Should I take a Creative Writing class?

 The joy, or dismay, of creative writing classes is that they are one of the few, if not only, times that a group of twenty people will come together and thoroughly read your writing. Well, let’s go ahead and make the assumption that the twenty or so people who read it on Reddit after you posted it on the ‘Emerging Writer’ page do not count as, well, their primary reason for reading is to convince themselves that they are better than you. This is Reddit after all, and that is how they roll: Shittingly.

 So, a creative writing class gives you the rare opportunity, yes, this a genuinely rare opportunity and not the kind you hear about on the ‘Dr. Oz’ show, of having college educated students provide feedback regardless if they feel they are the audience for the work. That last part is key; most people aren’t the audience for your writing and so your writing has few people who would even vaguely consider reading it. 

We all have interests. We all have subjects that we do not particularly care to read about. For you it might be the condom industry, for me, its cars. Cars bore me. You got a problem with that? Run me over. But hey, if that is what a student wrote about then that is what I will review. I will review it with the consideration it is not intended for me and as such I cannot, or ought not, judge it with the standards with which I am accustomed. I put on a new perspective, a different pair of glasses imagining what I would think of it if I were part of the intended audience.

So there is that, but what is the class actually like? 

Picture:

You enter class. The class is small. You knew this. You knew this the six other times you entered class. But it is nonetheless the first thought that comes to mind. Incorrect. The first thought that comes to mind is where the hell is the professor? Bastard. Damned MFA students think they are too cool for prudence. The room is poorly lit. It is likely below ground and there are no windows. The only fresh air comes from the vents ghostly breeze. Blue chairs, yellow walls, 80’s office tile, and a projector. That is your class and you hate it. Now you sit. A different spot. The guy with the bro-tank took the good spot next to the door. In case of a fire you, and the rest of the non-bro-tank-wearing people are doomed.

The time comes. Last week today you handed in your manuscript. Today, your classmates will discuss your writing for thirty minutes while you sit quietly.  The professor starts the timer and bam: You put on your thinking-not-too-hard face and stare at the empty chair across the room. You maintain this facial expression and hope people do not think too much of your left eyebrow being slightly bent to the right. People assume you are in pensive thought, thinking deep, melancholy thoughts. Or they think you look constipated. You never find out which one is accurate. Maybe both. And so you sit, for half an hour. Perhaps staring at the same spot is not the best idea, though. You consider nodding your head politely after each comment. Yes, even the bad ones. A creative writing class demands the keeping up of appearances. In order for you to do that, you must present yourself as a humble being readily accepting of feedback from your peers. Whom you consider equals, right? Sure.

When class is over and you are far enough away from the English building so that the chances of one of your classmates being in hearing distance is slightly too absurd for you to rationalize, you think to yourself what a fucking idiot every person in that class was. Except the people who liked your piece. They were cool. But then you think to yourself that they might be right and that your writing is that of a mentally disabled peanut. And then think to yourself that it was just a rough draft and so harsh criticism was expected. Ignoring the myriad of hours you put into it and the fact that you labeled it Final Essay with purpose you feel a vague sense of contentment. Forget what you told your best friend likely named John about it being perfect! You expected them to criticize your writing. Masterpiece? Never.  

That description is skipping the many other notable aspects of an intro level creative writing course, such as the realization that half the class has no idea what the hell grammar is or the meeting of the requisite  ‘thinks they are going to write the next great American novel but you know full well that they never will’ person. But you get the gist.

Is it good? Is it worth it? How the hell did that description help me figure out whether or not to take a creative writing class? I do not know. However, I can say that I have enjoyed my creative writing classes. I enjoy the thought that other people, though forced, analyzed my writing. That some of them liked it. I even enjoy the thought that some of the hate my writing. As long as they feel something toward it, I’m happy. Bullshit. No, I definitely want them to like it. But its still always fun to hear what they have to say. Plus, the instructor is a professional. That means you are guaranteed some great advice on how to improve your writing. Which is another thing, if you do not take your instructors advice on how to improve because ‘subjectivity’ or some other malarkey reason, get the fuck out of that class. They know more than you. A lot more. You also get some disturbingly smart classmates who read your pieces, sometimes, and they might provide some of the best advice you can get, too. Even those who are weak writers can give great advice on your writing. So, my advice is to take the people who read your writings advice. And how do you get people to read your writing? You take a creative writing class. Or post it to Reddit.

