me to feel this way are the same ones I've seen in most other third world nations that I've visited. That is, a lack of infrastructure, piss-poor planning and development, pollution in urban areas, pollution in rural areas, poverty, alcoholism, huge disparity between rich and poor, and a general lack of interest/motivation to change/develop the community. These are just simple things I've noticed. I'm sure there are many more to be discovered if I truly delve into the matter.

What I'm implying is that Costa Rica has remained a third world country - I mean "developing country" - because of these factors. They are more indicators, really. Indicating Tico mentality. It's a mentality that is satisfied with just enough to get by.

Some could say that it's a good thing to be able to find a positive outlook on a life that some wouldn't consider positive. If indeed your world sucks, why not find something to be happy about? It keeps them content with what they haven't got. But for the people I've met in other struggling communities, being happy for the sake of being happy isn't good enough. I know there are people here who truly desire development - that is, they want to see their community become better than what it is. These people aren't satisfied with just enough to get by and it breaks my heart that they don't have opportunities to succeed. At least, not opportunities as I know them.

I fully support folks trying to inspire change and betterment in their communities. For whatever that's worth. But what to do about the rest? Humor them? Some guy accidentally stepped on my foot the other night at a bar. I turned around to see what was going on and he apologized. I told him, "No problem. Pura Vida." And the smile that overtook his face was incredible. It was like he was blown away at my understanding of Tico life. "Nothing matters, man. Take it easy. Life is great." Yeah, fine and dandy when someone steps on your foot. But what about when government corruption is stepping on your life?

Why do Ticos settle for "Pure life" when they could have so much more? By more, I mean solid infrastructure - nice roads, erosion control programs, phones for everyone, health care, better food, the ability to afford to own their own land, and so on.

There are some nice places in Costa Rica - sure. However, for the most part, this country is poverty stricken through a severe unequal distribution of resources.

I've had conversations about "pura vida" with some friends here, and some of them completely disagree with me. "I've been to a lot of small towns in Costa Rica, and the quaintness of them gives them character. I like it." It's kind of along the same lines of an argument saying that the drunk bum, who hasn't showered in forever, also has more character than just another suit walking down the street. Hmmm. Perhaps it's just a conflict of perception. One is interesting to look at and ponder about, and the other contributes to developing society. I guess it all depends on your priorities in life. Be happy with what you've got vs. Improve your world. I like to think that I'm on a path towards both. Why hasn't anyone else figured this out?Pura vida, man! Don't worry!

Amendment
Upon posting this blog, a friend of mine reminded me of a text I had sent him a while ago completely contradicting this posting. Here is the text that I pulled off of a menu from a restaurant in Amman, Jordan:

The rich industrialist from the North was horrified to find the southern fisherman lying lazily beside his boat, smoking a pipe.
"Why aren't you out fishing?" said the industrialist.
"Because I have caught enough fish for the day," said the fisherman.
"Why don't you catch some more?"
"What would I do with them?"
"You could earn more money," was the industrialist's reply. "With that you could have a motor fixed to your boat and go into deeper waters and catch more fish. Then you would make enough to buy nylon nets. These would bring you more fish and more money. Soon you would have enough money to own two boats . . . maybe even a fleet of boats. Then you would be a rich man like me."
"What would I do then?" asked the fisherman.
"Then you could really enjoy life."
"What do you think I am doing right now?"

My point is this: My hat's off to anyone that finds happiness in their life; anyone who can truly be happy with what they have or do not have. That's a rare thing, though. So in writing about "Pura Vida" it seems like I'm making a case that they are happy with their state. But observations of the their lives lead me to a conclusion to the contrary. There are complaints about being poor. I get asked for money because I'm from America. I get cheated on prices because I'm a foreigner. Theft is a huge, huge problem here. These actions are not consistent with the philosophy of "Pura Vida".

My philosophy is, if you want something, you need to work your ass off in order to achieve it. Complaining, stealing, and asking for handouts aren't acceptable. Neither is being dishonest about your life, especially to yourself.

I Wish I Was A Little Bit Smarter! I Wish I Was A Scholar!

