生三A 494550952 黃銘宗

自我評鑑：
在這門課當中，我所學到的法律常識雖然淺薄，也因為自己有幾次因為打工、回家的關係沒去上課，所以學到的知識並不足夠，但是我會將我所得到的東西盡量的打出來，我會希望自己有70~80分的分數。

收穫：
1.在這堂課上面，我看到的是許許多多關於企業、政治、以及對生態的影響層面有多廣。印象最深刻的事在後面幾個星期中看的影片，其中「成功的背後」代價到底是什麼？這門課給我最大的震撼點就是，看到了在企業背後失去健康、財富的人們，而我們常常只在乎經濟上的成長面。

2.
l 法規命令：分為規程、規則、細則、辦法、綱要、標準、準則。
l 法律：分為法、律、條例、通則。
l 憲法：憲法修正條文。
l 三權：行政、立法、司法。
l 法規條文結構：條、項、款、目、之一。
l 憲法>法律>命令，如果法律、憲法不牴觸命令，就由法理、習慣來與以規範。
l 民法184條「侵權行為」：因故意或過失，不法侵害他人之權利者，負損害賠償責任。故意以背於善良風俗之方法，加損害於他人者亦同。違反保護他人之法律，致生損害於他人者，負賠償責任。但能證明其行為無過失者，不在此限。(資料來源：http://law.moj.gov.tw/fl1.asp )

3.
中科議題討論：
l 設備問題、水源不足的問題。
l 建造設備：約220億。
l 用水問題：估計20萬公噸用水，若缺水時引用農業用水可能導致農業潰乏，且農民休耕的話會導致農民失業。
l 農民補助：政府補助的不多。
l 家庭用水與工業用水的管線是一樣的，都屬於公共用水。
l 廢水污染的問題以及斷層問題等。
環評法流程：
法院→行政法→撤銷訴訟。
法院→普通法→民法or刑法。


列出100件感官受到侵犯的事項
1. 在圖書館唸書時，有人在旁邊高談闊論。
2. 在宿舍睡覺時，聽到選舉造勢的吵雜聲。
3. 同學不斷在我旁邊放很大聲的屁。
4. 朋友未經我同意，”借”走我東西。
5. 打工薪水沒有準時被發放。
6. 在自家附近聞到有人燒東西的味道。
7. 自己宿舍的停車位被別人佔用。
8. 新年睡覺時，被清晨的鞭炮聲驚醒。
9. 飆車族將車子的消音器拔除，其車時造成很大噪音。
10. 朋友答應我的事情沒有做到。
11. 教室位置有人丟棄垃圾，讓坐在位置上的我必須拿去丟。
12. 同學咳嗽時直接面向我我咳嗽，且不遮掩。
13. 自己寫的文章未經我同意而被引用。
14. 借給別人的物品被遺失or損壞，對方卻不願賠償。
15. 借給同學的錢，同學不願償還。
16. 在公園中看到未被清理的狗大便。
17. 公車未準時到達，導致我上課遲到。
18. 老師上課的時候以隱喻的方式辱罵一些人or事情影響我上課情緒。
19. 某位國小校長增收學費，私自買了一輛車。
20. 電視新聞的偏頗以及播報不實，影響我的主觀立場。
21. 父母在朋友面前談論我的隱私。
22. 陌生人將我養的狗毒死。
23. 家中種植的檳榔被偷割。
24. 早餐店老闆遺忘了我點的餐點。
25. 陌生人喝醉在住家附近大吵大鬧。
26. 公共撤所髒亂，讓人不敢使用。
27. 自家田裡養的鷄被偷走。
28. 住家附近施工的吵雜聲。
29. 別人丟垃圾在自己的摩托車裡。
30. 自己的腳踏車被偷騎走。
31. 排隊買東西時，有人插隊。
32. 老師檢查學生書包的隱私。
33. 溜鳥俠影響我的視覺觀感。
34. 在理髮店剪法，被剪的很醜。
35. 買到過期的物品。
36. 被陌生人搭訕。
37. 被鄰居的狗狗咬。
38. 攤販賣的東西不潔，害我拉肚子。
39. 洗澡被偷看。
40. 綠燈的時間太短。
41. 老師無故遲到。
42. 颱風天沒有停課。
43. 老闆無故扣薪水。
44. 宿舍突然停電。
45. 宿舍網路突然斷線。
46. 自動提款機不能提款。
47. 公車司機不讓髒髒的阿婆上車。
48. 在大庭廣眾下，有人在我面前做….愛做的事。
49. 新聞播報出很噁心的畫面(EX：屍體等等)。
50. 朋友做錯事情不承認等等。
51. 陌生人當眾面前罵我。
52. 朋友對我毛手毛腳。
53. 同學拿襪子丟到我臉上。
54. 朋友用言語侵犯我。
55. 高中的時候被同學拖去”阿魯巴”。
56. 小時後常常被爸媽摸…..下體。
57. 朋友在我背後跟別人說我的壞話被我發現。
58. 吃便當的時候，我的菜突然被朋友夾走。
59. 陌生人突然跟我要MSN。
60. 朋友進我房間不敲門。
61. 日記被爸媽偷看到。
62. 朋友在自己面前，炫燿自己很厲害。
63. 在小號的時候，被同學鬧。
64. 朋友要我做我不喜歡的事情。
65. 同學在我面前做出猥褻的動作。
66. 唸書唸到一半，突然被同學吵。
67. 平常不唸書的同學，到考試前一天才跟我借筆記。
68. 沒戴安全帽被警察抓，可是旁邊的飆車族沒戴安全帽他不抓。
69. 陳水扁做的太爛，害我現在唸書要一直打工、害我爸媽要更努力賺錢。
70. 阿共仔用飛彈威脅台灣，讓我很惶恐。
71. 油價上漲，害我現在都不太敢騎車。
72. 圖書館位置被佔滿，害我不能坐。
73. 被當眾羞辱。
74. 王永慶賺了那麼多錢，破壞台灣生態環境，回饋到我身上的有什麼。
75. 和同伴認真作一件事情的時候，同伴不認真作。
76. 跟同學約好時間，同學無故爽約。
77. 投幣式洗衣機，卡住我的錢，結果不能洗衣服。
78. 同學說話會一直噴口水or在你面前邊說話邊挖鼻屎。
79. 住家附近的鄰居常把廢水排到我家後面的大水溝。
80. 朋友的腳太臭，讓我每次都覺得很噁心。
81. 朋友隨便在地上吐痰，讓我覺得很髒。
82. 有人學B.BOX嘴巴抽筋，讓我覺得…囧。
83. 陌生人擦太濃的香水，讓我想吐。
84. 有同學穿著太顯”露”，讓我……有陰暗的想法。
85. 坐在公車上，有兩隻狗狗擋在公車前面交配，司機鳴喇叭也不走。
86. 老師突然在課堂上說要小考。
87. 路人亂吐檳榔汁。
88. 在住家隔壁的河流，常常有人把烤肉完的用具丟在原地。
89. 被自己的好朋友背叛。
90. 做這個作業時，想不出有什麼例子的時候，讓我很煩惱。
91. 宿舍下面的脫水機，有人使用的時候聲音很大、很吵。
92. 住家附近卡拉OK店，有時候唱歌很大聲。
93. 同學身上有狐臭，讓我覺得很噁心。
94. 上課上到一半，有同學的手機突然響了。
95. 學校賣的東西太貴，讓我不太敢買。
96. 學校賣的一些東西不好吃，讓我不喜歡吃。
97. 學費太貴，一學期根本不需要花到這麼多錢。
98. 羽球場的飲水機裡面的水有奇怪的味道。
99. 學校吸煙區太少，讓我都要跑很遠才可以抽煙。
100. 住在我隔壁棟的房客，聲音很大。

生三A 潘衍良 494550499

1. 自我評鑑：你認為這學期修這門課表現如何、收獲如何，自己給自己打幾分？

我覺得自己的分數是69分。說來慚愧，其實我上課的次數遠比自己所預期的還要來的少(翹課、回家、上班等)，但是每次的課程，都讓我覺得感觸良多。或許從課程中所學到的法學知識並不多，不過在上課中聽到蠻野心足等環保團體為了捍衛台灣的環境，與當地居民或市身受其害的人們合作，挺身而出對抗因經濟(或者說是自身利益)而要犧牲掉這些人事物以及環境的財閥、企業甚至是政治人物，其中難以一言道盡的對抗過程、辛苦甚至是無奈感，皆在課堂上有親身實例的見證。



2. 下列三者選擇至少一項，也可以寫超過一項：　　a.就學期初各位分配到的議題作一摘要報告　　b.張貼本學期的參訪心得　　c.列出100件感官受到侵犯的事項

a. 土壤暨汙染相關法規

土壤及地下水污染整治法 (民國 92 年 01 月 08 日 修正)

第一條(總則)為預防及整治土壤及地下水污染，確保土地及地下水資源永續利用，改善生活環境，增進國民健康，特制定本法。本法未規定者，適用其他法律之規定。
第二條(定義)
1. 土壤：指陸上生物生長或生活之地殼岩石表面之疏鬆天然介質。
2. 土壤污染定義：指土壤因物質、生物或能量之介入，致變更品質，有影響
其正常用途或危害國民健康及生活環境之虞。3. 污染物：指任何能導致土壤或地下水污染之外來物質、生物或能量。
4. 土壤污染監測基準：指基於土壤污染預防目的，所訂定須進行土壤污
染監測之污染物濃度。
5. 土壤污染管制標準：為防止土壤污染惡化，所訂定之土壤污染管制限
度。
6. 土壤污染整治基準：指基於土壤污染整治目的，所訂定之污染物限
度。
7. 土壤污染管制標準：為防止土壤污染惡化，所訂定之土壤污染管制限
度。
8. 污染行為人：指因有下列行為之一而造成土壤或地下水污染之人：
(一) 非法排放、洩漏、灌注或棄置污染物。
(二) 仲介或容許非法排放、洩漏、灌注或棄置污染物。
(三) 未依法令規定清理污染物。
9. 污染控制場址：指造成土壤污染或地下水污染來源明確之場址，其
土壤或地下水污染物達土壤或地下水污染管制標準者。
10. 污染整治場址：指污染控制場址經初步評估，有嚴重危害國民健康
及生活環境之虞，而經中央主管機關審核公告者。
11. 污染土地關係人：指土地經公告為污染整治場址時，非屬於污染行
為人之土地使用人、管理人或所有人。
12. 污染管制區：指依污染控制場址或污染整治場址之土壤、地下水污
染範圍所劃定之區域。

第三條(主管機關)

本法所稱主管機關：在中央為行政院環境保護署；在直轄市為直轄市政府
；在縣 (市) 為縣 (市) 政府。


b. 參訪心得

這學期有參訪行政院農業委員會農業試驗所的土壤陳列館。乍看之下不甚起眼，卻藏有上屆屬一屬二的土壤標本，而且在二樓的展示區，館藏的標本以及對台灣及世界土壤、岩石的介紹、和土壤有關地自然或人為現象(天災人禍)，都有一系列詳盡的介紹。在經過一整個早上的流覽、欣賞過後，我們就到一家叫作法蔓的庭園餐廳去用餐，原本還有打算去地震博物館，但因有人有事故而作罷。
我之前一直覺得，土壤是冷冰冰的、髒髒的、給我一種髒污、不甚起眼的存在。然而在參訪過後，我對「皇天后土」這個詞語有了不一樣的認知。原來土壤是如此的重要，它不只是個在農人眼中的土、建築師中眼中的地基等讓人硬梆梆的刻板印象，土壤是活生生的，孕育著萬物、乘載著萬物，供我們食衣住行育樂…似乎，不只是人類，萬物的種種都離開不了我們腳下的「土」，正如同大地之女神「蓋亞」般滋潤著我們、呵護著我們。不過還有一句話叫做「禍福相依」，有關土壤的天災也深深的影響著我們，因為我們是必須仰賴土地生存的。