The Issue of Environmental Policy: A College Paper

The Issue of Environmental Policy  

The current political era that we reside in is vastly different than those that have preceded it. An overwhelming number of social, economic, and legislative topics that were once ignored have come to dominate the modern politic realm. One previously ignored area of discussion that is currently at the forefront of modern politics is that of environmentalism. Human beings for the longest time did not take into consideration that their actions could and would eventually effect the environment around them. In the past century, Homo sapiens as a species have collectively come to the realization that our long-standing tradition of ignoring how we interact with the environment is one that must be amended. Due to the efforts of countless academics, political reformers, and social advocates the topic of environmentalism and the issues associated with it have been brought to our attention.

            Environmentalism is extremely invasive in nature. It is something that penetrates the economic practices of industry, the political actions of sovereign nations, and the social/cultural beliefs of entire peoples. It is linked to every single component of human civilization and action. The relationship that people have with the environment is complex in nature. However, if there is one thing that seems to define human interaction with the environment, it is that we as a species tend to harm it. Modern day environmental policy is concerned with how our behavior can be corrected so that we do not harm the environment at all, or at least harm it to a lesser extent. Much legislation has been proposed and adopted for the sake of preserving and protecting the environment, in an effort to advance more harmonious human interaction with the environment.

As environmental issues have risen to the forefront of social discussion, a rising conflict has manifested. There are concerns that environmentalism is not aiding humanity, but instead hurting it. Some even argue that environmentalism is even harming the environment itself. There are many questions and concerns that now surround environmental policy. The most significant question that is being asked is, “Does environmental policy actually accomplish what it intends to?”

            This may seem like a strange question. Obviously if environmental policy is endorsed and executed then it must obviously accomplish what it set out to get done; that being to reform human behavior in a manner where we encourage the sustainment of a more mutualistic, as apposed to parasitic, relationship with our environment. But as many have pointed out, just because there is a façade that reflects progress, it cannot simply be assumed that progress is actually being made. If one is to critically look at environmental policy, whether it take the form of conservation legislation, emission regulation, or sustainable initiatives, it is abundantly apparent that there is no easy way to determine whether or not environmental policy is succeeding or failing.

The implementation of any piece of environmental policy calls for the suppression of some key or core component of environmentalism in order to further sustainability. Environmental policy in its current state is doomed to compromise itself, so it can further itself. The clash between application and ideological agenda has raised much skepticism of the functionality and efficiency of environmentalism. To fully understand the conflict of whether or not environmental policy actually accomplishes what it intends to, all one has to do is look at international emission initiatives such as Kyoto Protocol and basic conservation legislation. These two examples illustrate how environmental policy has a tendency to succeed as well as fail at the same time. However before looking at the Kyoto Protocol and conservation legislation, it is important to understand the history of environmentalism.

Modern environmentalism has its roots in the 20^th century, but many of the foundational principles of environmentalism are as old as humankind itself. Environmentalism draws heavily on the relationship that we as a species have with the natural world. Human conceptions of nature are thousands of years old, and came into existence well before the fist ancient civilization of the Fertile Crescent were established. Over time as civilization rose and human intellect began to expand, people began to critically evaluate their relationship with nature. The ancient civilizations of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Indian, China, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South America all forged some kind of religious pantheon in which the relationship between nature and humankind was portrayed by the interactions that human beings had with the natural gods. Over time, each of the ancient civilizations of the past created a natural philosophy that became the basis of social interaction with nature. Man and the environment were one in the same. They were interconnected in these early natural philosophies, but this changed over time. 

As vast legions and large empires rose, many ancient civilizations fell to the pressures of change. The overwhelming majority of natural philosophies that once existed were lost to genocide and assimilation. Eventually a select few interpretations of nature came to dominate society. The interpretations that survived were refined and developed by the academics and scholars of multiple civilizations across the ages. Eventually as institutionalized religions such as Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism made a rise to power in the epicenters of western society, they absorbed existing conceptions of nature and heavily augmented them. For almost 1,000 years human beings came to view nature as a substance to be exploited for the sake of mankind’s enjoyment. Nature was a gift that God created for humankind according to the Judeo-Christian religions of the world, and this spark a long-standing practice of environmental exploitation as apposed to environmental mutualism. The original conception that man and the environment were one in the same was destroyed by the introduction of a dualistic belief that man and the environment were two separate and independent entities. It is this belief that lead to environmental abuse.   