The structure of classes at the University for Peace is not exactly what I was anticipating. We have a single class for a few weeks at a time and then move on to another class. I kind of like it because I can focus everything I've got into one class at a time and then move on to something new. Thing is, it's quite intense! I've never read so much in my life!

Our first class, Foundations in Peace and Conflict Studies, finally finished last week! It was neat because for the first part of the day, all students were together for a lecture. Hearing different perspectives from people representing different cultures and backgrounds was incredibly interesting. The student diversity at UPeace is something truly amazing and it enriches everyone's experience.The second part of the day was spent in smaller groups where we had discussions over the lecture and the readings. During this course, as the title suggests, we studied concepts and theories of peace and conflict. We reviewed case studies over particular conflicts, analyzing all the various components of the conflicts, and then discussed potential solutions.

It was a pretty interesting course, however, my lack of background in this particular subject made the entire thing incredibly challenging!

In between classes was a 4 day break/weekend. To celebrate completion of our first class, some friends and I headed out to an island and then a volcano for some intense travel days of relaxation!Islita Cedros (Little Cedar Island) was an 8 hour trip away from where I live via two buses and two boats. It's a tiny island without cars or even roads. We hung out for two nights with some local folks that Becca knows.After the island we made our way to the town of La Fortuna, which sits at the base of Arenal - an active volcano. Two boats, two buses, and 10 hours of travel finally put us there. We wasted no time and hired a guide to take us to some hot springs. It was late at night, and the tourist host springs had all closed. Our guide took us to some hot river in the middle of the forest. It was awesome! The water was somewhere around 100 degrees and we hung out in it for three wonderful hours!Had to leave in the morning... We only needed two buses and seven hours to get home. Just in time to do my reading for school the next day, and then go to bed.

The class I'm taking now is Forests, Forestry, and Poverty. It's starting out great! So sorry for all the emails to which I haven't responded. Along with my struggle to keep up with school work, I equally struggle with keeping up with emails. More to come! XOXO!

I've started another online photo album of my activities in Costa Rica. If you want to see more images that go along with these stories, check out this address: http://picasaweb.google.com/00Judkins/CostaRicaUniversityForPeace!

UPeace - Save the Water!

The school has done a fine job in scaring me with punishments over plagiarism. In fact, for fear of being caught plagiarizing my self, I'm posting my essays as "rough drafts" from now on, to which I welcome your critiquing on my amazing grammar skills and word choices!

Save the Water

Andrew Judkins – NRP
Foundations in Peace and Conflict Studies
Key Challenges to Peace
September 14, 2008

A flood of tensions and tempers has been flowing over the last few years on the Columbia Plateau of Washington State. Stakeholders in the conflict over water usage and management are at odds over legal water rights and morale water dilemmas. The Columbia Basin Project redistributed the waters of the Columbia River to be used for irrigation over thousands of miles of main canals, laterals, drains and wasteways. There is now an increasing human population, with increased water demands, which is not soaking up enough justification for water usage when contrasted with decimated salmon populations.

The Columbia Basin Project, usually mentioned synonymously with the capstone components of Grand Coulee Dam and Roosevelt Lake, actually consists of several dams, reservoirs, and canals. A total of 331 miles of main canals carry water siphoned off the Columbia River, stored in reservoirs, pumped and diverted onward via 1,339 miles of lateral canals; this massive diversion sprinkles the high desert with enough water to create an agricultural empire based in central and eastern Washington State. Currently just over 670,000 acres of land receive irrigation waters from the Columbia Basin Project, with nearly 1,100,000 acres classified as irrigable within its boundaries (Bloodworth & White, 2008).

The typical Pacific Northwest climate contains a 3-month summer drought, which puts a great strain on the water needs of Northwest farmers. The farmers end up wanting more water than their water rights entitle them. Their demand for water puts a heavy burden on the water flow of the river. Less water in the river means an altered hydrology, which impacts the river ecology. It’s the river ecology that the anadramous salmon depend on to complete their life cycle and fulfill their niche in the greater ecological perspective.

