Dust Bowl Of The 1930s Essay
In the 1930s, poor land management and neglectful farming practices led to severe soil erosion in the mid-western farming regions of the United States. Several non-eco-friendly farming practices led to severe topsoil erosion and depletion of minerals in the soil needed to maintain plant life. Without windbreaks to protect dry soil, lack of root systems to hold the soil into place; winds swept through the barren fields creating dust storms that carried precious topsoil across the country.
The dust bowl of the 1930s initiated one of the first wide-scale conservation efforts in the United States. Through legislation proposed by President Franklin
D. Roosevelt, programs were set into motion to revive mid-western farming regions and provide aid to …show more content…
farmers (Anonymous, 2007). Conservation efforts included irrigation, fertilization, planting of windbreaks, alternating of crops, planting and plowing under of nitrate rich crops, alternating of crops, and the resting/rotation of fields on a schedule. New land management practices promoted the revitalization and conservation of soil in farming areas.
A region once considered the “breadbasket” of America (Anonymous, 2007), through un-friendly environmental farming practices became nothing more than a dust bowl of environmental destruction. Poor land management, over-farming, and deforestation in the 1930s produced severe environmental damage adding to the economic depression in America.
The Balance
History teaches many lessons about balance. The great depression and the dust bowl in the Midwest are prime examples of the interdependency between the environment, economics, and society. Rogers and Hudson (2011) call this balance the triple bottom line. In 1929, the market crash created a severe economic imbalance.
Farming practices in the Midwest created a severe environmental imbalance. Each element in its own way contributes to a severe social imbalance. While the country was struggling through an economic depression, an environmental emergency added to the economic depression through limited food production and mass migration into urban settings. The chain reaction continued for a decade; including overcrowding, food shortages, loss of economic stability, unemployment, and substandard living conditions.
The Current Problem
In a desperate search for alternative fuel sources, Ethanol derived from corn became the “fad” of environmental desperation.
Corn prices soared and farmers ran to the market for the seed to grow the new golden crop. In 2005, Randolph County, Indiana’s county commissioners contracted with Cardinal Ethanol to build an ethanol plant that would stimulate a depressed economy, provide jobs for local citizens, and aid in national efforts to provide alternative fuel sources. Within one planting season after the construction of the Cardinal ethanol plant in Randolph County, Indiana farming practices in the area considerably. These change in farming practices come at an alarming cost to the community and the environment.
Going for the Gain
With the demand for corn to supply ethanol production, the market price for corn continues to rise. This rise in the price of corn encourages a change from normative goal pro-environmental behavior to gain goal behavior that is masked as pro-environmental behavior. Fields that once produced varying crops intended for human and animal consumption now produce corn for alternative fuel conversion. Farmers in the Randolph County area no longer hold the expense of shipping the grain to market and they benefit from the high market price. Less overhead in delivery plus higher market prices equals more profit. Steg (2013) describes gain-goal behavior as behavior directed toward improving personal resources (monetary gain).
Impact
Over-farming has a drastic impact on the environment. The over-farming of non-consumable vegetation also has a negative impact economically and socially. Again, the notorious triple bottom line surfaces.
Environmental Impact
A few of the environmental issues associated with the over-farming of corn include depletion of minerals in the soil, erosion of the soil due to defoliation to make more room for farm land (wind breaks and root holds), and pollution of the ground water.
Soil
Corn is a parasitic that strips the soil of valuable nitrates. A farmer can plant two cycles of corn as long as the stover (stalk, cob, leaves, and husks) is left in the field to replenish some of the soil carbons (nutrients in the soil). Unfortunately, stover is a waste product farmers may profit from
(Pearson, 2011). The waste (stover) from harvesting corn crops is converted into bio-diesel fuel.
The price of corn and the by-product from the stover encourages farmers to act in environmentally unfriendly manners. They fail to alternate corn crops with nitrate rich pod crops, they exploit the corn biomass for profit and leave the soil depleted of nutrients and soil carbons necessary for sustainable crop production. Over time, the crops produce less requiring environmentally invasive practices to continue and improve production.