在12月08日，我們去參加在台北國父紀念館前廣場舉辦的抗暖化大遊行。在為時近4、5個小時的活動中，從集合、整隊、台上的演講或喊話以及台下的自己人的活動，行成一幅熱鬧的圖樣。而在開始遊行時，對與上的口號吶喊也顯得慷慨激昂。不過在行經最熱鬧的電影院路段時，不知為何，吶喊的聲音小了，眾人也開始不自在了起來，不知道是因為那些地段的人比我們多，還是因為從他們臉上顯露出來的無趣及嘲諷？坦白說，在沒有就讀生態系、聽到或接觸有關環保運動或議題時，對於環保團體的想法我想我跟一般人一該都是一個樣：「都吃不飽了哪還顧的上好山好水？」會有這種想法我想這不是過錯，但是引起這些污染的人是誰？會造成怎樣影響？躁成影響的事主有沒有因應的措施？這些措施是否可以將影響避免或減到最低？等等…其實才是我們這些關心環境的人們關心的事，然而，不只是政府一直忽略(或者說是推波助欄)，媒體對這方面的著墨，也比真實存在的還要少許多，在已經習慣讓媒體幫人看事情的現今社會，我們會不自覺的看見「他們」想讓我們看見的，或是主動地把「自認為」不重要的刪減，節省版面(已上是我在隔天在報紙看了有關遊行的相關報導後的心得)。



3. 補交作業：以下是文老師要我去查有關爆竹煙火的相關法規，前往全國法規網站整理後截取以下內容：
l 爆竹煙火相關法規
1. 爆竹煙火管理條例(民國 92 年 12 月 24 日公布 )
2. 爆竹煙火製造儲存販賣場所設置及安全管理辦法 (民國 96 年 05 月 02 日 修正)
3. 爆竹煙火管理條例施行細則 (民國 93 年 04 月 13 日發布 )
4. 高空煙火輸入及販賣許可辦法 (民國 95 年 08 月 18 日 修正)
5. 爆竹煙火專業機構認可辦法 (民國 93 年 05 月 13 日發布 )
6. 爆竹煙火製造許可辦法 (民國 93 年 05 月 20 日發布 )
7. 一般爆竹煙火型式認可及個別認可作業辦法 (民國 93 年 05 月 24 日發布 )
8. 高空煙火施放作業及人員資格管理辦法 (民國 93 年 11 月 25 日發布 )


l 爆竹煙火的定義及分類
爆竹煙火管理條例第2條
本條例所定爆竹煙火，係供節慶、娛樂及觀賞之用，不包括信號彈、煙霧彈或其他類似物品，其分類如下：
一、高空煙火：指煙火主體直徑在七點五公分以上，其火藥作用時垂直方
向射程在七十五公尺以上者。
二、一般爆竹煙火：指前款以外，其火藥作用後會產生火花、旋轉、飛行
、爆音或煙霧等現象者。

前項第二款所定一般爆竹煙火，其種類如下：
一、火花類。
二、旋轉類。
三、行走類。
四、飛行類。
五、升空類。
六、爆炸音類。
七、煙霧類。
八、摔炮類。
九、其他類。


l 負責管爆竹煙火的主管機關
爆竹煙火管理條例第3條
本條例所稱主管機關：在中央為內政部；在直轄市為直轄市政府；在縣 (市) 為縣 (市) 政府。
主管機關之權責劃分如下：
一、中央主管機關：
(一) 爆竹煙火安全管理制度之規劃設計與法規之制 (訂) 定、修正及廢
止。
(二) 爆竹煙火輸入之審查。
(三) 一般爆竹煙火認可相關業務之辦理。
(四) 直轄市、縣 (市) 爆竹煙火安全管理之監督。
(五) 爆竹煙火監督人講習、訓練之規劃及辦理。

二、直轄市、縣 (市) 主管機關：
(一) 爆竹煙火安全管理業務之規劃、自治法規之制 (訂) 定、修正、廢
止及執行。
(二) 爆竹煙火製造之許可、撤銷及廢止。
(三) 爆竹煙火製造及達中央主管機關所定管制量以上之儲存、販賣場所
，其位置、構造、設備之檢查及安全管理。
(四) 違法製造、儲存、販賣及施放爆竹煙火之取締及處理。
(五) 其他有關直轄市、縣 (市) 爆竹煙火之安全管理事項。


l 製造爆竹煙火的條件
爆竹煙火管理條例第6條
製造爆竹煙火，應檢附下列文件，向直轄市、縣 (市) 主管機關申請許可，經
核發許可文件後，始得為之：
一、負責人國民身分證。
二、使用執照。
三、工廠登記證。
四、其他經中央主管機關公告應行檢附之文件。

前項申請，有下列情形之一者，直轄市、縣 (市) 主管機關應不予許可：
一、申請人曾違反本條例製造爆竹煙火，經有罪判決確定，尚未執行完畢或執
行完畢後未滿五年。
二、曾受直轄市、縣 (市) 主管機關撤銷或廢止爆竹煙火製造許可未滿五年。

爆竹煙火製造許可文件，應記載下列事項：
一、許可文件字號。
二、製造工廠名稱及地址。
三、負責人姓名及住 (居) 所。
四、其他經中央主管機關公告之事項。
前項各款事項有變更者，應事先提出變更申請。

取得爆竹煙火製造許可後，有下列情事之一者，直轄市、縣 (市) 主管機關得
撤銷或廢止其許可，並註銷其許可文件：
一、申請許可資料有重大不實。
二、製造爆竹煙火之場所發生重大公共意外事故。
三、製造爆竹煙火之場所，違反本條例相關規定，經限期改善，屆期未改善。
第一項、 第四項所定許可或變更之申請資格、程序、應備文件、許可要件、審
核方式、收費及其他應遵行事項之辦法，由中央主管機關定之。


l 爆竹煙火的販賣限制
爆竹煙火管理條例第10條
販賣一般爆竹煙火，不得以自動販賣、郵購或其他無法辨識購買者年齡之
方式為之。

爆竹煙火管理條例第11條
兒童施放一般爆竹煙火，應由父母、監護人或其他實際照顧兒童之人陪同。
中央主管機關得公告禁止兒童施放之一般爆竹煙火種類。
前項公告之一般爆竹煙火，不得販賣予兒童。


l 不得施放爆竹煙火的地點
爆竹煙火管理條例第13條
下列場所及其基地內，不得施放爆竹煙火：
一、石油煉製工廠。
二、加油站、加氣站、漁船加油站。
三、儲油設備之油槽區。
四、彈藥庫、火藥庫。
五、可燃性氣體儲槽。
六、公共危險物品與可燃性高壓氣體製造、儲存及處理場所。
業者為製造爆竹煙火試驗之必要，不受前項第六款之限制。


l 爆竹煙火可能發生危險處理
爆竹煙火管理條例第17條
爆竹煙火之製造、儲存或販賣場所，於附近發生火災或其他狀況致生危險時，或爆竹煙火產生煙霧、異味或變質等狀況，致影響其安定性時，其負責人或爆竹煙火監督人應立即採取下列緊急安全措施：
一、向當地消防主管機關報案。
二、發生狀況場所周圍之機具設備，全部或部分停止使用。
三、發生狀況場所周圍之爆竹煙火成品、半成品及原料，搬離至安全處所。
爆竹煙火製造、儲存或販賣場所之緊急安全措施，應報請直轄市、縣 (市) 主管機關核備。


l 罰則
一、爆竹煙火管理條例第23條：處三年以下有期徒刑、拘役或併科新臺幣三
百萬元以下罰金；無負責人或負責人不明時，處罰實際負責執行業務之人。

二、爆竹煙火管理條例第24條：處新臺幣六十萬元以上三百萬元以下罰鍰。

三、爆竹煙火管理條例第25條：處新臺幣三十萬元以上一百五十萬元以下罰
鍰。

四、爆竹煙火管理條例第26條：處新臺幣六萬元以上三十萬元以下罰鍰。

五、爆竹煙火管理條例第27條：處新臺幣三萬元以上十五萬元以下罰鍰。

六、爆竹煙火管理條例第28條：違反本條例規定，經予停工或停業之處分後，
擅自復工或繼續營業者，應勒令停工或立即停業，並處負責人二年以下有期
徒刑、拘役或科或併科新臺幣一百萬元以下罰金。