As the industrial revolution began in the 18^th century currently endorsed dualist conceptions of nature were challenged. When European society was reformed by industry and urbanization the impact that humans had on the environment came into question. The long-standing belief that nature was to be exploited was challenged by naturalists such as Lamarck, Darwin, Wallace, Linnaeus, and countless others who partook in a new age scientific revolution that was brought on by the age of exploration in the 15 century. With hundreds of European academics flocking to the undeveloped regions of the Americas, Africa, and South East Asia, a new conception of nature came into fruition. This new view attempted to integrate human begins with the natural world and all observable natural processes. This desire for integration was in complete opposition of the predominantly dualistic view that justified natural exploitation for almost 1,000 years of human history.   

In the early 20th century political leaders around the world started to take an interest in the preservation of nature. The dualistic view that asserted that the environment was independent of human life, and vise versa was declining. A natural view that pushed mutual interdependence was slowly emerging. Political leaders in the United States helped to start the modern environmental movement, in which legislative bodies actively deliberated about the use and regulation of natural components within a nation. American President Theodore Roosevelt was one of the first people in modern history to implement conservation policy aimed at preserving natural assets and capital. Later on in the 1930’s and 1940’s President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a distant relative of Theodore Roosevelt, helped to created the Natural Park Service in order to preserve large areas of so called “pristine nature.” He also provided government funding for research of natural systems and landscapes within the United States. From this point onward, the United States has been at the political, social, and academic forefront of environmentalism.

In the 1950’s many nations across the world slowly began setting aside untouched natural lands like the United Sates had done with its national parks. In Europe many natation’s funded research aimed at uncovering the effects that the World Wars had on the environmental landscape of Europe and Asia. It was in the 1950’s and the 1960’s that environmentalism became internationally recolonized, and eventually sensationalized. With research that illustrated the detrimental impact that industrialization and nuclear radiation had on the nature world, and more important on human life, environmentalism quickly gained recognition and attention on the international political stage.

On September 27^th 1962 with the publication of Silent Springs by American Marine Biologist Rachel Louise Carson, the modern environmentalist movement was born. With literature about the detrimental effects of human exploitation of nature finally becoming publically available to the masses in an easy to comprehend medium, the effort to conserve the environment and protect natural assets become a movement of all people, as apposed to a movement of those in political power, or positions of academic and social privilege. Since the publication of Silent Springs, environmental policy and research has advanced almost exponentially. It is with this exponential advance that concerns over the effectiveness of environmental policy came into being.

Climate change, and increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases have been a key point that many pieces of environmental legislation have tried to address. In order to prevent an unforeseen catastrophe due to climate change and elevated greenhouse gas levels, the international community proposed the Kyoto Protocol. Now “The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets” (“Kyoto Protocol”). In essence the Kyoto Protocol is a piece of international legislation that tries to get select nations to reduce their carbon footprint by making them embrace emission reduction commitments.

Since the inception of the Kyoto Protocol, 192 parties (parties according to the protocol are independently governed nation bodies) have signed the protocol and ratified it. In doing so a variety of nations have embraced some kind of strategy or action plan to reduce carbon emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is thought to be one of the most successful pieces of environmental legislation that has ever been implemented. It has reliably reduced the overall per-capita emission output of many member nations. However the protocol is still not perfect. There are certain problems that the protocol has not been able to address appropriately.   

The Kyoto Protocol only works if nations with the highest per-capita emission outputs commit to reduce the amount of emissions that they discharge on an annual basis. Developing nations with exceptionally high emission outputs such as China, Brazil, and India, are seldom likely to commit to the protocol, because it will hinder their economic development, which is a primary focus of these developing nations. Even if developed nations such as German, Canada, Australia, France, and so on abide by the rules and regulations of the protocol, they alone do not offset global emissions to a point where there is a substantial reduction in the net emissions produced by the human beings in a given year.

The Kyoto Protocols end objective is to prevent human society from entering something known as “Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference” or DAI. DAI is the point at which greenhouse gasses reach critical levels in the atmosphere resulting in some kind of global environmental catastrophe. In her book Field Notes From a Catastrophe Man, Nature, and Climate Change, Elizabeth Kolbert comments on the fact that:

“The term does not refer to any disaster in particular, although there are, it is generally agreed, a number of scenarios that would fit the bill—climate change dramatic enough to destroy entire ecosystems, for instance, or cause mass extinction or disrupt the world’s food supply. The disintegration of one of the planet’s remaining ice sheets is often held up as the exemplary catastrophe” (Kolbert 140).

This is something very important to note. Climatologists and other academics are very certain that some sort of irreparable damage will occur to human society and the environment if we reach a point of DAI, but it is not known what kind of damage will occur. 

