On Monday, January 28th, I attended a seminar entitled “Marine Life & Governance in the Plasticene Era.” I was able to go with my friend Camden and saw a couple other familiar faces of classmates and professors, previous and current.  The event talked about not only the enormous effect of plastic on our environment but also the laws and policy surrounding this wicked problem.  I was very intrigued by the title and the further explanation of the “Plasticene Era” as we are currently talking about the Anthropocene in class. As the Anthropocene is the suggested epoch name for our time encompassing how humans have affected so many different things on our Earth, the Plasticene is focusing on how human actions of using, misusing and overusing plastic is affecting not only our species but other species and to be even more specific marine life.

This event coincided very well with our class’s first student learning outcome about how environmental studies is interdisciplinary.  The lecture talked about where all of this plastic and marine debris came from and how it gets to our ocean and marine habitats and then further talked about legislation and policies regarding plastic. The impact of plastic in our oceans has a huge impact on wildlife, boating, human health, and interestingly enough aesthetically.  An interesting thing that Dr. Schuyler discussed was one of her research projects in Australia.  The research project was funded from tourists which allowed people visiting to see marine wildlife and explore Australian’s oceans, but also gave more space and time for research to be done! It was interesting to hear a positive impact of tourism rather than the normalized negative outcomes of it.

Further, into Dr. Schuyler’s lecture, she talked more in-depth about her research looking at the effects of marine debris and sea turtles. Her research went into detail about how lethal plastic is to sea turtles. Dr. Schuyler showed us a graph that illustrated the chance of mortality with the amount of plastic consumed.  If a turtle consumed 14 pieces of plastic then they had a 50% chance of mortality. As surprising as that may seem, the graph also showed that by consuming just one piece of plastic a turtle’s chance of mortality went to 22%.

The last portion of her lecture focused on the possible and necessary change that needs to happen.  She reviewed the plastic pipeline which showed the basic journey of plastic from production to consumer usage to litter and disposal. This pipeline has many different ways that plastic can get into our ocean which allows many different solutions to help stop plastic from continuing its journey into our ocean.  Ideas of mushroom packaging and bag bans were ways to eliminate plastic from the source of the production and consumer.  Furthermore, cleanup groups and individual help was focused on.  As she explained all the different ways to decrease plastic use and eliminate plastic movement to our oceans, it was important to realize that there are so many different ways that this issue could be combated.

The major takeaway from this lecture for me was to continue to be an activist and educator in the harmful effects of plastic. Dr. Schuyler encouraged the room to go far beyond just using reusable bags, straws, and water bottles, but to further educate friends and families and to do anything from art to research to help end the Plasticene.

–Raquel LaRocca

A few years ago, I saw an extremely powerful video that has been ruminating in the back of my mind. Our class discussions and readings about media and the role it plays in our lives sparked my interest in looking a little further into it. It’s called Nature is Speaking (link here, I highly suggest watching it. It’s only two minutes long), and it was produced and released by Conservation International, a non-profit organization founded in the 80’s. Since discussing resources and their intent and agendas, I wanted to look into Conservation International further, and understand a little more about the video and it’s intentions.

Conservation International was founded with the intent of supporting, promoting and starting conservation initiatives. My initial question about the video and its source was how it could obtain such a large celebrity presence. Like “Mother Nature”, there are twelve other videos within the #NatureIsSpeaking initiative. Each is narrated by A-list celebrity, including Robert Redford, Penelope Cruz, Liam Neeson, and Ed Norton to name a few. Aside from the usual willingness to participate in activism projects, how could so many prominent actors be involved in this single project? Hardly scratching the surface of CI’s history and leadership led me to the explanation: the Vice Chair of the organization is Harrison Ford. This is an excellent example of how with leverage, resources and undoubtedly privilege, there is a whole world of opportunity unlocked, but only for those with a key.

Over time, with criticism from environmentalists, Conservation International’s scope has changed. Rather than concentrate on conservation alone, CI’s mission now involves sustainable development for productive and sustainable use of the environment, rather than total avoidance of use. In one of our supplemental readings, A Brief History of Sustainability, Robertson discusses the historic shift from conservationist mindsets to ecological mindsets. The major difference here is the idea of earth being of use to humans, versus the earth being valuable in itself. This of course relates to our discussions about ethics, intrinsic value and deeply ingrained issues with environmental justice, especially in relation to conservation.

In viewing CI’s website, and reading through their mission, current work and history, it is clear that the overarching view of the nonprofit is anthropocentric. The website includes phrases like, “Humanity is totally dependent on nature, and by saving nature, we’re saving ourselves.” This is entirely anthropocentric, nearly eliminating the intrinsic value of nature. That phrase continues on with “To that end, Conservation International is working to build a healthier, more prosperous and more productive planet.” Within the history of the development of environmental ethics, this framework fits snugly in what Arne Næss would call “shallow ecology”. For any environmentalist at heart, who appreciates nature for its intrinsic value, with so-called “environmental egalitarianism” as their foundation, this anthropocentric mindset can be hard to swallow. When being extra critical, the website alone for CI can be said to raise humans to a high pedestal, emphasizing the numerous Earth services we are destroying minute by minute and how critical they are to our survival- the planet’s value be damned. In their website panel entitled “Why we exist” they finish by saying that working toward a sustainable society we ensure we “don’t use up today what we’re going to need tomorrow.” True, but it’s still unsettling.

This made me seriously consider my own opinion on the subject, our reading on ethics, and the video that inspired this evaluation. In my own value system, and guided by a personal moral compass, I believe in the intrinsic value of the Earth, its services, ecosystems and the many components of nature that fall within them. Much like Næss’ inspiration from the sacred mountains of the Himalayas, most people experience some sort of emotional or spiritual movement from their own experiences with nature. Most people also recognize the earth as the ultimate supplier of our basic human needs. So, does Conservation International betray a moral standing by promoting the protection of nature for the sake of humans? More specifically, does that video, which aims to generate a level of fear and shock value fall on the wrong side of the moral spectrum? I say no, because the aim to protect the environment and educate the masses should come first, above disagreements and criticisms about rhetoric and philosophy. Maybe once sustainable literacy is more widely achieved, we can better confront the issue of philosophy within the field.