l 特別規定
爆竹煙火管理條例第30條
軍事機關自行使用爆竹煙火之製造、輸入及儲存，不適用本條例規定；其施放，
依本條例規定。


l 其它
爆竹煙火管理條例第31條
本條例施行細則，由中央主管機關定之。

爆竹煙火管理條例第32條 本條例自公布日施行。


生三A 潘衍良 494550499

生態四B 陳逸輿 493550789

A.自我評鑑：你認為這學期修這門課表現如何、收獲如何，自己給自己打幾分？

這學期也不知道要怎麼樣評鑑我自己，不過如果說一定要給一個成績的話，應該是60~70分左右吧！在這一堂課當中我覺得我收獲很多，知道的東西有一些都是已前沒有想過、沒有聽過的，特別是一些環境的案例，跟對於破壞環境的法律途徑，我覺得這對我來說都是很新鮮的。當然在這學期中有許多不可抗拒的因素(打工，考試…)，所以導致我有很多堂課沒有上到，我想這是我不能否定的事實。那在表現的部份，我覺得我越來越敢在上課中開口發言，表達自己的想法跟觀點。對於事情的認知上面也懂得必須從不同的角度及層面去切入探討，而絕非個人的喜好。另外在對於環境議題的爭議時，更覺得必須要用嚴謹的態度去面對，盡量去收集資料，但是，就像老師常說的，法律有時候是參考用的，更有的時候是違法人的保護傘。雖然說有時候會灰心，但是如果連努力都沒有的話，那不就會連保護的機會都沒有了嘛？所以大家要加油！台灣的環境也要加油！
B.100件感官受到侵犯的事項
1. 早上起來被我家後面的修車廠，強力噴水柱的聲音吵起來。
2. 手指頭打鍵盤的時候卡到書桌的縫隙，有點痛。
3. 吃回他命C的舌頭好酸，我覺得舌頭要斷了。
4. 出門踢到摩托車的腳架。
5. 口罩戴上去的時候心想，如果空氣很好我就不用帶了。
6. 寒流來襲，沒有手套真的很冷，冷到不行。
7. 騎車的時候來車沒有打方向燈，差點就給他撞上去了，真沒有公德心。
8. 道路上都是闖紅燈的人，沒有闖紅燈好像就變成了一個怪胎。
9. 學校校門口要進出的學生，竟然滿口都是髒話，連女生也不例外對於女生的形象破滅了。
10. 到處都有人在選舉宣傳，那個宣傳車，真吵。
11. 選舉的旗幟還是掛在路上，就是那個顏X標，他印的海報臉真臭。
12. 北勢東路道路施工，塞車又很不方便。因為路本來就很小一條了。
13. 看電影的時候，被太大的喇叭聲嚇一跳。
14. 站校警的時候，到處都是落葉”沙沙”的聲音，才發現原來樹上快禿了。
15. 一個收垃圾的阿伯，隨地吐痰，好大一涶，我感覺要吐了。
16. 路邊昨天晚上好像有人喝醉，吐在變電箱旁邊，噁心。
17. 社區昨天沒有車位，有的人還一車兩格，看了就想要砸他的車。
18. 社區守衛伯伯兩點的時候在偷偷睡覺，被我發現。
19. 我家社區的垃圾桶，大家都沒有回收的意識，雖然它已經有用分類桶在那邊。
20. 打球的時候汗水黏著我的頭髮，然後刺到眼睛。
21. 打球的時候今天操體能，右腳酸、腹肌又痛的，大聲的罵教練不是人。
22. 在器材室工讀的時候，用力的射飛鏢，手臂有點拉傷了。
23. 在操場的時候差點被壘球打到，可是卻要很禮貌的揀球回去。
24. 一個人關燈的時候很恐怖，因為四周都是黑的，才發現原來未知的東西才可怕。
25. 牛肉麵店的老闆有一道新的產品，請我吃吃看，好吃。
26. 作客運回家的時候，司機開得真快，有點害怕。
27. 我發現我的右手長了繭，原來是打羽球時候常常摩擦，按下去硬硬的，不過有男人的感覺。
28. 洗澡的時候自己被熱水燙到。
29. 每天早上起來就是灰濛濛的一片，有點不想出門，怕是有毒的氣體。
30. 隔壁關房間門的聲音很大聲，有點像要跟他說。
31. 早上因為要閃車，所以腳去用到路邊的植物，上面有鬼針草。
32. 等車的時候，前面的小五十一直冒出很像仙女下凡的白煙。
33. 今天的路燈沒有亮，我們那邊的巷子很暗，有點危險。
34. 看到一隻小狗，眼睛大大的，感覺很可憐。
35. 幫小狗洗澡，但是還是有很多洗不起來的，他的毛摸起來有硬塊。
36. 聽到小狗有被人領養了，感覺就像我當爸爸一樣。
37. 跟人吵架，心情很不好。
38. 路過的時候，重型機車的聲音覺得有點大聲，但是又很帥。
39. 洗衣服的時候，去撞到牆壁，好險不是很大力。
40. 晚上有人還在社區的籃球場打球，有點吵。
41. 今天練球的時候，被一顆強勁的殺球，殺到了我的臉。
42. 去學校廁所上廁所的時候，尿騷味有點重。
43. 飲水機的水，喝起來有消毒水的味道。
44. 騎機車的時候，有一隻小蟲跑到我的眼睛裡面去了。
45. 看新聞看到政治的時候，想都沒想就轉台了，被隔壁的阿伯白眼了。
46. 學校後山又失火了，到處都有燒過的灰燼。
47. 騎車去東海吃漢堡，裡面暖氣好舒服，我睡著了。
48. 公車跟機車搶快，真的很危險，不過還好沒有出事情。
49. 早上好像感冒了，鼻水一直流，衛生紙擦在鼻子上已經有點痛了。
50. 冰箱裡面的東西發霉了，拿起來的時候冰冰的毛毛的。
51. 擦地板的時候被書櫃的角撞到，痛。
52. 拿釘書機的時候釘到自己的手。
53. 去買宵夜的時候，滷味的味道一直飛到我的鼻子裡面，真香。
54. 牙齒卡了一個肉絲，很不舒服。
55. 我的痘痘又變大了，所以決定要擠掉它，痛徹心扉。
56. 刮鬍子的時候刮破皮了。
57. 早餐店的老頭把垃圾亂丟，以後我不去那一間了。
58. 路過學校的時候聞到有人抽菸，感覺要昏倒了。
59. 去學長家喝酒，酒精下肚的感覺是刺痛的，嗆鼻的。
60. 從中港路回來的時候，看到大度山上好像有很多崩塌，很奇怪。
61. 畫畫的時候用麥克筆，那個味道真難聞。
62. 去外面找工作的時候，因為太不專心差點去撞到路邊的阿伯。
63. 當身上只剩下5塊錢的時候，覺得那個五塊錢好冰。
64. 看書的時候隔壁的同學一直吵。
65. 羽球場還是一樣會漏水，這個已經很久了。
66. 吃火鍋的時候手去燙到鍋子。
67. 看到有人因為沒有戴安全帽跟闖紅燈被警察抓到，感覺很不錯。
68. 吃密汁燒烤的老板娘給我加辣，害我吃不出味道，而且舌頭麻掉了。
69. 坐在學長家外面的時候，又被蟑螂咬了一口，會痛。
70. 戴眼鏡的鼻架那邊，滑滑的癢癢的。
71. 經過學校垃圾場的旁邊的時候，聞到惡臭味。
72. 學校旁邊的菜園中有農夫在燒東西，而且煙很黑。
73. 看到學校路邊有人在親親，感覺不是很舒服。
74. 7-11的送貨車每次進學校的時候都很快，真危險。
75. 回去宜蘭的時候，覺得蓋了好多的房子，感覺很陌生。
76. 下雨的感覺很舒服，冰冰涼涼的。
77. 宜蘭的紅綠燈號誌都很不清楚，不過這就是鄉下。
78. 吃到一個很酸的柳丁，舌頭麻了。
79. 蚊子咬我的時候很癢。
80. 抓癢的時候指甲刮在皮膚上的感覺是刺痛的。
81. 膠水黏在我手上的時候很不舒服。
82. 去書局看書，店員看我的眼神怪怪的。
83. 從家裡的陽台上往外看，發現有很多違章建築，鐵皮屋一大堆，反射陽光的眼睛很刺痛。
84. 路邊修車廠的小狗只要經過就會一直追著我叫。
85. 我走路跌倒了，手好像扭傷了，痛痛的。
86. 指甲太長，打球的時候掉了。
87. 有人亂丟垃圾，被我告知，好在他有撿起來。
88. 施工的工人都把建材隨便的放置在路邊，這樣造成行車的危險。
89. 夜市結束後，超多的垃圾沒有人處理，風大的時候中棲路都是塑膠袋飛舞。
90. 我吃芭樂的時候，被竹籤刺到手。
91. 去停車廠的時候有人將衣服晾在那邊，有礙觀瞻。
92. 小朋友尖叫，哭鬧的要大人抱，在吃飯的時候很不舒服。
93. 走路的時候去採到我的踩腳墊，滑了一跤，屁股很痛。
94. 洗衣店的人很沒有公德心，把洗衣粉弄的到處都是。
95. 每個人都騎一台機車，可是忽然覺得好像都是一桶一桶的石油在路上跑。
96. 站在校門口的時候，被路過的蜜蜂打到了額頭。
97. 騎車被砂石車噴起來的砂石弄痛了眼睛。
98. 公車應該要有一個專用道，他開來機車道的時候真的很危險。
99. 社區打掃阿姨的垃圾亂丟，也沒有看到人。
100. 社區地上溼溼的，好像是剛打掃過，不過騎車過去很滑，危險。

BY 陳逸輿

「環境法規與實例討論」作業張貼

各位修習「環境法規與實例討論」的同學，

請盡速至我們的課程blog張貼繳交下列功課：

1. 自我評鑑：你認為這學期修這門課表現如何、收獲如何，自己給自己打幾分？
2. 下列三者選擇至少一項，也可以寫超過一項：
　　a.就學期初各位分配到的議題作一摘要報告
　　b.張貼本學期的參訪心得
　　c.列出100件感官受到侵犯的事項
3. 若學期中有缺課的同學，可補繳缺課作業，並註明是要補交哪一日的缺課（可參考蕭富印同學）


同學請務必於自己張貼的文章中寫清楚自己的全名，才能列入成績計算。
（比方說「伊承子」是哪一位？）

網址：http://env-justice.blogspot.com/
最後截止日期是2008年1月14日(星期一)下午5:00之前，逾時不候。

生態四B 陳彥雄 493550569

環保法律與案例作業
這堂課出了兩次野外課程，分別是位於霧峰的土壤陳列館以及台北全球暖化的遊行。但因為在台北遊行那天，碰巧卡到學校舉辦的TQC測驗，因為另一堂課的原因，我又不能說不去考試，所以導致原本要跟同學們一起去台北遊行的機會，就這樣錯失掉了！實在很可惜…
所以，我要寫的是關於土壤陳列館。土壤陳列館，位於霧峰，初抵達陳列館門外時，立即被擺放至門口的社稷壇所吸引；接著進去後，又發現門口林立著許許多多的土壤剖面圖，可讓人了解土壤的生成及土質土地的影響。
接著，觀賞了一段影片之後，郭鴻裕博士又引導著我們去參觀別處，一路上的解說生動有趣再加上館裡面所藏的資料內容豐富齊全，從土壤的生成、種類到土壤的分布，國內以及國外的最新資訊，一應俱全！參觀完後，郭博士還有跟我們上了一堂課，這都讓我覺得印象深刻，不禁覺得能有這樣的機會實在難得！
然而，我還是有些美中不足的地方，像是土壤陳列館的位置：建於「行政院農業委員會農業試驗所」裡面，我在想，應該會有許多的民眾不曉得有這樣的建築，加上又不知道要如何才可進去參觀，我覺得這跟其他的博物館之類的相較之下，就比較可惜。所以，應該可以加強宣傳，以達到教育廣泛民眾的目的！
而另外一個可惜的是，不知道是我們時間倉促沒看到還是陳列館本身並不具備：歷年來台灣土壤問題的相關案例、事後處理以及定期查驗報告的內容。我覺得，如果有這樣一個主題在，可以讓我們更加的了解土壤的可貴性，也完整的記錄了台灣每一寸的土地！ 但，這只是我個人的淺見罷了…

自我評分以及理由：
我會給自己70分左右。首先，因為這堂課在週六的情況下，導致我並沒有辦法全部的課程都可以出席，不過也沒有曠課許多。另外是關於這堂課，我覺得，一學期下來，在課堂上我並沒有學習到什麼環境法規或記得哪條法令規定，但，卻在藉由準備報告的內容和同學們的討論，實際上也學到或知道了許多觀念！覺得也還不錯~~

100件我討厭的事情

這是之前出的小作業
雖然不用交
但已經做到一半了
因此把我未成的的100條事情縮短成56條PO上來
如下 :