Water
One of the invasive practices to replenish nitrates and carbons into the soil after exhaustion occurs is to saturate the soil with chemical solutions that artificially rejuvenate top soil. These chemicals are rich in phosphates that are dangerous for human consumption in heavy concentrations. Because the corn is not intended for human or animal consumption, most people do not see this as an issue; and over a short-term this practice does not pose a serious environmental risk. Over the long-term, groundwater supplies may be contaminated and the environmental risk to humans and animals increases.
. Real Impact
Shortly before the opening of Cardinal Ethanol in Randolph County, Indiana each of the farming residences became subject to a ground water and well survey. Within three years after the opening of the plant ground water phosphates had increased by 500% forcing residents to convert well systems over to public water systems. The contamination of the ground water was attributed to the farming practices that permit corn crops to be grown without proper crop rotation. Economic Impact
With the demand for corn rising for non-consumable use in the production of ethanol and bio-diesel, prices for feed corn (for animal consumption) and sweet corn
(for human consumption) have also risen. Additionally, because of the profit for growing corn on the rise, many consumable crops offer less to farmers seeking to make a maximum profit from land production. These factors have led to rises in food cost for the average American impacting economic balance.
Social Impact
When environmental practices are no longer viable economically, economic factors create an inequitable imbalance between economic and social factors. The rise in food costs associated with farming practices creates an imbalance between economic sustainability and social sustainability (Rogers & Hudson, 2011).
Chain of Impact
In a desperate attempt for our society to end the dependence on fossil fuels and develop alternative fuel sources; a great imbalance is forming rapidly between the triple bottom line. The chain of impact begins with a need for alternative fuels and a struggle against the clock of human consumption. Efforts toward sustainability must take into account the triple-line balance, technological limitations, and chain of impact before actions is taken to achieve.
Promoting Positive Behavior
One-way to promote positive behaviors concerning over farming is to eliminate and ban all attempts to develop fuel alternatives requiring the use of consumable resources and force a move toward conservation. Until the time when technology has advanced to the point of sustainable and sensible development of alternative fuels, then legislation needs to move toward consequential reinforcement of conservative behaviors.
The desperation to develop alternative fuel sources prompted mass production of ethanol, leading to non-eco-friendly farming practices and poor land management. This desperation was a direct result of the rise in oil prices to encourage conservation. The economic drives the social in turn driving the environmental, thus creating a circular cycle of continued imbalance.
The ability to promote pro-environmental behaviors derives from a balance between positive and negative consequences. Legislation forcing conservation (including rationing) could promote pro-environmental behaviors buying the time needed for technology to advance enough for the feasible development of alternative fuel sources without prompting panic and flawed action.
Negative Consequences and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Legislation forcing the rationing of fuel would be a negative consequence for non-compliance to conservation efforts. This is a solution that would permit more time for technology to advance enough to provide a solution that would not upset the balance between economics, society, and the environment. It would also present a negative consequence that is strong enough to bring the need for conservation efforts into public attention.
Positive Consequences and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Positive consequences encourage people to behave in pro-environmental ways through positive reinforcement. In FDR’s “New Deal” farmers were awarded subsidies for the practice of conservation and environmentally sustainable farming. The “New
Deal” model is an excellent example of positive reinforcement leading to reward. Even though forced conservation is a negative consequence of non-compliance to conservation efforts, positive consequences may be enacted to encourage a greater response to pro-environmental legislation. Offering tax credits/refunds for not exceeding rations, tax credits/deductions for living and working in the same zone, and rebates for the use of mass transit/carpooling are positive consequences for conservative environmental behavior.
Realistic Consequences
A more realistic approach to consequential legislation would be a blend of positive and negative consequences to gain control over environmental behaviors. Lower the price of mass transit and place maximum free usage limitations on fuel. People who fall under the free usage limits would gain rebates for conservation and people exceeding the limits would face fines for excessive use. By placing limitations on fuel consumption, this type of legislation would encourage and stimulate local markets, an increase in virtual workspaces, and create a move toward mirco-communities.
Technological Impact
Technology permits humans to harness the wind as electricity, convert UV rays into storable current, and to purify water for consumption. It also permits humans to connect through virtual environments (virtual classrooms, chat rooms, support groups, and virtual teams). According to Steg (2013) technology has the
“potential to promote sustainable use of the environment surrounding us” (p.
244).