The Kyoto Protocol aims to prevent human society from crossing the threshold of DAI, which is measured by the overall density of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Policy studies often take 500 parts per million of CO 2 —roughly double preindustrial levels—as the threshold” (Kolbert 141). However, the estimated DAI threshold of 500 parts per million of CO 2 in the atmosphere is being revaluated due to new research.  “Many climate scientists now believe that 450 parts per million of CO 2 represents a more objective estimate of danger, while others argue that the threshold is 400 parts per million or even lower” (Kolbert 141). The threshold for DAI is somewhere between 400 parts per million and 500 parts per million of CO 2 in the atmosphere. This is concerning because according to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography “Concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere are surpassing 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in human history” (“The Keeling Curve”). 

The data that the Scripps Institute of Oceanography has gathered puts atmospheric CO 2 levels at roughly 402 part per million. Data collected at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration placed global CO 2 levels at about 398 parts per million. Atmospheric CO 2 levels are averaged at approximately 400 parts per million.  The data collected by top academic research institutions shows that we are approaching the DAI threshold, and this is a downfall of the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol has undoubtedly helped reduced per capita emission in many nations, and has allowed for the development and advancement of new environmentally friendly technology and policy. The Kyoto Protocol can be qualified as a successful piece of environmental legislation, but it is not slowing down human encroachment on the DAI threshold.

 Many have argued that any and all advancements made by the Kyoto Protocol are mitigated and undermined by the fact that the protocol has failed to prevent progression toward the DAI threshold. If the protocol is not able to accomplish what it originally set out to do, that being to prevent DAI and the associated natural catastrophes, then how can someone possibly qualify this piece of legislation as successful or even useful? If something fails to accomplish what it sets out to, then logically it cannot be qualified as a success. The Kyoto Protocol like many other pieces of environmental legislations has both succeeded and failed at the same time. It has helped many nations become more sustainable, but I have not prevented global encroachment on a possible environmental and ecological disaster. It is threw instances such as this that the conflict surrounding environmental policy becomes apparent.

            Moving away from global emissions legislation, and onward to conservation legislation, one can still see the conflict between the success and failure of implemented environmental policy. Conservation legislation like all pieces of environmental legislation has the end goal of preserving and sustaining some aspect of the environment. The one thing that makes conservation policy unique is that often times the agenda of conservation legislation is to preserve the biodiversity or bio-evolutionary potential of organic components in the environment. In essence, conservation legislation aims to preserve the uniqueness of biological life. This has lead to a number of internal conflicts.

            To fully understand the conflict of accomplishment that surrounds environmental policy, it is important to focus on issues of cost benefit analysis within conservation legislation. When you look at the world of conservation biology, you see that there are a seeming endless numbers of instances in which human life is made to be subservient to animal life. This has caused quite a few dilemmas in conservation biology. The most famous example of how human being have been undervalued in comparison to endangered animals comes from the tiger conservation efforts in India.     

            In his critically acclaimed paper “The Authoritarian Biologist and the Arrogance of Anti-Humanism” the famed Indian historian, social philosopher, and writer Ramachandra Guha looks at moral issues surrounding conservation biology in India. His paper evaluates the tiger conservation effort upheld by the Indian government, and the international community. Upon reviewing what conservation biologist were doing to help preserve the tiger, Guha came to the conclusion that conservation advocates in third world nations were saving the animal but slaying the human. In his paper Guha points out that thousands of poor agrarian workers in India were forcibly relocated in order to make room for protected lands and wildlife reserves in which the tiger could thrive. When these people are relocated they are simply told to leave and find a new place to live. This is a difficult thing for these people to do, since the only technical skill these people have is that of substance farming. In order for them to move, they would need to find new land to farm, but the India government forces them to purchase farm land, which they lack the money to purchases. Additionally, many of these people are illiterate. They do not understand why they must vacate from their ancestral lands and never return, when the only explanation that they are given is that the tiger must be protected. They do not understand why the tiger must be protected. They don’t understand the importance of such things as bio-evolutionary potential and species uniqueness. Due to their ignorance they refuse to leave, and this results in the administration of force by the Indian authorities. This exercise of force in forced allocation of people has resulted in innocent death, and resentment amongst the people.