1. 早上上課看到路上有清心福全的保麗龍垃圾，為什麼總是有很多沒有公德心的人？而且環保局為什麼不對清心福全開罰單？我以後不購買它的飲品！
2. 中棲路上右手邊有開發的跡象，不知道又要開發什麼。
3. 在台北內湖路上等公車，噪音很大且廢氣很臭，實在是受不了。
4. 台北有許多地方還在蓋捷運，科技使我們發達，卻也讓既有的人情味降低。
5. 11/13的聯合晚報標題聳動：台灣人浪費水！我想是水費收的太便宜，導致大家認為取之不盡、用之不竭。
6. 下午三點四十分，同事騎烏賊車下班，我跟他說這樣很不好，沒多久他就改走路上班，運動兼環保。
7. 聽全國廣播報導中科砷含量達標準，真是個天大的謊言。
8. 很多客人買香煙，這是否也是造成空污的一種？
9. 明明是上課時間，外頭卻很吵，干擾上課！
10. 早上是塞車時間，那麼多的車子反而減低快速的品質，我們還需要車子做啥？
11. 早上前往學校，有人在用除草機除草，順便把垃圾也除出來。
12. 除草時塵土飛揚，空氣頗糟。
13. 吃完早餐候往學校的路上，有一排機車路霸，真的是很可惡！
14. 早上的課有許多同學會外帶早餐，製造許多不必要的垃圾。
15. 去達娜伊谷看到有人餵魚，那兒明明是保育區，偏偏有人愛違規。
16. 在達娜伊谷步道上看到的都是園藝種植物，且路上皆已開發，實在無法想像這裡為何稱之為自然生態。
17. 去達娜伊谷時，恰巧有營隊，他們在保育區玩踩氣球遊戲，很不搭軋。
18. 去嘉義八掌溪看到河水皆優養化。
19. 嘉義的小黑蚊很多，已經十一月了，蚊子理應消失才是。
20. 仁義潭流出的水很乾淨，我用那裡的水洗菜葉，感覺回到從前的生活。
21. 在溪旁吃柳丁，將柳丁皮的油脂在水中分解，自然的油在水裡就可分解，人工的油就無法，可見化學藥劑添加很多且很毒。
22. 沙鹿的天氣灰濛，空氣品質差。
23. 台中火力發電廠第一名，官方說因為規模大，排放量大是應該的，真是蠢話！
24. 在福義軒排隊買蛋捲，不斷有人插隊，口頭阻止仍不聽，台灣人就是這麼的沒紀律！
25. 葬禮的噪音真的很吵，臺灣的習俗真是怪。
26. 學校餐廳人很多，許多學生怕麻煩都將便當外帶，因此製造許多垃圾。
27. 從廣播聽到少喝礦泉水，因為製造礦泉水的瓶子就用了許多石油，且我們應該主張喝自然好水，而不是買到自然好水。
28. 許多客人購買微波食品都不拿筷子，自備環保筷的概念有擴大的傾向。
29. 中午下課路過一間空教室，燈未關，真是浪費資源。
30. 上鐘丁茂的課，他講解山林的破壞，那些人真是可惡，只為自己的利益而不為下一代著想，現代人也是如此，一點都沒改變。
31. 明明是全校禁煙，卻還是有人抽，為什麼大家都這麼愛偷偷違規，享受那小小的刺激？
32. 路上很多烏賊車都很誇張，向環保局檢舉，卻都是符合標準。
33. 下過雨後的城市特別的清新。
34. 沙塵暴隨著寒流一起來，空氣整個很糟、又冷。
35. 去土壤博物館發現土地的重要，沒有土地就沒有我們可以立足的地方。
36. 去雲林台塑六輕演行動劇，發現台塑很可惡！而且它的面積大到難以置信，從此我不使用台塑的東西。
37. 去彰化遊行，反對彰濱火力發電廠的興建，我覺得當地人很多都不知道環境議題的重要性，當地人參與性、團結力不夠。
38. 參加1208抗暖化大遊行，現場記者只拍攝幾個畫面就回去，臺灣媒體制度真是糟糕，只會製造新聞。
39. 參加抗暖化大遊行，覺得來自各地的朋友都關心這個議題，很有士氣，感覺臺灣還是有救的。
40. 去買豆漿時，我們攜帶自己的杯子裝，老闆裝的很多，算的也很便宜，真是賺到了！
41. 去買飲料時用自己的水杯裝，老闆多給很多，真是不錯。
42. 去筏子溪調查污染，聞到其臭無比的詭異氣體，懷疑是鐵工廠排放的灰渣，有夠臭的！
43. 筏子溪沿途有很多工廠，它們的屁股都對著筏子溪排放廢水，可憐的筏子溪。
44. 工業區也是筏子溪流過的區域，我們往上游探去，越走越臭！且還有許多不明白色泡沫浮在水面上，風吹過時還會飄起來，污染超級嚴重！
45. 筏子溪旁有許多琵琶鼠的乾屍，甚至長蛆，很噁心。
46. 路上都會看到有人沒公德心，隨手就從車上丟包垃圾出來，檢舉也沒用。
47. 逢甲夜市人擠人，空氣很糟糕。
48. 許多攤販賣的東西都只是裝飾用，一點都不實用，有點浪費資源去製造這些產品。
49. 風力發電不適合臺灣，政府何必愛花錢去興建這些東西？
50. 生態工法建了又毀，毀了又建，浪費金錢及時間！
51. 去台中港看到白海豚在夕陽旁游玩，真是幸運！
52. 在蓮華池做調查時，還聽的到城市的聲音，感覺很怪。
53. 去蓮華池的第一個晚上，滿滿的莫氏樹蛙鳴叫聲伴我入睡，真是幸福。
54. 雨中的蓮華池原始林真是美麗，空氣也很清新！
55. 鴨子吃高麗菜葉急性中毒，人類就不敢買高麗菜，我們處在髒亂的環境中慢性中毒，卻很多人都不自覺。
56. 去谷關的路上看到許多新建的生態工法，真的很沒有意義，因為它仍然無法抵擋大自然的力量。

生態四B 493550925 賴宜承

1208抗暖化大遊行

許多關心環境的人能夠齊聚一堂，真的很棒，很有士氣，看到這樣的場面，不免欣慰臺灣還有救，雖然沒有號召到十萬人，人數卻也不少。
不過媒體似乎並沒有大肆宣導遊行的正確概念，反而替這個活動染色，成了政治新聞。雖然說有政治人物的參與會有加分作用，使之讓大眾了解其重要性，但在媒體的渲染之下，一切都變了樣，這是較為可惜的地方。
遊行途中，經過幾個台北鬧區，人都非常多，但是似乎沒有達到共鳴的效果，感覺他們把這當笑話一樣在聊天，或認為此遊行很突兀、稀鬆平常。
印象最深刻的是有幾位拾荒的阿伯阿姨們，不辭辛勞跑來這裡一起遊行，如果沒有他們確實做回收，那臺灣垃圾問題恐怕更恐怖。有幾個是全家一起出動遊行，包括嬰孩都坐上娃娃車，阿公阿媽也一同出走發聲，同心的感覺實在是很好！
抗暖化運動除了是開發綠色能源之外，其實我認為最根本的是回歸自然。不要汽、機車，只要腳踏車，雖然慢了點，但同樣可到達目的地，而且更環保、健康。成天想著開發，似乎就是會帶來破壞，倒不如什麼都不做，回歸自然，自有一相處之道，從前人類社會不正是如此嗎？
暖化的議題大家都懂，甚至已經成為流行的趨勢，只不過真正身體力行的人還是很少，大家還是一樣在過這種高污染但方便快速的生活，幾乎成為它的俘虜，這種科技迷思，實在值得每個人深刻反省。
自我評分及理由
我給自己評85分，自己在上課時，有充份準備老師交待的作業及相關法條，在課堂上也有發表自己的意見，三次缺課有二次提前告知老師。自己有吸收到新知，唯法學基本常識仍須加強，不然上課只會鴨子聽雷。

環保法律與案例作業

這次上了環境法規與實例討論，之前很少接觸到，所以想認識看看，上課講到不少有關環境上面的問題，當然也知道很多讓人深省的議題，原來有很多破壞是我不知道，不曾關心的，但也看到了不少躲過法律的審判的例子，感覺還頗無奈的，這次課程有幾次沒去上課，而且有很多細節也沒有很清楚認識，上了課以後，才發現自己其實沒有很關心環境的議題，所以我給自己打63分，這堂課有看一些影片，都讓人覺得實在太悲慘了，原來台灣環境是這樣被隨意破壞，但是大家卻都不知道，雖然有些灰心，但是有再做的人真的也不少，希望可以有更多人關心環境的問題，也希望自己可以比較關心地球這個環境。

這次去遊行主要是全球暖化的問題，全球暖化的確很慘，今年冬天我居然還在吹電風扇，真是好天氣，大家都說，預防全球暖化，從你我做起，的確是可以減少，但是還是有不少人很努力的讓大家有個溫暖的日子可以過，去遊行了，前面講好多東西，真正下去走的時間卻很短很短，短到有些嚇到，不過後來聽學長說，好像遊行都是這樣子，因為全球暖化，海平面上升，已經有很多小小國家面臨滅頂的危機了，但是大家都沒有注意到，因為他們只是小小國家，台灣也不大，是不是大家都搬家去玉山的時候，他們才會後悔當初沒有好好重視這個問題，前些日子，助教來上課，課堂最後，給我們看了兩個英國人的影片，他們藉由組成外遇補償公司來大大的反諷所謂聽來合理的『碳補償』，實在太經典了，太可笑了，碳補償跟外遇補償完全是可以相提並論的，這兩位英國人最後面提到，其實要降低溫室氣體的排放，並不是把省下來的溫室氣體可排放量，賣給別的國家，別的國家排放，這樣並沒有減少，而是真正的要把它省下來，而不是把這個當作另外一筆交易，這樣下去，有再多錢也沒命花，而當地媒體也有注意到這件事情，我覺得他們非常成功，讓大家有注意到這件事情的可笑性，和溫室效應的問題，讓人覺得真的很好笑，但是又很感動，的確還是有人在關心，並且付出行動，我自問沒有這麼厲害，我就從省電開始吧，盡自己小小的力量，來延緩地球越來越溫暖，這次暖化遊行，實在很不錯，讓大家知道這個問題的嚴重性，對我來說，比一些比較偏激的遊行好太多了，加油，希望大家可以重視這個問題，一起來對抗全球暖化的問題吧！加油！加油！


班級：生態系四年B班
姓名：曹孟樵
學號：493550802

蕭富印 生四B 493550462

1.1208遊行心得
每年環保團體都會舉辦相關系列的遊行活動。主辦單位說，今年的人數有比去年明顯多了，這是個好現象，我也很樂意見到人數的增長。這次我有看到，有老師帶著班上小朋友一起來參加遊行，我就覺得這個老師真是棒！以身體力行的方式來履行課本上說的內容，而不是死板板的在教室讀著課文，這也讓我想到，現在小孩的教育，環境保護是缺不得的，但大多數的家長們，卻不在他們眼前做好榜樣；還有一個老伯伯，雖然我沒有跟他講話，我一開始也注意到他了，他一個人來參加遊行，默默不語的支持這項活動所表示的理念不由得從我心底佩服他。我覺得臺灣人普遍的環保意識尚未具備，因此遊行所傳達的效果可能有限，還是得從教育著手，才是可行之道，當然遊行也是一個宣傳手法，若有下次，我還是會上街頭一起喊出我的聲音。
遊行中看到這麼多的汽機車橫行於街頭，空氣中彌漫著廢氣，真的很難受，臺灣的汽機車真的太多了，多到一種不尋常。我很樂意見到，腳踏車或步行取代了現在的交通工具主流，環保、運動，且事故傷亡率幾乎是零，只是速度慢，但我相信，還是有發展的空間，一起響映吧！
這次遊行，我覺得有一個小小的缺點，貼紙可以不必，效果不大，且易掉落形成垃圾。
2.對這堂課的自我評分及理由
自我評分：若滿分是10分，我給自己8分
理由：我承認這堂課沒學到什麼實質上的東西，法規也沒記得幾條；
但也開啟了我生平第一次檢舉行為，不要讓自己在生活環境上的權利睡著，而有爾後的第 二次、第三次、……因此我加到8分。這堂課使我將自己對於汽機車排放明顯白煙的不滿，成就了實際的行動。
3.侵犯到我的100件事