Peak flow of the upper Columbia River usually occurs in mid-June, and water releases are made from dams in July and August to ensure adequate water in the lower Columbia River to enhance fish migration (United States Bureau of Reclamation, n.d.). However, these are the dry months that the farmers need increased water loads for irrigation. This is a region accustomed to 6 to 10 inches of annual rainfall, and it is receiving 40 to 50 inches of excess irrigation water (Bloodworth & White, 2008). This competition has the agriculture industry and farmers pitted against local tribes, fishermen and the fishing industry, as well as environmentalists.

The key challenges to peace in this water fight are pretty cut and dry. On one hand, there is a $3.1 billion a year agricultural economy that depends on irrigation water to flow from the Columbia River (The Columbia Basin Bulletin, 2008). On the other hand, there are environmentalists who keep emphasizing the need for increased protection of 26 species of salmon and steelhead that are already listed on the Endangered Species Act (Doussard, 2007).

Which is the more important natural resource? Is it the water that is responsible for an agricultural economy, hydroelectric power, and a watering source for countless species?
Or is it the salmon, which support centuries old cultures and traditions, provide a fundamental nutrient source for riparian areas, as well as sustains industry in the forms sport and commercial fishing in addition to being a crucial element of the river ecosystem? Asking the question, salmon or water, is a very extreme course of action and will not lead to a solution over this clash of ideologies.

It is evident that this issue is an environmental security issue. Increased fresh water scarcity is an obvious problem that Rolain Borel (2008) classifies as an invisible disaster. It produces conditions for human vulnerability as is clearly seen here as a major challenge to peace.

What if a better attempt was made to think outside the box was employed to end this water dilemma? Can we use Capra’s (1982) Turning Point to solve the scarcity of water issue? In his theory we can see that everything is interconnected and that a simple solution most likely doesn’t exist based on this complexity. He also states that all problems are fragments of one single crisis: a crisis of perception. Is it possible that a balance could exist between commercial fishermen and salmon supporters? Is it possible that we’re just looking at this conflict from a flawed perspective? Perhaps the mechanical thinking that leads us to this conflict with two opposing sides is extremely inadequate. Perhaps this shortcoming could be remedied with a bit of organic thinking. Considering all points of interconnectedness should influence possibilities that work toward breaking down the dams of challenge on the river of peace.

Delving further into these challenges to peace leads us to Quantum Theory and Quantum Peace. The interconnectedness of the world implies that although there is conflict over water between two opposing sides, it’s the relationships involved that can also make peace. The key challenges of this issue, when approached from a holistic point of view, seem solvable (Fontan, 2008). One example in action of this is recent Washington State legislation aimed at satisfying these quarrelling parties. The city of Kennewick received more than $1 million this year to explore ways to capture water during the winter and store it in an underground aquifer, then reuse the water during the summer months. At least one-third of any stored water would be used to support stream flows for fish migration and spawning (The Columbia Basin Bulletin, 2008).

Beyond the concept of Quantum Theory is Systems theory, which shows us that based on the principle of interdependence each system depends on the other for life (Fontan, 2008). This is a core challenge in achieving peace from this conflict. The river is clearly the base on which the conflict floats. The salmon supporters’ argument is based on the river. The farmers’ argument is based on the river. But how do they depend on each other? Both contribute to local economies – There is the sport and commercial fishing industry as well as the agricultural industry. One surviving without the other will not stabilize the economy. In fact, it would destabilize it. Combined, in this sense, it is crucial that they both continue and prosper in order for economic security.

If both points of view are valid, and satisfying both sides of the conflict would lead to a benefited human population as well as a happy population of salmon, why can’t we seem to find a solution? Perhaps we’re focusing too much on the demands of each particular party without focusing on a means that would allow both parties to flourish. What methods, then, should be employed to work towards a satisfactory goal in which farmers and salmon supports can both feel secure in having accomplished some kind of victory? Not a victory over the other side, but a victory that solves the conflict and allows each side to be independently pleased with a solution.

