C4nier’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I found out about black soldier flies this summer the old-fashioned way, they arrived in my worm bin while it was sitting outside one afternoon. You would be hard pressed to imagine what voracious eaters these little guys are! I was happy with my worms, which I now keep only inside, but there is something far more satisfying about the speed with which these guys take waste and turn it into black gardener's gold. Plus, a pair of Carolina Wrens raised their young on the larvae this summer and are still hanging around for meals. Surprisingly, chipmunks also visit sometimes for a quick protein snack. I just hope the larvae survive the winter...On Black (fly) magic posted 1 week, 4 days ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  narrow view

  I think that one of the biggest problems with news in general nowadays is that no one has the time to read the issue carefully, check the original facts and then form an educated opinion.  (I've been frustrated about this with the current campaigns lately, e.g. Obama's lipstick comment).  As a result we just consume the predigested leading articles written by people with something to promote.  Here I would say they're promoting controversy.

  My work currently is centered on invasive species information management and so I've seen floods of responses to this article over the last couple of days on the invasives community listservs.  These invasive species professionals have sophisticated critiques of the article (not all are against it) but I'll point out a couple of things that really bugged me.

  1. They use full extinction as their only measure of whether the impacts of invasive species are negative, and they are looking only at plants.  These species are entering complex webs of interacting populations and communities that stretch all the way down to soil microbes, which can be the difference between life and death for a community, but aren't readily observed or studied.  Disruption may not be seen immediately and extinction may not happen overnight (or be "observed"), and perhaps may not be exclusively caused by the introduction of a new species.  But it's one more barrier for native species to overcome in their struggle to continue to exist.  In the end, if natives continue to exist for now, but at a fraction of their former population size, is that good enough?  I would say that a diminished population size of any species is going to impact other species in that community in some way.

  2. As for introduced species adding to biodiversity, I think this is a simplistic view of the world.  As I said, I work with invasive species information.  If you peruse the databases on invasive species from around the world you will see that the same group of repeat offenders taking over New Zealand are also taking over Chile, Argentina, and South Africa - with a few exceptions and a little variation.  But my point is that although you are technically increasing the number of species found in a location, as long as natives do not go fully extinct, you are impoverishing the landscape globally because by number of individuals or biomass - however you measure it - these same 150 or so invasive species eventually make up the bulk of the landscape.  And I don't know about you, but I never walk through a thoroughly disturbed area with lots of introduced species and feel like I am in any kind of exceptionally biodiverse place.  I just think it's a pity that all landscapes in this particular bioclime are starting to look alike.
  On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 1 month ago 27 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Vakibs, I think you missed JFM's point...

  I don't think JFM would argue that the richer, and perhaps more cut throat, members of our society will always enjoy more access to resources.  I think what he was saying is that a simpler life is more enjoyable.  I think it would just as naive to think that you can't live a full life without working as much as everyone else, using as much energy and resources.  There can't be any brown outs if you're not on the grid...  On The Hilton energy policy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sure, mass car ownership...

  ... may be possible while repairing the climate.  You can still own the care, but you'll have to leave it parked and go by shank's mare or mass transit. We're deluding ourselves if we think there is any other way.  And now the scary thing is we're exporting our egotism to developing countries.  Since when did driving a car become an undeniable human right?On The privileged attitude of the motorhead posted 1 year, 9 months ago 28 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  No, PVC is never green, but....

  Brenna is right to point out that eco-friendly is not the same as animal-friendly, and PVC is an especially evil oil product that should be avoided whenever possible. But it's not necessarily true non-leather = PVC. In fact, many shoes marketed as vegan do not use PVC or vinyl, e.g. check out mooshoes.com.  Polyurethane is the common PVC replacement nowadays.  It's still petro-based, but not as toxic as PVC. It's also true that if you buy a leather shoe you might still be buying PVC, which may be in the sole or other components of construction.  Some of the larger shoe companies, including Nike and Reebok, no longer use vinyl or PVC in any of their shoes. But others like Saucony, New Balance, and even our old Chuck Taylor maker, Converse, among other companies, still use it. (Greenpeace has more info on this).  

  Of course, even if leather shoes don't have PVC in their construction they still can have harsh environmental impacts beyond the environmental costs and oil inputs of raising the cows.  Tanning compounds, usually industrial salts, are notoriously hard to dispose of.  I heard an NPR story recently that pointed to hexavalent chromium as still being the most commonly used tanning compound because of its low price.   Sound familiar?  It's the compound that was found in the drinking water in "Erin Brokovich".  But you don't have to drink the stuff, it's also toxic when inhaled.  In "A Civil Action" it's a tannery that polluted the ground water with TCE (trichloroethylene), a common industrial solvent.   Okay, enough environmental pop culture, but seriously, tanneries are, and have been for centuries, eco-nightmares!  

  Ultimately, we should be trying to reduce our overall consumption and just make do with the shoes that we have.  I suppose it's kinda nice that Natalie Portman is stumping for non-leather shoes.  But how much does a $250 pair of shoes affect the consumption habits of everyday Americans?  The most animal and planet-friendly shoes are still the ones that you wear for a really long time.  "Green" or "animal-friendly"  consumption is still consumption.   On Vegan vixen designs shoe collection posted 1 year, 9 months ago 24 Responses