1. 07/11/10在臺北內湖路一段等公車時聞到交通工具之廢氣。
2. 07/11/09早晨在宿舍被狗吠聲吵醒。
3. 2007年10月底，在”禁止傾倒垃圾”佈告欄下，仍看到有人傾到垃圾。
4. 數位汽車駕駛員等紅綠燈時，將車停在機車停車格，造成機車族無位可停。
5. 在自助餐店吃東西，大多民眾仍有使用免洗餐具之習慣。
6. 台中市空氣汙濛濛的一片，看遠處看不清楚。
7. 在國道一號，看到遠處有工廠煙囪冒著白煙。
8. 07/11/12在自家宿舍，聽到外面道路有人騎著改裝機車經過，很吵！
9. 在中港路上，看到路樹被過份修剪。
10. 洗澡時，熱水太燙不舒服。
11. 07/11/18在嘉義八掌溪，看到水面上漂浮著很多水草及汙物。
12. 07/11/17在嘉義達娜依谷看見遊客拿著麵包餵魚。
13. 07/11/17在嘉義台18線延線山谷，種植許多茶、檳榔。
14. 07/11/17在嘉義市區排隊買東西時，一堆市民很沒公德心的插隊。
15. 在YAHOO新聞中看到，”地球暖化只可適應無可改變”的標題。
16. 上山路時，跟在吃柴油的巴士後面，感覺很臭。
17. 郊區及淺山許多的野溪，都已被水泥化，生態大破壞。
18. 中港路上，大肚山次生植被被一掃而空！
19. 在自助餐店外聞到排水溝蓋傳出一陣陣臭味。
20. 山路或山徑旁種植外來種或園藝植物。
21. 在嘉義觸口八掌溪中看到許多攔砂壩。
22. 騎車在山區道路時，看到許多動物被車輛輾死的屍體。
23. 在山區看到外來種爬藤植物爬到樹上且大開花。
24. 上課聽老師講授以前國民黨在台灣山林中做的事感到很氣憤。
25. 在坐車途中，看到前一輛汽車搖下車窗丟下許多零碎垃圾。
26. 以前釣魚時，在湖邊或河岸看到許多釣友留下的垃圾，真礙眼。
27. 在崩塌之山壁上，看見生態工法之工程，護坡上則選擇外來種草皮，離譜！
28. 上課時，聽到同學在講話的聲音，覺得無法專心。
29. 上公共廁所時，聞到陣陣尿騷味，很受不了。
30. 打球後流很多汗，口也很渴。
31. 吃早餐時，喝到有燒焦味且疑似用水泡粉的豆漿。
32. 平常可見到很多用路人不遵守交通規則，例如：闖紅燈、紅燈右轉。
33. 很多同學買早餐時使用塑膠製品造成過度包裝。
34. 07/11/25，往大肚山一看，天空灰濛濛一片，覺得空氣很糟。
35. 07/11/25，在台北車站候車，人多又冷。
36. 07/11/28，早上騎車，風冷又大，手很冰！
37. 07/12/02到雲林台塑六輕廠，多支煙囪冒出白煙排至天空中。
38. 承上，現場聞到陣聞惡臭。
39. 07/12/02到彰化鹿港遊行，街上滿是汽機車的廢氣味。
40. 07/12/02到台中港，其一排水道在海面上不斷有工業廢水排出之跡現。
41. 07/12/02，台塑六輕廠附近植物多半植黃，長得很不好。
42. 騎車時，路面滿是坑坑洞洞與鐵蓋，騎起來很不舒服。
43. 在學校宿舍欲洗澡時，有人刻意在洗澡間大便，製造髒亂。
44. 看到一台疑似贓車的機車被棄置在人行道上，有礙觀瞻。
45. 擰毛巾時，把手指甲旁的表皮給擦起來，流血且痛。
46. 早上起來會鼻子癢且狂流鼻涕。
47. 都已經12月了，天氣還是這麼熱！
48. 回家遇到道路施工，灰塵滿天飛。
49. 筏子溪很多支流充滿了揮發性化學泡沫及汙染。
50. 吃東西時，牙齒咬到嘴唇造成破皮。
51. 在大肚山人跡罕至的山坡上，被傾倒了許多廢棄物。
52. 隔壁寢室關門聲很大，很吵且無公德心。
53. 隔壁寢室是幾個好朋友住在鄰近，常聚一起講話，頗吵。
54. 騎在道路施工的路段，前車經過揚起灰塵。
55. 上課時聽到隔壁間的聲音，無法專心且很吵。
56. 大陸強烈冷氣團籠罩全台，下巴些許凍傷。
57. 坐車來台中的高速公路上，看見許多工廠排放著廢氣。
58. 在森林中，被偌大的蚊子叮咬。
59. 嘴裡表皮咬破，再度咬到痛到流眼淚。
60. 赤腳走路，被尖石刺到腳。
61. 赤腳在水泥地上打全場籃球，結果起水泡。
62. 赤腳打球，被圖釘給刺到腳底板。
63. 打拳擊遊戲機，手腕出力不足，結果骨頭裂了，痛！
64. 跨年晚會留下可觀垃圾，台灣人普遍沒有公德心，真是令我覺得悲哀！！
65. 釣魚時被魚鉤鉤到手。
66. 打籃球躍起要著地時，方位不正確險扭傷腳。
67. 走路不留意踩到狗屎，聞到一股惡臭。
68. 在山路上騎車，太留意於山景而不注意路況，造成摔車又淤青。
69. 外面很多自助餐店，菜都很油，吃時會覺得膩。
70. 睡覺時有一群人在不遠的公園聚會，很吵。
71. 拉橡皮筋拉很長，不小心彈到自己的手臂。
72. 因登山步道的施工，而將步道底部的植物都清除。
73. 爬上山壁看一種植物，滑了一下而擦到手背。
74. 工人停在教室外的柴油車沒有熄火，很臭。
75. 天冷造成手冰，打排球手心會麻且痛。
76. 08/01/04至谷關，砂石車橫行中橫，路上沙塵飛揚，呼吸困難。
77. 戴牙套，鐵絲劃破嘴皮。
78. 晚上坐大客車時，電視故障造成閃光不停，刺眼。
79. 去野外，襪子附著許多鬼針草種子，刺到腳。
80. 騎車又遇到排放白煙的機車，礙眼又有臭味。
81. 去山上工作，在頗斜的地形中滑倒，腰部有淤青。
82. 走在山中小徑，被螞蝗附在腳上吸血，拔除時仍不斷流著血。
83. 臉上擠痘痘，有的會痛。
84. 大甲溪河床中，又新闢了道路，只能搖頭。
85. 政府一直迷信於生態工法是萬能的，每次工程卻都付之流水，痛心！
86. 大肚山地區起霧，視覺變差。
87. 大肚山區騎車，經過工廠，所養的狗突然衝出大叫，嚇到。
88. 吃魚時，魚刺刺入牙齦中。
89. 吃飯時，把手弄得油膩膩的，覺得頗噁心。
90. 風大揚起飛沙，細沙飛入眼睛中。
91. 進到建築工地時，不時會聞到食物腐敗的味道。
92. 到鷹架公司打工，揹鐵製踏板一直磨擦到腰部而流血。
93. 冷氣團南下，晚上睡覺不夠暖，使得鼻端及腳尖冰涼而難以入睡。
94. 最近覺得視力模糊，醫師診斷接近假性近視了。
95. 剪指甲剪得太短，會痛。
96. 在外婆家赤腳，採到有刺植物的刺。　
97. 騎滑板車速度太快不甚摔倒，造成手掌及肘部流血。
98. 搬重鐵架，放置不當砸到指甲而淤青。
99. 倒垃圾時，垃圾車後面頗難聞。
100. 走在大甲溪河床的石頭堆上，踩到不穩的石頭，滑動而摔倒。
4.07/11/10及07/11/17缺課作業
11/10
今天是到台北參加臺灣環境保護聯盟所舉辦的”公民記者培訓營”。公視於網路上有設一個”peopo公民新聞”的網路平台，裡面有劃分很多種主題，也包括環境生態方面。這次活動的內容，是介紹peopo公民新聞這網站及其使用方式，以及moviemaker的簡易教學，使學員們日後可以拿起相機或攝影機，報導自己關心的人、事、物。 指導人員都是公視的媒體工作者，特別犧牲假日時光來上課。Peopo公民新聞所報導的內容，都不是像電視上新聞台會播報的類別，反而是他們不太會播出的小新聞，我覺得這樣更貼切於生活之中，民眾的關心度也會大而提升，是個很好切入民眾生活圈的點。
11/17
這天，到位於嘉義縣阿里山鄉的達娜依谷參觀，地處曾文溪的上游，是鄒族的境內。
也許，少接觸真正大自然的都市人，到了那裡會覺得”我正在親近大自然”，但我卻沒有這種感覺，現場大多是次生植被，且已有小花蔓澤蘭等外來種植物入侵，更槽糕的是，當地的原住民，也在步道二旁種起非洲鳳仙花…等等的園藝植物，這無疑對當地原生環境是一種傷害。走到餵魚區，真的有看到保育成果出現，但是矯枉過正了，魚群多到難以想像，就只是在那等著人們餵食，牠們的食物就是園區所販賣的飼料及遊客自行帶的餅乾麵包，大人餵食，小孩也搶著餵食，甚至拿起石頭丟向魚群，能達到什麼生態教育之效果？我想，遊客們把魚兒們當成是娛樂的對象，也沒有真正思考過其中的道理。當地的鄒族原住民，或許他們真的有想要保育的想法，只是欠缺適當的作法與觀念，才會造成現今這種情況。原住民的文化與生活模式正一點一滴被外省人同化中……。



[U1]

11/3小小home work

請列出一個條列式的清單
內容：在你身活中所有侵犯到你的
五個感官的事項(聽、嗅、觸、味、視or感覺)
具體且親身的體驗

*總共可列出100條，繳交期限在這學期前

BY 小白

12月課程異動

各位同學,

12月份課程稍有變動請各位同學注意!!!!

12/1將安排各位同學至"台灣土壤陳列館"參觀

12/8安排各位同學北上,參加"拯救地球‧全球同步‧在地行動‧抗暖化"的活動

請各位同學於本周六將保險資料填妥以利作業.

如果各位同學有任何的問題,請與老師聯絡.

文魯彬

02-2311-2345分機302

10/27環境法規上課須知

依照自己所認養的議題做出簡單的三分鐘講解報告
內容可有以下要點
1.議題概要
2.做此議題之動機
3.調查誰曾經做過類似議題
4.此議題牽涉到哪種政府機關
5.議題相關法規
6.以往議題相關案例

10/27要上台說明
請務必準時上課
時間AM10:00-12:00
地點生316

BY
生態四B 蕭富印0912-790419

課程參考資料

一條河的價值

http://zh.wildatheart.org.tw/archives/aee_eaeeeaececeeeeecec.html

有中文版及原文版，務必下載閱讀

另外同學可以複習環境基本法第2,3條，

商業生態學，綠色資本家或綠色資本主義

10/6 上課時間

10:00am-12:00pm

地點：316教室

9/29上課通知

各位同學,

本週六(9/29)上課時間因故變更為
9：00am~11：00am，上課教室為
”生態316教室”。

請同學們不要忘記!!