Using C.R. Mitchell’s model (2008) for types of solutions to conflicts, we can begin to analyze possible options to conclude this conflict that has continued to flow. Solutions of Separation are ineffective. Separating the two quarrelling sides doesn’t satisfy either of them. There may be slightly more water allocated for farmers by telling the salmon supporters to go jump in a lake. And it’s conceivable that there may be additional salmon in the river by telling farmers to go fly a kite. But isolating these two sides of the conflict isn’t a reasonable solution for the river communities.

Solutions of Compensation could be a possibility. If both conflicting parties were to make concessions and still meet their bottom lines, potential peace could flow instead of conflict. But how could this be achieved? Are these stakeholders capable of extending an olive branch in order to secure a solution? Can farmers increase the efficiency with which they reclaim and use the water in order to consume less of it? What exactly is the minimum amount of water needed in the Columbia River to ensure a healthy salmon migration? The possibility of a solution under the realms of compensation seems unlikely when the terms of the solution are reasonably and economically unavailable and immeasurable with today’s technology.

Solutions of Division offer another possible way out. Can a compromise be reached between farmers and salmon supporters? Is there a way to divide time and usage of the Columbia River? Alternating years, perhaps – One year the farmers get the water they need and a generation of salmon suffers. Though, it’s difficult to predict the impact that would have on the entire salmon population. The next year, salmon would prosper while farmers lose crops to the summer drought. This loss could potentially be governmentally subsidized, or even subsidized by taxes to the fishing industry. Some may consider this solution as a way out of tensions and tempers, but the solution does not really generate a real solid foundation towards a future peace.

Solutions of Distribution/Disbursement are not quite applicable in this situation as it deals more with the breakdown of power in a political conflict. Neither party in the river/salmon conflict has or should have more power than the other.

Solutions of Creation offer an interesting school of opportunities to resolve conflicts. Can water from the Pacific Ocean be desalinized and used for irrigation? Can farmers select less water dependent crops – after all, irrigating the desert doesn’t seem like the wisest use of resources. Asking more in depth questions as to the source of the conflict, asking why each party wants something, could potentially illuminate a solution that satisfies the needs of both parties. Perhaps there are common goals that can be reached.

The absolute bottom line is that the Columbia River has been over manipulated by human hands to perpetuate our own development. This manipulation has meant progress in terms of the economy and human societal development. Unfortunately, it has also meant disaster in terms of salmon species and riparian area ecology. Undoing what has already been done is not a reasonable thing. It would mean the sacrifice of a booming economy and the way of life for nearly everyone in the Pacific Northwest. It’s simply not an option. Can the impact that has already been made, be further modified and manipulated towards conditions that appear a bit more natural? Is it possible, through human ingenuity and resolve, to engineer a system that has the capacity to satisfy the water needs of the agricultural industry and still meet the water needs of salmon? A positive answer to that question will directly lead to a positive solution to this conflict. Better water management is key to providing this answer.

The comprehensive irrigation district management draft plan for the South Naches district, being developed with farmers and agencies by the Bellevue office of Jones & Stokes, proposes a variety of significant changes to the way the district manages water to minimize the adverse impacts on salmon. This includes improving a 90-year-old structure that diverts water from the river, installing a pressurized irrigation distribution system in some places, removing a dysfunctional fish screen, and developing alternatives to using herbicides to manage aquatic weeds that choke the system in the summer months (Earle, 2005).

For the majority of the region, however, this conflict remains as stagnant as the water behind all the many dams of the Columbia River. Communities and stakeholders continue to wait for an all-encompassing solution to get things flowing on the river of peace.
Bibliography

Bloodworth, G. & White, J. (2008). The Columbia Basin Project: Seventy-Five Years Later. White Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 70, 98-105.

Borel, Rolain (2008, September 02). Environmental Security. Presented at University for Peace.

Doussard, Robin. (2007 August 1). The Fight for Water. Oregon Business Magazine

Earle, Christopher. (2005). Farmers, government team up to save fish. Seattle Daily Journal of Commerce, Retrieved on September 11, 2008, from http://www.djc.com/news/en/11170266.html.

Fontan, Victoria. (2008 August 29). Quantum Peace. Presented at University for Peace.

Fritjof, Capra. (1982). The Turning Point. New York: Bantam Books.

