Another week, another example of environmental pseudo-do-goodery on the part of the University of Not-Bielefeld. This time around, the plan is to enlist volunteers from the university community to plant a Tiny Forest (their capitalization, not mine) on the grounds of the university according to the Miyawaki method. Through this action, the hope is to “ecologically enhance” small areas like the “classic dog meadow” .
In and of itself, it’s not a bad idea. As usual, however, there is a lot of crap floating around the idea that is more than questionable. (But ideal to help the forest grow. See step #2 below).
First, I know I’m biased, but, my God, can we leave the dogs alone for a second here? It’s amazing how often “man’s best friend” is on the short end of society’s stick instead of chasing it. (Not nearly as often as a lot of people, admittedly, but still.) Moreover and somewhat fittingly, dogs aren’t even all that welcome on campus, so who gives a shit? Definitely not the dogs and definitely not on that meadow.
Second, like the city of Not-Bielefeld itself, the university campus is actually already pretty green with lots of bushes and trees and comparatively few open spaces to enhance. Admittedly, there is a clear difference between some scattered pockets of bushes and trees and even a Tiny Forest (although a strip of grass qualifies as a meadow according to the University), but, nevertheless, what kind of extra biodiversity are they hoping for here really? Moose? Wild boars? Because there are exactly none of those in the (non-tiny) forest located directly adjacent to the university campus.
Finally, anyone judging biodiversity primarily in terms of more vs. less, good vs. bad doesn’t know their job very well. Is a forest an “ecological enhancement” over a dog meadow? For forest dwellers, yes. But any inhabitants of that meadow might beg to differ and meadows (without signs) have been around for a lot longer than either humans or dogs. Does this mean that Nature failed Biodiversity 101? Or is it more likely a case that the person in charge has an advanced degree in Anthropocentrism and thinks that more complex environments are simply those where we can see more big plants and big animals? The key to biodiversity, you see, is actually right there in the name, namely diversity. And not just within any given habitat but also between habitats. Going strictly by the criterion of “more is better” ironically turns global warming into a good thing because we’ll be upgrading all that low-rent tundra into something much more ecologically productive. And, any extra deserts can be easily handled via the “Irrigation method”, thereby using all the excess water from the melting of the polar ice caps that we’re going to have to find a use for anyway. (But only if we think that keeping Holland and the US eastern seaboard around is a good idea.)
Easy …
Again, I’m not saying that this action is a bad thing and certainly every little environmental effort helps. Instead, what bothers me about it (and related actions on the part of the University of Not-Bielefeld) is that they all seem much more like publicity stunts rather than anything rooted in deep conviction. Often the time, energy, and money that the University has invested in promoting their sense of environmental responsibility has far exceeded their investment in the actual actions themselves.
Take the gratuitous bit of namedropping in this case. Ever heard of the Miyawaki method before? Me neither. Sounds fancy and official though, doesn’t it? The reality, however, is that the method essentially boils down to the following four, really simple steps:
- scope out the native plant species that comprise mature forests in the area,
- fertilize the designated plot as needed,
- plant the desired, native seedlings in a dense, mixed manner, and
- weed the plot as needed for up to three years.
With no offense to Akira Miyawaki (especially because the Tiny-Forest method itself seems to stem from the Indian engineer Shubhendu Sharma based on Miyawaki’s ideas), but as much as this method might have been a revelation in highly industrialized (i.e., barely ecologically conscious), post World War II, western societies, it hardly seems like rocket science now. Much of its appeal seems to lie in it enabling a mature forest to be established in decades rather than the more usual centuries because it avoids all those intermediate, regenerative steps with other plant species that Nature throws in. But, what’s the rush? Like a dog meadow, these intermediate, successional habitats also support their own biodiversity and so aren’t unimportant either. And even mature forests have immature bits in them and, gasp, sometimes also Tiny Meadows. But, no, we need our better kind of biodiversity now and especially in a way where we don’t get our hands all that dirty.
Speaking of which …
The homepage for the event also has a FAQ where one of the questions answered is what kind of clothes the volunteers need to wear for the event. Really? Do you really need to tell people at a university that they should wear clothes that can get dirty when planting trees? (Even more idiotic, however, is the next sentence in this same answer where they advise people that “certain weather conditions can prevail at the end of November to which the clothing should be adapted”. (And this wasn’t just a bad translation because the original German wording was word-for-word just as self-importantly uninformative.) George Carlin would go nuts here. First off, the end of November is not some magical time. Certain weather conditions prevail at any time of the year you can think of. And why not go out on a limb and actually name those conditions, namely cold and wet? Scared of a lawsuit in case it turns out to be hot and dry and some by-the-book moron collapses because they showed up in a waterproof polar-exploration suit regardless? Finally, if you have to say anything here at all—and you don’t—just say that everyone should dress appropriately for the weather on that day.)
Finally, like I said, it’s an awful lot of hype for such low-hanging fruit, which, when you consider that we’re talking about a Tiny Forest here, are hanging even lower than normal. Yes, the University of Not-Bielefeld did put up some new windows with built-in solar panels on my building this past year (replacing some of the surrounding bushes with biodiversity enhancing paving stones in the process), but then that helps lower their energy bill too, doesn’t it? What about some real and selfless investments, like installing green roofs on all the buildings or replacing the other windows in my building, which at 40 years old are at least 10 years past a normal window’s functional lifespan of about 15 to 30 years? Or maybe mothballing all those gas-powered leafblowers in favour of a few more people with a few more rakes? Or just leaving the leaves? Nature always seemed to find something to do with them, even back in the day when there were more trees and fewer meadows or paving stones.
Nah …
The problem here is that most real solutions cost real money and are usually much harder to advertise. No one will see your self-congratulatory sign on a green roof now will they?
If the university wants to shamelessly promote itself, so be it. Let’s just see some truth and balance in the process though. For instance, since I’ve been at the University of Not-Bielefeld, the university has been putting up new buildings at a rate of one building about every two years or so. New buildings, of course, are great for PR: big, shiny, and complete with over-sized scissors for the press to photograph at the official ribbon-cutting ceremony. But, how about also including a new sign with each new building to round out all that self-promotion?
The Blog About Fog 