臨時通知變更上課同學，
請各位同學相互通知。

文魯彬

96年度第一學期"環境法規與實例討論"課程大綱

一、教學目的

本課程係針對有志於環境保護的同學，介紹現有相關環境保護法規，並配合案例研習，讓同學們藉由修習本門課程的機會，將環境保護實際案例與環保法規做一結合研討，使同學們日後在面對環保議題時，能將法規理論與案例實務進行有效結合運用。

二、主要內容

文老師每週針對當週主題先進行基礎理論講解，每週有2位同學要負責記錄該次上課內容並提出心得分享。

三、課外作業

1. 針對某一個可能會影響靜宜大學或沙鹿鎮的環保爭議問題，草擬一份環境訴訟計畫。 2. 參觀農委會郭鴻裕博士主持的台灣土壤陳列館。 3. 參加后里反中科基地居民舉辦的活動或會議。

四、成績考核

1. 出席率考核占學期總成績70％。 2. 同組的組員如果有人缺席且沒有事先準備問題在開次上課時可供提問者，其他組員要負責挑選某一環保問題撰寫一封信函給環保署或台中縣環保局。

五、教學進度

第一週 課程簡介及進行分組。 系統性的思考模式介紹－－主要是依據Donnela Meadows所提出的體系：’ Nine Places to Intervene in a System (PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM By Donella H. Meadows (Whole Earth Winter 97) -http://www.wholeearthmag.com/articlebin/109.html

第二週 課程簡介及進行分組。 系統性的思考模式介紹－－主要是依據Donnela Meadows所提出的體系：’ Nine Places to Intervene in a System (PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM By Donella H. Meadows (Whole Earth Winter 97) -http://www.wholeearthmag.com/articlebin/109.html

第三週： A、 GDP(國內生產毛額) v GHI(快樂指數) or GPI(和平指數); B、 介紹一條河流的價值C.討論

第四週： 從生態角度看環保法規總論。

第五週： 從生態角度看環保法規總論。

第六週： 從生態角度看空污法規研討。

第七週： 從生態角度看空污個案研討。

第八週： 民生用水、灌溉用水與開發計畫用水需求間的衝突。

第九週： 水污染。

第十週： 土壤問題

第十一週： 土壤與糧食

第十二週： 台灣法令對於動物棲息地的相關規定

第十三週： ”它者”生物多樣性

第十四週： 如此惡劣的環境永續性指數(ESI).

第十五週： 討論台灣的環境永續指數排名為何如此惡劣： 1. 人口及生態足跡 2. 法規及行政規則 3. 勞工法令政策與環保爭議的連結

第十六週： 討論台灣的環境永續指數排名為何如此惡劣： 假民主、企業有限責任、之的權利

關於[寶盛水族生態遊樂區環境影響說明書]之意見

(蔡德馨投書至環保署網站)

1.開發寶盛水族生態遊樂區或或許(不一定)會帶來經濟上的利益，但必定會造成環境上的破壞。
2.東部原本就屬於一個環境破壞較少的地方，應該加強保護才是，不應在加以建設，帶來更多的商業、工業進駐。
3.一個自然的風景區本生就可以有人類休憩娛樂的效果，為何一定要加上人工的遊樂區，才叫休閒娛樂區。
4.「寶盛水族生態遊樂區」不應加上「生態」二字，因為他們已嚴重的影響到生態環境，雖說說明書上強調對生態的影響不大，但生態系是極為複雜的體系，只要有些微的影響，是必會造整個生態系的嚴重影響。
5.如寶盛水族生態遊樂區不幸建設成功，大量的遊客、車潮、廢棄物等破壞生態環境的因素進入，是必會造成更嚴重的環境破壞。
6.種植外來種植物，造成生態環境破壞。

請保護還剩下的自然環境區，過分的開發只會造成自然的反撲！

中部科學園區第三期發展后里基地（七星農場環評記事）

中部科學園區第三期發展后里基地（七星農場環評記事）

（一）基本資料1

緣起：89年5月總統宣示落實綠色矽島之政策走向，擬於中部地區開發第三個科學工業園區，並選定台中及雲林兩基地；台中基地橫跨台中縣、市轄區土地。92年7月中科台中基地第一期，93年6月二期；台中基地附近因覓地不易，94年6月選定后里作為中科第三期開發基地
面積：一期250.75公頃；二期81.83公頃；三期后里基地，分為農場134.64 公頃，七星農場111.63公頃
計畫：后里農場引進半導體、精密機械及光電產業，七星農場則以光電產業（友達光電）為主軸。

（二）環評過程爭議點

1.位處斷層帶，並緊鄰淨水廠
后里地區有三義、屯子腳及車籠埔等三條斷層經過，其中三義與屯子腳兩斷層更呈剪刀交叉；假若發生地震，工廠倒塌或發生爆炸意外，可能會有劇毒物質、揮發性有機化物溢出、強腐蝕性的酸鹼液外洩的風險，嚴重威脅后里鄉民的生命安全、健康，大台中居民的用水。
后里農場工廠建築預定用地隔鄰即為中部地區300萬人使用之鯉魚潭浄水廠，事關中部300多萬人之飲水風險問題，因廠商估算每年將使用2-3萬噸以上有機溶劑及其他高毒性物質並排放3000噸氣體（90%回收率），這些物質沉降至淨水廠的風險很大（尤其華映公司曾有不良紀錄）。台大地理系林俊全教授於后里農場專案小組審查時擔任專家學者委員，曾表示『不應開發』；對七星農場亦認為應進入二階段環境影響評估¹

2.水資源排擠（五百億水資源開發，農業、民生用水）
過去三十二年(西元1971～2002年)中部地區各河川流量變化趨勢結果顯
示枯水期多為增加、豐水期多為減少的趨勢。台中地區90年自來水系統
供應生活及工業用水約114萬噸/日，至110年成長為183萬噸/日。然而供水量卻得在多方水利資源及工程聯合調度應用之下（見下圖），才勉強得以應付。

科三期為202萬噸/日)，且水源亦受濁度之影響。在考量計畫(滿足用水需求)、調配(聯合運用發揮最大潛能、靈活有效調度水資源)及備援(因應濁度、災變及枯旱之情況)供水之需要，應即刻推動增設后里淨水場(其水源可來自大安溪及大甲溪)、八寶堰及進行豐原淨水場改善。惟中科三期后里基地之用水仍需移用農業用水³。

3.廢水排放入灌溉溝渠
中科后里基地（后里農場部分）工業廢水處理後，將排入大安溪口，近期內先排放至牛稠坑溝，廢水中殘留的污染物質是否影響農田品質而影響糧食安全。長期則將不斷地累積大安溪出海口，將污染大甲及大安溪流域水質，將下游的農業、漁業發展產生不良的影響。例如竹科放流水排放的客雅溪，水質污染嚴重，連帶使得河口養殖的牡蠣重金屬、致癌物質含量過高，不適合食用。
牛稠坑溝溪有居民取水灌溉，開發單位卻以無水利會灌區模糊開發案對引用牛稠坑溪農田之影響。大甲溪下游仍有取水灌溉之事實，加以大甲溪因本案之開發，水流量將更減少，排放的廢水水質更應提高管理標準，所以應將廢水處理為合乎灌溉水質標準。
初期排放水由大甲溪入海，沿途流經大甲、大安及清水地區農田灌溉渠取水口，廢水流入農田影響面積達3000公頃以上，對於農產品安全影響甚大。同時入滲的地下水，是當地居民飲用水來源，特別是當地土層淺薄，土壤幾無過濾的功能，影響當地住民的健康。

4.有毒氣體排放
中科后里基地將引進的半導體、光電產業，製程中需要用到強酸、強鹼溶液，尤其是氫氟酸每年將排放74公噸，相當於每天203公斤。其它強酸、強鹼加上揮發性有機物質每年允許溢散量高達3,318公噸，每日飄出的廢氣由后里的風頭吹向后里鄉人口集中的上后里、下后里地區；未來還有七星農場的開發加上焚化爐及豐興鐵工廠等廢氣排放，對於后里鄉居民長期健康風險影響甚大。
近日更傳出由於中科大雅基地廠商排放，致使鄰近東海大學空氣中有致癌物質濃度偏高的的現象。

5.使用原物料部分未明，有毒排放無法有效掌控，亦未能確實進行健康風險評估
對於製程中使用的原物料，開發單位始終無能責成預定進駐的廠商確實提供，環評委員屢次追問，最後卻以百分之五的原料因屬『商業機密』，連廠商都無法自國外供應商取得回覆。
環保署環檢所曾對新竹地區光電廠廢水檢驗，雖符合放流水標準但其生物毒性單位超出100，意即排放廢水雖符合放流水標準但將廢水稀釋100倍後，養魚仍會立即死亡1。環保單位對於有毒物質排放無法有效掌握，難以制定有效的管理策略；另者，健康風險評估團對在進行評估之際，亦因此無法確切執行。

6.科學園區作業基金虧損嚴重，卻繼續補貼高風險產業（面板業之產業風險及金融風險）
為了配合政策開發科學園區並扶植園區廠商 行政院國家科學委員會科學園區作業基金截至目前已經負債九千多億元 廠商取得大量優惠甘冒市場需求多變的風險 再加上政府要求各行庫提高其聯貸額度，這些潛在不利因子所衍生的金融風險卻是全民共同承擔 。

7.模擬、說明臭氧影響，使用背景值為陳舊資料
環境影響說明書引用環保署89年公布的當地臭氧濃度資料充當背景值，無視委員一再要求應以更新之92年，甚至95年之最新數據；原因實為一旦採用較近年資料，則臭氧濃度將嚴重超過標準。

8.觀光產業（后豐鐵馬道）
后豐鐵馬道已是全國聞名的景觀休閒道路，網頁搜尋以可多達數十頁 。一些民眾上網張貼圖片表現目前的景觀現況，開發單位對於開發案是否影響后豐鐵馬道並未盡到詳實的分析，也未提出具體可行之替代方案
開發案對后豐鐵馬道影響而影響當地居民賴以觀光為生的生活沒有評估。同時，聯絡道與后豐鐵馬道交錯，圖說之鐵馬道仍與聯絡道交錯，后豐鐵馬道現行之綠帶可否列入園區之綠帶。開發單位應儘量將空間留給大眾而不是將空間保留給開發單位。

9.通過環評之142次委員會，嚴重瑕疵違背程序正義
主席基於『行政效率』考量，非但沒有允許遠道而來的后里居民代表從容表達意見，亦限制發掘問題的環評委員陳述理由。最後更以多數官派委員投票表決，在前提全未釐清的情形下強行通過本案。

（三）環評之外其他質疑

（1）利益輸送單一廠商
七星農場規劃當時，政府必須投入至少86億元僅為單一TFT-LCD廠商，友達光電；此舉引起多位環評委員及立法委員質疑開發單位圖利廠商，有違公平正義。近日前報載，友達因市場需求前景看淡， 已決定縮減設廠規模，投資由4000億減至2540億；七星園區將重新規劃配置2。

（2）環評結論執行（后里農場之例）
后里農場已進行開發，開發單位卻未依照環境影響說明書之環境監測事項確實執行，致發生超時施工，嚴重揚塵、材料堆置交通要道致侵犯正常行駛車輛路權等重大違規情事。

（3）放流管埋設（明管或暗管）
開發單位未善盡管控園區進駐廠商之責任於先，進而未與居民充分溝通於後的情況下，引發當地大規模的居民抗爭。

（4）海岸生態（中華白海豚、高美濕地）
台灣中部西海岸存在一群以離岸不遠距離為棲地的中華白海豚族群，由於研究人員所觀察到的數量估計僅為50至200隻；排放至西海岸的工業污染將威脅此種群的生存。
大甲溪排放廢水將影響高美濕地(灰藍色區)的生態。

2007/03/10 上課資料(3) --- Dancing with Systems

Dancing with Systems

What to do when systems resist change; an excerpt from Donella Meadows's unfinished last book.
By Donella Meadows
(Whole Earth Winter 2001)