Mitchell, C.R. (2008, September 11). From Violence to Positive Peace. Presented at University for Peace.

The Columbia Basin Bulletin. (2008). Landmark Agreement Could Open Up New Water Rights For E. Washington Irrigators. The Columbia Basin Bulletin, Retrieved on September 11, 2008, from http://www.cbbulletin.com/288968.aspx.

United States Bureau of Reclamation. (n.d.). Columbia Basin Project Washington. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Retrieved on September 11, 2008, from http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/columbia.html.

It's My Party and I'll Turn 30 if I Want To!

My birthday celebration started out with a super sweet email from the gals I worked with in Bulgaria. They created a Happy Birthday message for me that stole my heart! They're such sweethearts!It really made me miss Bulgaria and all the people I know there. Then I got selfish and started whining about not being with my friends and family for my 30th birthday. I started being a bit depressed that I'd be with a bunch of strangers to welcome in my 30s. But I was able to use my positivitiy skills to change my attitude! I tricked myself into believing that there's nothing like celebrating your special day with a bunch of people you just met! Actually, the folks with whom I'm studying down here have really impressed me. They're a good group with lots to offer. And they're super smart! And they come from everywhere! There are 161 students from 42 different countries! And they managed to make me smile for the entire day!

At the moment, a friend is staying with me until she can find her own place. I met Becca six years ago in Switzerland. We've stayed in touch since then and have now ended up at the same grad school! She took note of me wearing my new white t-shirt, which was a gift, and devised a diabolical plan!

In the mornings, before school starts, the students hang out at this outdoor, covered cafeteria. We were sitting around chatting and Becca came up to me with a handful of pens. I asked what they were for and she told me that I'd find out. Then she took my chair away from me, stood on it, and announced to everyone that it was my 30th birthday and that I'll be carrying these damn pens around all day so that people could come up to me and write happy birthday on my new white t-shirt.

Well, it didn't take long at all for me to be surrounded by a bunch of kids writing all over me. In no time, I was covered in all kinds of colors and languages. It was a pretty cool feeling. That Becca... She's made it onto my sweetheart list, too.So the day went by, and people signed all over me. I heard a lot of, "No way, you're not 30! Wow!” which made me feel nice, I guess. It wasn't about the age, I figure, they were just telling me that I'm still pretty. I explained that it was my superior genetics that allow me to look so beautiful. Of course, at the time that explanation sounded more like, "Thanks!” You know... on account of language barriers and whatnot.

That night, some of the folks in my program let me come over to their house and make them margaritas from scratch. We spent the night singing, dancing, watching Obama's acceptance speech, and other things I apparently don't remember. It was just like a 30th birthday should be!If anyone is dying to send me a birthday card, postcard, or a big ole salami, here is my mailing address:

Andrew Judkins
Department of Academic Administration
University for Peace
P.O. Box 138-6100
San José, Costa Rica
Central America

If you're sending something my way - Thanks! Just don't use courier companies such as DHL or FEDEX! The package will incur extra taxes and fees...

UPeace - Save the Salmon!

Well, here is a copy of my first grad school assignment. It was a conflict mapping assignment and I chose a conflict close to home. I've decided to post my essays here in addition to my better stories because I know you're dying to read anything I write. I'll specify in the title with "UPeace" when I do this so you don't get stuck reading my homework if you're not into higher thinking. I won't feel bad if you skip these blogs.

Save the Salmon

Andrew Judkins – NRP
Foundations in Peace and Conflict Studies
Conflict Mapping
September 3, 2008

The declining salmon population has spawned a conflict between sport fishermen and sea lions in the rivers and on the west coast of the United States. For this essay, we’ll look at the conflict happening at the Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River.

Salmon swim from the ocean, upstream towards their place of birth to procreate. It is estimated that the numbers of these anadromous fish were around 16 million before 1550. (General Accounting Office Washington DC, 2002) Not all salmon made the complete journey to their place of origin. Predators feast upon them as their numbers were many, and their health benefits were great.