Positive Technological Influences
Even though technology permits vast amounts of information related to public opinion and habits to be gathered, the most impressive technological influences on sustainability and conservation include the e-book, paperless banking, and email. Think of all trees saved since the transmission of the first e-mail. In the 2006-2007 enrolment year at the University of Phoenix, more than 160,000 students
(University of Phoenix, 2013) attending virtual classes gained a paperless education and in the process save hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel required for the commute to a traditional brick and mortar school.
Negative Technological Influences
Unfortunately, technology has limitations. Even with the fast pace of technological advances, current technologies do not come close to meeting or exceeding actual sustainable models. Currently technology is not advanced to a point of developing a viable alternative fuel sources. Technology proves as a negative influence because it offers the illusion of possibilities that are just outside of technological reach.
Influence of Environmental Policy
Environmental policies have had an alarming influence on the production of ethanol, the use of food resources as an alternative fuel source, and over-farming for the land.
Public acceptability of these alternative fuel measures is a direct result of rising fuel prices and a demand for more affordable fuels. Unfortunately, acceptability of the current environmental policies results in residual environmental damage, economic hardship, and social upset.
Conclusion
Current environmental policy and legislation requires a complete overhaul in theory as well as practice to manage the triple bottom line balance required for a true move toward environmental sustainability. This includes policies that protect food resources and prevent over farming for profit. While many see ethanol as a normative pro-environmental move toward sustainability, in reality it is a fruitless effort toward gain-goal oriented behaviors that will result in environmental, economic, and social tragedy.
References
Anonymous (2007). The dust bowl. Current
Events, 107, 5. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/196424075?accountid=458
Pearson, A. (2011). Does harvesting corn residue hurt soil health? Midwest Energy
News. Retrieved from http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2011/06/09/does-harvesting-corn-residue-hurt-soil-health/
Rogers,
K., & Hudson, B. (2011). The triple bottom line: the synergies of transformative perceptions and practices for sustainability. OD Practitioner, Journal of the Organization
Development Network 43(4). 3-9
Steg,
L. (2013). Environmental psychology: An introduction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
University of Phoenix (2013). Consumer information guide 2013-2014. Retrieved from http://cdn.assets-phoenix.net/content/dam/altcloud/doc/about_uopx/Consumer-Information-Guide.pdf
The dust bowl of the 1930s initiated one of the first wide-scale conservation efforts in the United States. Through legislation proposed by President Franklin
D. Roosevelt, programs were set into motion to revive mid-western farming regions and provide aid to …show more content…
farmers (Anonymous, 2007). Conservation efforts included irrigation, fertilization, planting of windbreaks, alternating of crops, planting and plowing under of nitrate rich crops, alternating of crops, and the resting/rotation of fields on a schedule. New land management practices promoted the revitalization and conservation of soil in farming areas.
A region once considered the “breadbasket” of America (Anonymous, 2007), through un-friendly environmental farming practices became nothing more than a dust bowl of environmental destruction. Poor land management, over-farming, and deforestation in the 1930s produced severe environmental damage adding to the economic depression in America.
The Balance
History teaches many lessons about balance. The great depression and the dust bowl in the Midwest are prime examples of the interdependency between the environment, economics, and society. Rogers and Hudson (2011) call this balance the triple bottom line. In 1929, the market crash created a severe economic imbalance.
Farming practices in the Midwest created a severe environmental imbalance. Each element in its own way contributes to a severe social imbalance. While the country was struggling through an economic depression, an environmental emergency added to the economic depression through limited food production and mass migration into urban settings. The chain reaction continued for a decade; including overcrowding, food shortages, loss of economic stability, unemployment, and substandard living conditions.
The Current Problem
In a desperate search for alternative fuel sources, Ethanol derived from corn became the “fad” of environmental desperation.
Corn prices soared and farmers ran to the market for the seed to grow the new golden crop. In 2005, Randolph County, Indiana’s county commissioners contracted with Cardinal Ethanol to build an ethanol plant that would stimulate a depressed economy, provide jobs for local citizens, and aid in national efforts to provide alternative fuel sources. Within one planting season after the construction of the Cardinal ethanol plant in Randolph County, Indiana farming practices in the area considerably. These change in farming practices come at an alarming cost to the community and the environment.