People who are raised in the industrial world and who get enthused about systems thinking are likely to make a terrible mistake. They are likely to assume that here, in systems analysis, in interconnection and complication, in the power of the computer, here at last, is the key to prediction and control. This mistake is likely because the mindset of the industrial world assumes that there is a key to prediction and control.
I assumed that at first too. We all assumed it, as eager systems students at the great institution called MIT. More or less innocently, enchanted by what we could see through our new lens, we did what many discoverers do. We exaggerated our own ability to change the world. We did so not with any intent to deceive others, but in the expression of our own expectations and hopes. Systems thinking for us was more than subtle, complicated mindplay. It was going to Make Systems Work.
But self-organizing, nonlinear, feedback systems are inherently unpredictable. They are not controllable. They are understandable only in the most general way. The goal of foreseeing the future exactly and preparing for it perfectly is unrealizable. The idea of making a complex system do just what you want it to do can be achieved only temporarily, at best. We can never fully understand our world, not in the way our reductionistic science has led us to expect. Our science itself, from quantum theory to the mathematics of chaos, leads us into irreducible uncertainty. For any objective other than the most trivial, we can't optimize; we don't even know what to optimize. We can't keep track of everything. We can't find a proper, sustainable relationship to nature, each other, or the institutions we create, if we try to do it from the role of omniscient conqueror.
For those who stake their identity on the role of omniscient conqueror, the uncertainty exposed by systems thinking is hard to take. If you can't understand, predict, and control, what is there to do?
Systems thinking leads to another conclusion, however—waiting, shining, obvious as soon as we stop being blinded by the illusion of control. It says that there is plenty to do, of a different sort of "doing." The future can't be predicted, but it can be envisioned and brought lovingly into being. Systems can't be controlled, but they can be designed and redesigned. We can't surge forward with certainty into a world of no surprises, but we can expect surprises and learn from them and even profit from them. We can't impose our will upon a system. We can listen to what the system tells us, and discover how its properties and our values can work together to bring forth something much better than could ever be produced by our will alone.
We can't control systems or figure them out. But we can dance with them! I already knew that, in a way before I began to study systems. I had learned about dancing with great powers from whitewater kayaking, from gardening, from playing music, from skiing. All those endeavors require one to stay wide awake, pay close attention, participate flat out, and respond to feedback. It had never occurred to me that those same requirements might apply to intellectual work, to management, to government, to getting along with people.
But there it was, the message emerging from every computer model we made. Living successfully in a world of systems requires more of us than our ability to calculate. It requires our full humanity—our rationality, our ability to sort out truth from falsehood, our intuition, our compassion, our vision, and our morality.
I will summarize the most general "systems wisdoms" I have absorbed from modeling complex systems and hanging out with modelers. These are the take-home lessons, the concepts and practices that penetrate the discipline of systems so deeply that one begins, however imperfectly, to practice them not just in one's profession, but in all of life.
The list probably isn't complete, because I am still a student in the school of systems. And it isn't unique to systems thinking. There are many ways to learn to dance. But here, as a start-off dancing lesson, are the practices I see my colleagues adopting, consciously or unconsciously, as they encounter systems.

Get the beat.
Before you disturb the system in any way, watch how it behaves. If it's a piece of music or a whitewater rapid or a fluctuation in a commodity price, study its beat. If it's a social system, watch it work. Learn its history. Ask people who've been around a long time to tell you what has happened. If possible, find or make a time graph of actual data from the system. Peoples' memories are not always reliable when it comes to timing.
Starting with the behavior of the system forces you to focus on facts, not theories. It keeps you from falling too quickly into your own beliefs or misconceptions, or those of others. It's amazing how many misconceptions there can be. People will swear that rainfall is decreasing, say, but when you look at the data, you find that what is really happening is that variability is increasing—the droughts are deeper, but the floods are greater too. I have been told with great authority that milk price was going up when it was going down, that real interest rates were falling when they were rising, that the deficit was a higher fraction of the GNP than ever before when it wasn't.
Starting with the behavior of the system directs one's thoughts to dynamic, not static analysis—not only to "what's wrong?" but also to "how did we get there?" and "what behavior modes are possible?" and "if we don't change direction, where are we going to end up?"
And finally, starting with history discourages the common and distracting tendency we all have to define a problem not by the system's actual behavior, but by the lack of our favorite solution. (The problem is, we need to find more oil. The problem is, we need to ban abortion. The problem is, how can we attract more growth to this town?)
Listen to the wisdom of the system.
Aid and encourage the forces and structures that help the system run itself. Don't be an unthinking intervener and destroy the system's own self-maintenance capacities. Before you charge in to make things better, pay attention to the value of what's already there.
A friend of mine, Nathan Gray, was once an aid worker in Guatemala. He told me of his frustration with agencies that would arrive with the intention of "creating jobs" and "increasing entrepreneurial abilities" and "attracting outside investors." They would walk right past the thriving local market, where small-scale business people of all kinds, from basket-makers to vegetable growers to butchers to candy sellers, were displaying their entrepreneurial abilities in jobs they had created for themselves. Nathan spent his time talking to the people in the market, asking about their lives and businesses, learning what was in the way of those businesses expanding and incomes rising. He concluded that what was needed was not outside investors, but inside ones. Small loans available at reasonable interest rates, and classes in literacy and accounting, would produce much more long-term good for the community than bringing in a factory or assembly plant from outside.
Expose your mental models to the open air.
Remember, always, that everything you know, and everything everyone knows, is only a model. Get your model out there where it can be shot at. Invite others to challenge your assumptions and add their own. Instead of becoming a champion for one possible explanation or hypothesis or model, collect as many as possible. Consider all of them plausible until you find some evidence that causes you to rule one out. That way you will be emotionally able to see the evidence that rules out an assumption with which you might have confused your own identity.
You don't have to put forth your mental model with diagrams and equations, though that's a good discipline. You can do it with words or lists or pictures or arrows showing what you think is connected to what. The more you do that, in any form, the clearer your thinking will become, the faster you will admit your uncertainties and correct your mistakes, and the more flexible you will learn to be. Mental flexibility—the willingness to redraw boundaries, to notice that a system has shifted into a new mode, to see how to redesign structure—is a necessity when you live in a world of flexible systems.
Stay humble. Stay a learner.
Systems thinking has taught me to trust my intuition more and my figuring-out rationality less, to lean on both as much as I can, but still to be prepared for surprises. Working with systems, on the computer, in nature, among people, in organizations, constantly reminds me of how incomplete my mental models are, how complex the world is, and how much I don't know.
The thing to do, when you don't know, is not to bluff and not to freeze, but to learn. The way you learn is by experiment—or, as Buckminster Fuller put it, by trial and error, error, error. In a world of complex systems it is not appropriate to charge forward with rigid, undeviating directives. "Stay the course" is only a good idea if you're sure you're on course. Pretending you're in control even when you aren't is a recipe not only for mistakes, but for not learning from mistakes. What's appropriate when you're learning is small steps, constant monitoring, and a willingness to change course as you find out more about where it's leading.
That's hard. It means making mistakes and, worse, admitting them. It means what psychologist Don Michael calls "error-embracing." It takes a lot of courage to embrace your errors.
Honor and protect information.
A decision-maker can't respond to information he or she doesn't have, can't respond accurately to information that is inaccurate, can't respond in a timely way to information that is late. I would guess that 99 percent of what goes wrong in systems goes wrong because of faulty or missing information.
If I could, I would add an Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not distort, delay, or sequester information. You can drive a system crazy by muddying its information streams. You can make a system work better with surprising ease if you can give it more timely, accurate, and complete information.
For example, in 1986 new federal legislation required US companies to report all chemical emissions from each of their plants. Through the Freedom of Information Act (from a systems point of view one of the most important laws in the nation) that information became a matter of public record. In July 1988 the first data on chemical emissions became available. The reported emissions were not illegal, but they didn't look very good when they were published in local papers by enterprising reporters, who had a tendency to make lists of "the top ten local polluters." That's all that happened. There were no lawsuits, no required reductions, no fines, no penalties. But within two years chemical emissions nationwide (as least as reported, and presumably also in fact) had decreased by 40 percent. Some companies were launching policies to bring their emissions down by 90 percent, just because of the release of previously sequestered information.
Locate responsibility in the system.
Look for the ways the system creates its own behavior. Do pay attention to the triggering events, the outside influences that bring forth one kind of behavior from the system rather than another. Sometimes those outside events can be controlled (as in reducing the pathogens in drinking water to keep down incidences of infectious disease). But sometimes they can't. And sometimes blaming or trying to control the outside influence blinds one to the easier task of increasing responsibility within the system.
"Intrinsic responsibility" means that the system is designed to send feedback about the consequences of decision-making directly and quickly and compellingly to the decision-makers.
Dartmouth College reduced intrinsic responsibility when it took thermostats out of individual offices and classrooms and put temperature-control decisions under the guidance of a central computer. That was done as an energy-saving measure. My observation from a low level in the hierarchy is that the main consequence was greater oscillations in room temperature. When my office gets overheated now, instead of turning down the thermostat, I have to call an office across campus, which gets around to making corrections over a period of hours or days, and which often overcorrects, setting up the need for another phone call. One way of making that system more, rather than less, responsible, might have been to let professors keep control of their own thermostats and charge them directly for the amount of energy they use. (Thereby privatizing a commons!)
Designing a system for intrinsic responsibility could mean, for example, requiring all towns or companies that emit wastewater into a stream to place their intake pipe downstream from their outflow pipe. It could mean that neither insurance companies nor public funds should pay for medical costs resulting from smoking or from accidents in which a motorcycle rider didn't wear a helmet or a car rider didn't fasten the seat belt. It could mean Congress would no longer be allowed to legislate rules from which it exempts itself.
Make feedback policies for feedback systems.
President Jimmy Carter had an unusual ability to think in feedback terms and to make feedback policies. Unfortunately he had a hard time explaining them to a press and public that didn't understand feedback.
He suggested, at a time when oil imports were soaring, that there be a tax on gasoline proportional to the fraction of US oil consumption that had to be imported. If imports continued to rise the tax would rise, until it suppressed demand and brought forth substitutes and reduced imports. If imports fell to zero, the tax would fall to zero.
The tax never got passed.
Carter was also trying to deal with a flood of illegal immigrants from Mexico. He suggested that nothing could be done about that immigration as long as there was a great gap in opportunity and living standards between the US and Mexico. Rather than spending money on border guards and barriers, he said, we should spend money helping to build the Mexican economy, and we should continue to do so until the immigration stopped.
That never happened either.
You can imagine why a dynamic, self-adjusting system cannot be governed by a static, unbending policy. It's easier, more effective, and usually much cheaper to design policies that change depending on the state of the system. Especially where there are great uncertainties, the best policies not only contain feedback loops, but meta-feedback loops—loops that alter, correct, and expand loops. These are policies that design learning into the management process.
Pay attention to what is important, not just what is quantifiable.
Our culture, obsessed with numbers, has given us the idea that what we can measure is more important than what we can't measure. You can look around and make up your own mind about whether quantity or quality is the outstanding characteristic of the world in which you live.
If something is ugly, say so. If it is tacky, inappropriate, out of proportion, unsustainable, morally degrading, ecologically impoverishing, or humanly demeaning, don't let it pass. Don't be stopped by the "if you can't define it and measure it, I don't have to pay attention to it" ploy. No one can [precisely] define or measure justice, democracy, security, freedom, truth, or love. No one can [precisely] define or measure any value. But if no one speaks up for them, if systems aren't designed to produce them, if we don't speak about them and point toward their presence or absence, they will cease to exist.
Go for the good of the whole.
Don't maximize parts of systems or subsystems while ignoring the whole. As Kenneth Boulding once said, don't go to great trouble to optimize something that never should be done at all. Aim to enhance total systems properties, such as [creativity], stability, diversity, resilience, and sustainability—whether they are easily measured or not.
As you think about a system, spend part of your time from a vantage point that lets you see the whole system, not just the problem that may have drawn you to focus on the system to begin with. And realize that, especially in the short term, changes for the good of the whole may sometimes seem to be counter to the interests of a part of the system. It helps to remember that the parts of a system cannot survive without the whole. The long-term interests of your liver require the long-term health of your body, and the long-term interests of sawmills require the long-term health of forests.
Expand time horizons.
The official time horizon of industrial society doesn't extend beyond what will happen after the next election or beyond the payback period of current investments. The time horizon of most families still extends farther than that—through the lifetimes of children or grandchildren. Many Native American cultures actively spoke of and considered in their decisions the effects upon the seventh generation to come. The longer the operant time horizon, the better the chances for survival.
In the strict systems sense there is no long-term/short-term distinction. Phenomena at different timescales are nested within each other. Actions taken now have some immediate effects and some that radiate out for decades to come. We experience now the consequences of actions set in motion yesterday and decades ago and centuries ago.
When you're walking along a tricky, curving, unknown, surprising, obstacle-strewn path, you'd be a fool to keep your head down and look just at the next step in front of you. You'd be equally a fool just to peer far ahead and never notice what's immediately under your feet. You need to be watching both the short and long terms—the whole system.
Expand thought horizons.
Defy the disciplines. In spite of what you majored in, or what the textbooks say, or what you think you're an expert at, follow a system wherever it leads. It will be sure to lead across traditional disciplinary lines. To understand that system, you will have to be able to learn from—while not being limited by—economists and chemists and psychologists and theologians. You will have to penetrate their jargons, integrate what they tell you, recognize what they can honestly see through their particular lenses, and discard the distortions that come from the narrowness and incompleteness of their lenses. They won't make it easy for you.
Seeing systems whole requires more than being "interdisciplinary," if that word means, as it usually does, putting together people from different disciplines and letting them talk past each other. Interdisciplinary communication works only if there is a real problem to be solved, and if the representatives from the various disciplines are more committed to solving the problem than to being academically correct. They will have to go into learning mode, to admit ignorance and be willing to be taught, by each other and by the system.
It can be done. It's very exciting when it happens.
Expand the boundary of caring.
Living successfully in a world of complex systems means expanding not only time horizons and thought horizons; above all it means expanding the horizons of caring. There are moral reasons for doing that, of course. And if moral arguments are not sufficient, systems thinking provides the practical reasons to back up the moral ones. The real system is interconnected. No part of the human race is separate either from other human beings or from the global ecosystem. It will not be possible in this integrated world for your heart to succeed if your lungs fail, or for your company to succeed if your workers fail, or for the rich in Los Angeles to succeed if the poor in Los Angeles fail, or for Europe to succeed if Africa fails, or for the global economy to succeed if the global environment fails.
As with everything else about systems, most people already know the interconnections that make moral and practical rules turn out to be the same rules. They just have to bring themselves to believe what they know.
Celebrate complexity.
Let's face it, the universe is messy. It is nonlinear, turbulent, and chaotic. It is dynamic. It spends its time in transient behavior on its way to somewhere else, not in mathematically neat equilibria. It self-organizes and evolves. It creates diversity, not uniformity. That's what makes the world interesting, that's what makes it beautiful, and that's what makes it work.
There's something within the human mind that is attracted to straight lines and not curves, to whole numbers and not fractions, to uniformity and not diversity, and to certainties and not mystery. But there is something else within us that has the opposite set of tendencies, since we ourselves evolved out of and are shaped by and structured as complex feedback systems. Only a part of us, a part that has emerged recently, designs buildings as boxes with uncompromising straight lines and flat surfaces. Another part of us recognizes instinctively that nature designs in fractals, with intriguing detail on every scale from the microscopic to the macroscopic. That part of us makes Gothic cathedrals and Persian carpets, symphonies and novels, Mardi Gras costumes and artificial intelligence programs, all with embellishments almost as complex as the ones we find in the world around us.
Hold fast to the goal of goodness.
Examples of bad human behavior are held up, magnified by the media, affirmed by the culture, as typical. Just what you would expect. After all, we're only human. The far more numerous examples of human goodness are barely noticed. They are Not News. They are exceptions. Must have been a saint. Can't expect everyone to behave like that.
And so expectations are lowered. The gap between desired behavior and actual behavior narrows. Fewer actions are taken to affirm and instill ideals. The public discourse is full of cynicism. Public leaders are visibly, unrepentantly, amoral or immoral and are not held to account. Idealism is ridiculed. Statements of moral belief are suspect. It is much easier to talk about hate in public than to talk about love.
We know what to do about eroding goals. Don't weigh the bad news more heavily than the good. And keep standards absolute.
This is quite a list. Systems thinking can only tell us to do these things. It can't do them for us. And so we are brought to the gap between understanding and implementation. Systems thinking by itself cannot bridge that gap. But it can lead us to the edge of what analysis can do and then point beyond—to what can and must be done by the human spirit.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