Unfortunately, around the turn of the 20th century, the salmon run began to dwindle. First, commercial operations over fished the salmon population (Oregon Public Broadcasting, n.d.) and later hydroelectric dams were built. (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, n.d.) At Bonneville Dam there is a fish ladder that is designed to help salmon pass by jumping from pool to pool. However, as the fish ladder is obviously smaller than the Columbia River, there is a bottlenecking of sorts in the salmon traffic. This results in large numbers of salmon waiting at the base of dam for a chance to continue upstream. (O’Connor, 2008)

Their brief sedentary period provides prime fishing opportunities for local sport fishermen, or anglers, who immensely enjoy fishing. All were happy until recent years when about 100 sea lions decided to leave their natural habitat and make the 150-mile journey from the ocean to the dam for an all-you-can-eat salmon buffet. (Espenson, 2003)

Fishermen are under strict limitations as to how many salmon they can take per day and per season, but the sea lions are obviously not bound by any of man’s laws. Each adult California sea lion typically eats 5 to 7 salmon a day. (Stiffler, 2008) But it’s their methods, not necessarily the quantity that escalates the conflict. The easiest fish for a sea lion to catch is one that’s already been caught.

Sea lions lay in wait while they watch the anglers go after their prize. Once a salmon is hooked, the anglers make obvious motions in order to secure the success of landing that fish. This alerts the sea lion that their next meal is ready. Before the fisherman is able to reel in the salmon, the sea lion manages to locate it on the end of the line, and steal it. All that’s left is the fishermen’s fury.

The conflict between fishermen and sea lions is the result of underlying causes, which are yet to be resolved. Breaking down this conflict according to the CR SIPABIO model of analysis (Abdalla, 2002) identifies the factors at play in order to get a better idea of how to proceed toward a resolution.

The dam at Bonneville, on the Columbia River, is a very specific ecosystem that has been altered for the benefit of human societal development. A hydroelectric dam, an unnatural construct, has been placed on the migration route of salmon. It is like a barrier to the fish that is only conquered by the salmon that are able to figure out the man-made fish ladder.

Salmon use their sense of smell to navigate the geography of Columbia River in order to locate their particular birthing location, or contributing stream from which they came. (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, n.d.) Fishermen use their knowledge of the river and area to find the spots that offer the best chance at landing a salmon. Sea lions left their saltwater habitat and made a tremendous journey to a new location to partake in a salmon feast. These aspects of the geographical factor contribute to the equivalent of “the right place at the right time” for a conflict.

On a cultural level, sport fishing in the Columbia River and its tributaries has been popular since the era of the first Euro-American settlement of the Northwest. (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, n.d.) Sport fishermen in the United States take this tradition very seriously, spending 44.5 billion dollars a year for fishing trips, equipment, licenses, stamps, tags, land leasing and ownership, membership dues and contributions, and magazines. (Dean, 2007)

We can also identify class as a contextual factor when considering the laws involved. Fishermen are stereotypically working class men who use the weekend to relax by going fishing. The law that affects them in this case is the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, which states that these particular species of sea lion (California and Steller) are protected under the law. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1972) This means that fishermen are legally without options in what they see as an unfair competition for fish. When portrayed in the media, the blue-collar working class stands together and supports one another in the mentality that this is an unfair law – and being an unfair law, shouldn’t necessarily be followed. This can be seen in television interviews of local fishermen, grinning ear to ear in satisfaction at the idea that someone had recently illegally shot and killed six sea lions near the dam. (Gregoriancant, 2008)

The historical significance of salmon in this region is huge. These fish are worshiped by the indigenous tribes who have relied on salmon runs for centuries. Sport fishermen have also enjoyed the thrill of the catch for many years. In 1877, a U.S. Army lieutenant wrote about fishing for trout: “Caught 400 (cutthroat) trout, weighing two to five pounds apiece. As fast as we dropped in a hook baited with a grasshopper, we would catch a big trout. In fact, the greatest part of the work was catching the grasshopper.” (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, n.d.)

When identifying the relationship factors in this equation, we can see a bit more clearly the complexity of the event. Bonds identify the connection between sea lions and salmon. That is there is a predator prey relationship. The connection between fishermen and salmon could also be a predator prey relationship; except that anglers don’t rely on salmon for sustenance, as do the sea lions.