            In his paper, Guha asserts that modern conservation biology is not designed for the developing nations of the world. Conservation biology according to Guha is something that was created by the first world nations of the world, and is something that exclusively caters to the wealthy and educated. The tiger is an important animal that should be protected, but the livelihood of thousands of people should not be tarnished in order to protect the tiger. Conservation advocates do not effectively evaluate the benefits of conserving a particular organism with the costs associated with conservation. Basic reason dictates that the life of a tiger or any other animal is not worth more than the lives of multiple human beings. Yet conservation in the third world is ignorant of the value of human life. People forget that humans also hold bio-evolutionary potential, and illustrate species uniqueness. We often display theses characteristic in culture and social tradition. It is not only the tiger that should be preserved. In the conclusion of his paper Guha states that, “For the Chenchu hunter-gathers who have been ‘asked’ to make way for a tiger reserve in southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, the problem is that 'they have to pay for the protection of tigers while no one pays for the conservation of their communities’" (Guha).

            The conflict of interest that exists between the preservation of human life/uniqueness, and biological diversity/uniqueness is wide spread. In China, the government values the panda more than they value the human beings that they have forcibly relocated in the creation of Panda conservation reserves. In Africa countless nations have forcibly moved entire groups of people to make room for cheetah conservation parks, and elephant preserves. People around the world have been harmed due to the effort to sustain biodiversity on the plant Earth. Culture and tradition are being lost for animals. This has raised quite a large moral and ethical debate over the discipline of conservation biology, and the conservation legislation that surrounds it. It has also brought into question the purpose and effectiveness of conservation legislation.

            If you look at the conservation of organisms such as the tiger, cheetah, panda, or elephant, it is almost impossible to argue that conservation legislation has not helped to preserve the existence of these organisms in the wild. Due to the effort of organization such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) many organism have been saved from extinction. Conservation legislation has succeeded in preserving biodiversity and bio-evolutionary potential in other organism, which is the primary objective of such legislation. That being said, conservation legislation has harmed innocent human beings. It has driven unique characteristics of the human species out of existence, and continues to do so even now. As an extension of environmental policy, conservation legislation has the objective of facilitating and sustaining a harmonious and mutualistic relationship between human beings and the environment. In relocating poor agrarian communities and destroying may aspects of their culture; conservation legislation has not sustained a mutualistic relationship between human beings and the environment. In these select cases, the environment effort has acted as a parasite that preyed upon human life. This shows an inherent violation of the fundamental goals and interests of environmental policy.

            Another problem that conservation legislation faces is that of protection vs. preservation. This problem is best illustrated with the elephant dilemma of Kruger National Park. Kruger national park is located in South Africa, and is one of the largest wildlife game reserves on the African continent. The park is known for being one of the pioneers in the African elephant conservation effort. In the past decade, the park has faced a variety of problems maintaining its elephant population. “In Kruger National Park, some 13,000 elephants now roam - nearly double the 7,000 that was considered the optimum number during South Africa's apartheid years, when culling took place regularly” (Wilson). In the past, African elephants were culled. Culling is the process of shooting elephants to control their population. It was culling that almost led to the extinction of the elephant population in South Africa, as well as in many other African nations. It was declared illegal in a variety of countries in an effort to preserve elephants. The elephant population since the ban of culling has recovered, but this recovery has brought with it many problems.

            Elephants are nomadic creatures. They like to roam, and in many respects must roam to appease their ferocious vegetative appetites. Most elephants today are not permitted to roam across the African continent as they once did. “In many African countries today, elephant populations are confined to national parks and reserves” (Whyte 2). This has resulted in nature reserves and national parks becoming, “…conservation ‘islands’ whose boundaries are hard-edged up against the activities of people” (Whyte 2). In places such as Kruger National Park this has lead to a huge conservation dilemma.

            The elephant population in Kruger national Park is destroying the park that they reside in. There was a reason that during the apartheid days of South Africa that the elephant population in Kruger National Park was kept at 7,000 individuals with regular culling’s. That was the largest number of individual elephants that the park could sustain. Now with more than 13,000 elephants Kruger National Park has become crowded with large and aggressive herbivores that are threatening other park residents. When elephants roam completely free, there are a number of things that controlee their population. “In the wild, two things control elephant populations: natural mortality and environmental conditions. Calves and full-grown animals get sick and die from all kinds of things, from predation to viruses. And when the environment is unfavorable–during years of drought or food shortages, for instance–females will put off having babies” (Eveleth). Unfortunately these mechanisms are absent in national parks and nature reserves. Natural reserves, like islands, are closed systems. “In closed systems like conservation parks, however, neither of those controls is in place. The fences around the park keep out new animals and pathogens, and controlled park conditions make sure that there is ample food. Mothers keep having babies, and the death rate seems to slow to a crawl” (Eveleth). As a result overpopulating elephants “…turn woodland into grassland - killing off the majestic baobab trees that can be thousands of years old, and depriving birds like vultures, eagles and ground hornbills of places to nest.” (Wilson). Besides harming birds, overpopulating elephants “…have also been blamed for driving rhinos off their ranges, and threatening delicate botanical assets” (Wilson).