Going for the Gain
With the demand for corn to supply ethanol production, the market price for corn continues to rise. This rise in the price of corn encourages a change from normative goal pro-environmental behavior to gain goal behavior that is masked as pro-environmental behavior. Fields that once produced varying crops intended for human and animal consumption now produce corn for alternative fuel conversion. Farmers in the Randolph County area no longer hold the expense of shipping the grain to market and they benefit from the high market price. Less overhead in delivery plus higher market prices equals more profit. Steg (2013) describes gain-goal behavior as behavior directed toward improving personal resources (monetary gain).
Impact
Over-farming has a drastic impact on the environment. The over-farming of non-consumable vegetation also has a negative impact economically and socially. Again, the notorious triple bottom line surfaces.
Environmental Impact
A few of the environmental issues associated with the over-farming of corn include depletion of minerals in the soil, erosion of the soil due to defoliation to make more room for farm land (wind breaks and root holds), and pollution of the ground water.
Soil
Corn is a parasitic that strips the soil of valuable nitrates. A farmer can plant two cycles of corn as long as the stover (stalk, cob, leaves, and husks) is left in the field to replenish some of the soil carbons (nutrients in the soil). Unfortunately, stover is a waste product farmers may profit from
(Pearson, 2011). The waste (stover) from harvesting corn crops is converted into bio-diesel fuel.
The price of corn and the by-product from the stover encourages farmers to act in environmentally unfriendly manners. They fail to alternate corn crops with nitrate rich pod crops, they exploit the corn biomass for profit and leave the soil depleted of nutrients and soil carbons necessary for sustainable crop production. Over time, the crops produce less requiring environmentally invasive practices to continue and improve production.
Water
One of the invasive practices to replenish nitrates and carbons into the soil after exhaustion occurs is to saturate the soil with chemical solutions that artificially rejuvenate top soil. These chemicals are rich in phosphates that are dangerous for human consumption in heavy concentrations. Because the corn is not intended for human or animal consumption, most people do not see this as an issue; and over a short-term this practice does not pose a serious environmental risk. Over the long-term, groundwater supplies may be contaminated and the environmental risk to humans and animals increases.
. Real Impact
Shortly before the opening of Cardinal Ethanol in Randolph County, Indiana each of the farming residences became subject to a ground water and well survey. Within three years after the opening of the plant ground water phosphates had increased by 500% forcing residents to convert well systems over to public water systems. The contamination of the ground water was attributed to the farming practices that permit corn crops to be grown without proper crop rotation. Economic Impact
With the demand for corn rising for non-consumable use in the production of ethanol and bio-diesel, prices for feed corn (for animal consumption) and sweet corn
(for human consumption) have also risen. Additionally, because of the profit for growing corn on the rise, many consumable crops offer less to farmers seeking to make a maximum profit from land production. These factors have led to rises in food cost for the average American impacting economic balance.
Social Impact
When environmental practices are no longer viable economically, economic factors create an inequitable imbalance between economic and social factors. The rise in food costs associated with farming practices creates an imbalance between economic sustainability and social sustainability (Rogers & Hudson, 2011).
Chain of Impact
In a desperate attempt for our society to end the dependence on fossil fuels and develop alternative fuel sources; a great imbalance is forming rapidly between the triple bottom line. The chain of impact begins with a need for alternative fuels and a struggle against the clock of human consumption. Efforts toward sustainability must take into account the triple-line balance, technological limitations, and chain of impact before actions is taken to achieve.
Promoting Positive Behavior
One-way to promote positive behaviors concerning over farming is to eliminate and ban all attempts to develop fuel alternatives requiring the use of consumable resources and force a move toward conservation. Until the time when technology has advanced to the point of sustainable and sensible development of alternative fuels, then legislation needs to move toward consequential reinforcement of conservative behaviors.
The desperation to develop alternative fuel sources prompted mass production of ethanol, leading to non-eco-friendly farming practices and poor land management. This desperation was a direct result of the rise in oil prices to encourage conservation. The economic drives the social in turn driving the environmental, thus creating a circular cycle of continued imbalance.