The conflict arises from the connection between fishermen and sea lions. This is a competition relationship that is illustrated by a breakdown of the power involved. Fishermen obviously have power over sea lions. We can see this easily by the sea lion shootings. However, sea lions have power in an indirect sense, as they are protected by the power of law. The patters that develop to escalate the conflict are that fishermen are shooting sea lions. This may stop an individual sea lion, but it doesn’t solve the conflict.

Taking a closer look still, we can see that the real source of this conflict is a depleted supply of salmon. The last 25 years of monitoring shows salmon numbers down 96% from what they once were. (General Accounting Office Washington DC, 2002) The competition between fishermen and sea lion isn’t decimating the salmon population. But had the salmon population not declined with such intensity, perhaps the issues in this conflict would not be so relevant. These issues are, of course, 1) sea lions eating salmon off the end of the anglers’ fishing lines, and 2) anglers retaliating by shooting and killing sea lions.

The primary parties involved are the fishermen, the sea lions, and the salmon. The fishermen have a direct connection to the conflict in that they are losing out on something they want – the salmon. The sea lions are directly connected to the conflict, as they are stealing fish from the fishermen. Secondary parties are the families of the fishermen who wait for their beloved ones to return home, happy, with dinner. Conservationists are also considered a secondary party that endeavors for sea lion preservation by means of trapping and relocating. Commercial fishing operations and hydroelectric companies can be considered as tertiary parties because over fishing as well as natural habitat blockading are major contributors to the salmon population decline.

The conflict that comes about through the combination of these parties and each of their roles is one that creates tremendous negative feelings in the attitudes of the fishermen. The success that comes with landing a tasty salmon is just as delicious as the fish. If they are prevented from even remotely achieving this euphoria, ill tempers develop and their subsequent reactions ensue. In this conflict, some fishermen are behaving in a way that escalates the situation and brings in third parties. The third party in this case is law enforcement who upholds the law protecting sea lions. However if you look at this from the perspective of the sea lions, you see that they are simply trying to eat. Their feeling of hunger is more than adequately satisfied by the theft of salmon on a fishing line. But their behavior is having grave consequences. They’re being killed as they fill their bellies.

There are intervening actions taking place to reduce tensions between fishermen and sea lions. Law enforcement is responsible for making sure fishermen keep their cool and don’t kill any sea lions. Though, should they falter, law enforcement has the task of preparing the fishermen for judicial punishment. Conservationists play a role to aid in calming this dilemma. They have taken on the responsibility of setting traps in the Columbia River near the Bonneville Dam. The traps lure in sea lions and hold them until they can be relocated to zoos or sea parks. (San Antonio Express News, 2008)

There are also interventions happening to increase salmon populations. Fish farms are repopulating salmon numbers by breeding salmon in fisheries.

These interventions pretty much outline the current outcome of the conflict between fishermen and sea lions. Fishermen are breaking the law. Sea lions are being killed. Conservationists are trapping and relocating sea lions. And fisheries are breeding and repopulating salmon.

Do any of these interventions or outcomes resolve the issues? No. That is an easy statement to make because the issues of the conflict are still currently very apparent.

In May of this year, six sea lions were killed and presumed shot. This killing was thought not to be merely competition-based in that a fisherman was tired of these sea lions stealing his fish. These particular sea lions had all already been caught in traps set by conservationists. They were immobile and incapacitated. It was assumed that while they pondered the confines of their entrapment, unaware that they would soon be relocated, they were killed in a hate-based reaction. In fact, a few days later they were discovered to have died of heat exhaustion.