            In order to protect the other organism that resides within Kruger Nation Park, park officials are contemplating bringing back elephant culling’s. If the elephant population is not properly controlled and brought down, then many endangered and threatened residents of the park could be driven into extinction due to competition and habitat destruction. But, in killing elephants Kruger Nation Park as an elephant conservation facility is violating its oath and mission to protect elephants. The dilemma that the park faces is one of protection vs. preservation. Do you protect the individual organism, or do you preserve the greater ecosystem and residual organisms that are harmed by the organism that you are attempting to protect? If you protect the elephant, other creatures will undoubtedly go extinct. If you preserve the ecosystem you must kill innocent individuals in the population for the greater good. Regardless of what is done, the conservationist must make a sacrifice in order to either protect or preserve.

            The dilemma between protection and preservation is wide spread. It affects conservation biology as a whole. Many of the organisms that we want to protect like the panda, tiger, and polar bear are doomed to die out in a changing world. If we try to protect them, we just cause the death of other organism, and compromise ecosystems. Conservation biology and conservation legislation attempts to sustain biodiversity and bio-evolutionary potential. Sadly there is no way for conservation legislation to sustain biodiversity and bio-evolutionary potential without in some respect limiting or degrading it. There is no optimal situation for success. There will be loss no matter what path conservation legislation chooses, be that protection or conservation.

             Environmental policy runs deep. It like water has the ability to percolate into the smallest crevices. There no longer exists a single social domain that environmentalism does not apply to. Issues of environmentalism are now imbibed with all aspects of human action. In the modern political era it is important that one understand environmental policy, for it has the power to change the world, as we know it. It is important to comprehend that environmental policy is not perfect. All the good that environmental legislation brings about, as well as the progress that it facilitates is mitigated by the fact that environmental policy is inefficient. The conflict between application and idealism makes it difficult to determine whether or not environmental policy actually accomplishes what it sets out to get done. In the end there is no way to determine the effectiveness of any piece of environmental legislation with any degree of absolute certainty. All one can do is hope that more benefits are brought about by the implementation of environmental policy as apposed to detriments, which most assuredly will follow.

Works Cited

Eveleth, Rose. "The Elephant in the Room: How Contraception Could Save Future Elephants from Culling." Scientificamerican.com. Scientific American, 22 Dec. 2011. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-elephant-in-the-room/>.

Guha, Ramachandra. "The Authoritarian Biologist and the Arrogance of Anti-Humanism: Wildlife Conservation in the Third World." The Ecologist 27.1 (1997): 14-20. PDF File.

Kolbert, Elizabeth. Field Notes From a Catastrophe Man, Nature, and Climate Change. E-Book ed. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010. Google Play Book.

"Kyoto Protocol." Http://unfccc.int. United Nations, n.d. Web. 2 Apr. 2014. <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php>.

"The Keeling Curve." Keelingcurve.ucsd.edu. University of California San Diego, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014. <http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/>.

Whyte, I.J. “Headaches and Heartaches: The Elephant Management Dilemma.” Environmental Ethics: Introductory Readings. Eds. Schmidtz and Willot. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. 293-305. PDF File.

Wilson, Sam. "Elephant Explosion Triggers Cull Row." News.bbc.co.uk. BBC, 6 Nov. 2005. Web. 03 Apr. 2014. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4392800.stm>.

Other References

"Conservation and Environmentalism." Bentley.umich.edu. University of Michigan Ann Arbor, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. <http://bentley.umich.edu/research/guides/conservation/index.php>.

IUCN.org. International Union for Conservation of Nature, n.d. Web. 03 Apr. 2014. <http://www.iucn.org/about/>.

Tans, Pieter, and Ralph Keeling. "Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide."Esrl.noaa.gov. U.S. Department of Commerce | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/>.

United States National Park Service. "National Park Service: Discover History and Historic Preservation in the National Park Service." Nps.gov. U.S. Department of the Interior, n.d. Web. 01 Apr. 2014. <http://www.nps.gov/history/>.

Worldwildlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, n.d. Web. 04 Apr. 2014. <http://worldwildlife.org/initiatives>.