The ability to promote pro-environmental behaviors derives from a balance between positive and negative consequences. Legislation forcing conservation (including rationing) could promote pro-environmental behaviors buying the time needed for technology to advance enough for the feasible development of alternative fuel sources without prompting panic and flawed action.
Negative Consequences and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Legislation forcing the rationing of fuel would be a negative consequence for non-compliance to conservation efforts. This is a solution that would permit more time for technology to advance enough to provide a solution that would not upset the balance between economics, society, and the environment. It would also present a negative consequence that is strong enough to bring the need for conservation efforts into public attention.
Positive Consequences and Pro-Environmental Behavior
Positive consequences encourage people to behave in pro-environmental ways through positive reinforcement. In FDR’s “New Deal” farmers were awarded subsidies for the practice of conservation and environmentally sustainable farming. The “New
Deal” model is an excellent example of positive reinforcement leading to reward. Even though forced conservation is a negative consequence of non-compliance to conservation efforts, positive consequences may be enacted to encourage a greater response to pro-environmental legislation. Offering tax credits/refunds for not exceeding rations, tax credits/deductions for living and working in the same zone, and rebates for the use of mass transit/carpooling are positive consequences for conservative environmental behavior.
Realistic Consequences
A more realistic approach to consequential legislation would be a blend of positive and negative consequences to gain control over environmental behaviors. Lower the price of mass transit and place maximum free usage limitations on fuel. People who fall under the free usage limits would gain rebates for conservation and people exceeding the limits would face fines for excessive use. By placing limitations on fuel consumption, this type of legislation would encourage and stimulate local markets, an increase in virtual workspaces, and create a move toward mirco-communities.
Technological Impact
Technology permits humans to harness the wind as electricity, convert UV rays into storable current, and to purify water for consumption. It also permits humans to connect through virtual environments (virtual classrooms, chat rooms, support groups, and virtual teams). According to Steg (2013) technology has the
“potential to promote sustainable use of the environment surrounding us” (p.
244).
Positive Technological Influences
Even though technology permits vast amounts of information related to public opinion and habits to be gathered, the most impressive technological influences on sustainability and conservation include the e-book, paperless banking, and email. Think of all trees saved since the transmission of the first e-mail. In the 2006-2007 enrolment year at the University of Phoenix, more than 160,000 students
(University of Phoenix, 2013) attending virtual classes gained a paperless education and in the process save hundreds of thousands of gallons of fuel required for the commute to a traditional brick and mortar school.
Negative Technological Influences
Unfortunately, technology has limitations. Even with the fast pace of technological advances, current technologies do not come close to meeting or exceeding actual sustainable models. Currently technology is not advanced to a point of developing a viable alternative fuel sources. Technology proves as a negative influence because it offers the illusion of possibilities that are just outside of technological reach.
Influence of Environmental Policy
Environmental policies have had an alarming influence on the production of ethanol, the use of food resources as an alternative fuel source, and over-farming for the land.
Public acceptability of these alternative fuel measures is a direct result of rising fuel prices and a demand for more affordable fuels. Unfortunately, acceptability of the current environmental policies results in residual environmental damage, economic hardship, and social upset.
Conclusion
Current environmental policy and legislation requires a complete overhaul in theory as well as practice to manage the triple bottom line balance required for a true move toward environmental sustainability. This includes policies that protect food resources and prevent over farming for profit. While many see ethanol as a normative pro-environmental move toward sustainability, in reality it is a fruitless effort toward gain-goal oriented behaviors that will result in environmental, economic, and social tragedy.
References
Anonymous (2007). The dust bowl. Current
Events, 107, 5. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/196424075?accountid=458
Pearson, A. (2011). Does harvesting corn residue hurt soil health? Midwest Energy
News. Retrieved from http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2011/06/09/does-harvesting-corn-residue-hurt-soil-health/
Rogers,
K., & Hudson, B. (2011). The triple bottom line: the synergies of transformative perceptions and practices for sustainability. OD Practitioner, Journal of the Organization
Development Network 43(4). 3-9
Steg,
L. (2013). Environmental psychology: An introduction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
University of Phoenix (2013). Consumer information guide 2013-2014. Retrieved from http://cdn.assets-phoenix.net/content/dam/altcloud/doc/about_uopx/Consumer-Information-Guide.pdf