Assumptions were quick to fly because it was entirely possible that those sea lions were shot by an angry angler as has happened before. How then, should this conflict best be resolved? Should the Marine Mammal Protection Act be rewritten or amended so that this small minority of sea lions is eliminated from the equation? It could be an easy fix, but this action seems quite inhumane. However, authorities in Washington and Oregon have recently been granted federal authorization to capture or kill as many as 85 sea lions a year for five years at the base of the dam. (Associated Press, 2008)
Is it possible to improve conservationist efforts to trap and relocate the troublesome individual sea lions that unknowingly escalate fishermen’s tempers? Can they be dissuaded from swimming up the Columbia River in the first place? Methods designed to answer these questions are being researched and implemented. The problem is, they’re not having a desired affect with respect to the magnitude and urgency needed to resolve the issues.

None of these potential interventions can be considered a viable solution to the conflict. The source of the conflict that needs to be resolved is the dwindling salmon populations.

Why are salmon disappearing? It’s easy to say that commercial fisheries are over fishing the oceans and that’s what is causing only few salmon to remain. I could also make a case that hydroelectric dams impede salmon runs to a degree that it is significantly reducing their population. Fisheries are hard at work turning out great numbers of farmed salmon to be introduced into the river and ocean ecosystems. Is this a solution? No. This is a temporary Cartesian remedy. (Fontan 2008) Yes, it does increase the number of salmon, but these farmed salmon have been produced without the fundamental ecological concept of natural selection. (Darwin, 1859) This error introduces inferior individuals. These farmed salmon pass on their inferior genetics to wild salmon, further corrupting the natural salmon population. We need further analysis using ecological, organic, and system thinking to identify a holistic approach at determining a real solution.

The answer is in every aspect of the human impact not only on the salmon species, but on the ecosystems in which they live as well. In order to resolve this conflict we must fully analyze the processes of our lives that have any kind of connection to their existence. Understanding an ecological perspective, using Systems Theory (Fontan 2008), of the continuation of salmon existence allows us to model our lives in a way that preserves our own future. Preserving salmon equally as a resource and as an essential part of the environment will ensure enough dinner for fishermen and sea lions for many years to come. Or, as George W. Bush so eloquently put it in his 2000 campaign, “I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.”


Bibliography

Amr Abdalla, et al. (2002). Say Peace: Conflict Resolution Training Manual for Muslim Communities. Virginia, USA: The Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences.

Associated Press. (2008). Trapped Sea Lions Shot on Columbia River, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/05/05/sea.lions.salmon.ap/index.html.

Bush, George W. (2000). Bushisms Audio Gallery, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-fish.htm.

Darwin, Charles. (1859). On the Origin of Species, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species.

Dean, Jeff. (2007). Economic Impact Of Sportfishing. Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://ezinearticles.com/?Economic-Impact-Of-Sportfishing&id=835942.

Espenson, Barry. (2003). Columbia Basin Bulletin: More Sea Lions at Bonneville Dam Enjoying Salmon Cuisine, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.bluefish.org/sealion4.htm.

Fontan, Victoria. (2008 August 29). Quantum Peace: Exploring a New Paradigm for Peace-Building. University for Peace.

General Accounting Office Washington DC. (2002). Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies' Recovery Responsibilities, Expenditures and Actions, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA405755.

Gregoriancant. (2008). Associated Content: Killing Sea Lions in the Columbia River to Save Salmon: Humane Society Vs. Fishermen, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/754297/killing_sea_lions_in_the_columbia_river.html.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1972). The Marine Mammal Protection Act, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/mmpa.pdf

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (n.d.). Sport Fishing, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.nwcouncil.org/history/SportFishing.asp.

O’Connor, Anahad. (2008). The New York Times: Trapped Sea Lions Shot Dead in Oregon, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/trapped-sea-lions-shot-dead-in-oregon/.

Oregon Public Broadcasting. (n.d.). History of Fishing in Oregon, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.opb.org/programs/oregonstory/fishing/timeline.html.

San Antonio Express News. (2008). SeaWorld Welcomes Salmon-Fat Sea Lions, Retrieved September 2, 2008, from http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA050608_SeaLionRescue_EN_3c997f0_html8647.html.

Stiffler, Lisa. (2008). Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Culling Sea Lions to Save Local Salmon, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/134557.asp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. (n.d.). Salmon and Steelhead Life Cycle and Habitat Information, Retrieved on September 2, 2008, from http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/spawningbed_protection/life_cycle.htm.