2007/03/10 上課課程資料(2) - 土壤評估在環評影響評估中的功能為何?

土壤評估在環評影響評估中的功能為何？

郭鴻裕
農委會農業試驗所

I. 現行環評之土壤審議規範
環評審查之各類環境因子

(一)物理及化學因子(包括 : 地形、地質 、地形、
土壤 、水文、水質、氣象、 空氣品質、噪音、
震動、惡臭、 廢棄物等)。
(二)生態因子(水陸域動物、植物、棲息環淨等) 。
(三)景觀及遊憩因子(遊憩資源等) 。
(四)社會經濟因子(影響人口、產業、土地利用、
公共設施衝擊、交通衍生效應、居民意見等) 。
(五)文化因子(古蹟、遺址、歷史建築等) 。
(六)其他環境因子。

II. 現行環評之土壤因子
直接考量：

土壤重金屬濃度

間接考量：

基地排水(滯洪池)—水土保持計畫
土壤液化及崩坍—地質、地形
挖填土方—廢棄物處理
考古遺址---文化資產
陸域動植物棲地---生態

III. 土壤(農林)的功能的各種闡釋(1)
日本(環境土壤學):

植物生產機能、(水質、污染物質)淨化機能、貯水及透水機能、
埋藏文化財保存機能、和諧基能(景觀/市民農園)、自然教育/教
材機能、建築物支持機能、土地設施施工機能、建設資材機能、
窯業原料機能。

日本(農林水產省)

水涵養機能、洪水防止機能、水質淨化機能、土砂崩壞防止機能、
土壤侵蝕防止機能、污染物淨化機能、居住快適性機能、保健休
養機能(生理、心理)。
(註:畫底線者為目前環評中有討論到的議題)

IV. 土壤(農林)的功能的各種闡釋(2)
英國農環部(defra, UK);Blum(1993)

環境交互作用(
(1)空氣、地質、水及土地利用之介面;
(2)過濾水質及空氣灰塵沉降場所;
(3)釋出及吸收大氣氣體並且是碳(溫室氣體)的儲存所;
(4)降雨時調整水流及水氣)
食物及纖維之生產(食物、木材、能源、家畜及纖維)
提供平台
(1)土木之基礎(道路及建築)
(2)影響土地利用及造成地景(shaping landscape)

(註:畫底線者為目前環評中有討論到的議題)

V. 土壤(農林)的功能的各種闡釋(3)

支持生態棲地及生物多樣性:
(1)決定自然與生命的分布；
(2)陸地生態的基礎:
提供水、養分、根之成長空間、種子儲存所及微生物與大型土生動物棲地
提供原物料來源:
(1)直接提供礦物及資源如泥碳土及表土；
(2)天然的水庫儲存大量的水
保護文化資產: 保護我們的文化遺產及環境變化

(註:畫底線者為目前環評中有討論到的議題)

VI.


VII.以七星案為例：環評對土壤功能考量之缺失(1)
已考量部分

• 土壤重金屬
• 滯洪池(防洪機能， 但末端排水只能承受10年期洪峰)
• 文化遺址(評估期間沒有找到遺址)
• 土壤液化及斷層(提供平台機能，斷層有威脅但還是要開發)
• 棄土(土資場，但未考量再利用(磚材或陶土)填海…)

VIII. 以七星案為例：環評對土壤功能考量之缺失(2)
未考量部分

• 環境交互作用
• (1)空氣、地質、水及土地利用之介面;
  
• (2)過濾水質及空氣灰塵沉降場所;
• (3)釋出及吸收大氣氣體並且是碳(溫室氣體)的儲存所;
• (4)降雨時調整水流及水氣
• 食物及纖維之生產(食物、木材、能源、家畜及纖維)
• 提供平台
• (1)土木之基礎(道路及建築)
• (2)影響土地利用及造成地景(shaping landscape)—殘丘地景、后豐鐵馬道)

(註:畫底線者為目前環評中有討論到的議題)

IX. 以七星案為例：環評對土壤功能考量之缺失(3)
未考量部分

• 支持生態棲地及生物多樣性:
• (1)決定自然與生命的分布；
  
• (2)陸地生態的基礎:提供水、養分、根之成長空間、種子儲存所及微生物與大型土生動物棲地)
• 提供原物料來源:
  
• (1)直接提供礦物及資源如泥碳土及表土；
• (2)天然的水庫儲存大量的水)
• 保護文化資產: (保護我們的文化遺產及環境變化-后里台地紅土之意義?)

(註:畫底線者為目前環評中有討論到的議題)


X. 為何無法評估土壤功能?

• 面積要大至多少才有影響? (10ha以上?)
• 土壤資料的不完整性?(開發單位應補充調查)
• 土壤功能的補償措施(有價及無價之估算)
• 土壤功能無法讓一般人直接感受其重要。
• 台灣人喜歡: 以工程解決所有問題 (人口稠密之故?教育？) 以金錢衡量一切?

解決方案: 提出土壤功能評估審議規範?

2007/03/10 上課課程資料(1)- Places to intervene in a system

Places to Intervene in a System

By Donella H. Meadows

(Whole Earth Winter 1997)



Folks who do systems analysis have a great belief in "leverage points." These are places within a complex system (a corporation, an economy, a living body, a city, an ecosystem) where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything.
The systems community has a lot of lore about leverage points. Those of us who were trained by the great Jay Forrester at MIT have absorbed one of his favorite stories. "People know intuitively where leverage points are. Time after time I've done an analysis of a company, and I've figured out a leverage point. Then I've gone to the company and discovered that everyone is pushing it in the wrong direction !"
The classic example of that backward intuition was Forrester's first world model. Asked by the Club of Rome to show how major global problems—poverty and hunger, environmental destruction, resource depletion, urban deterioration, unemployment—are related and how they might be solved, Forrester came out with a clear leverage point: Growth. Both population and economic growth. Growth has costs—among which are poverty and hunger, environmental destruction—the whole list of problems we are trying to solve with growth!
The world's leaders are correctly fixated on economic growth as the answer to virtually all problems, but they're pushing with all their might in the wrong direction.
Counterintuitive. That's Forrester's word to describe complex systems. The systems analysts I know have come up with no quick or easy formulas for finding leverage points. Our counterintuitions aren't that well developed. Give us a few months or years and we'll model the system and figure it out. We know from bitter experience that when we do discover the system's leverage points, hardly anybody will believe us.
Very frustrating. So one day I was sitting in a meeting about the new global trade regime, NAFTA and GATT and the World Trade Organization. The more I listened, the more I began to simmer inside. "This is a HUGE NEW SYSTEM people are inventing!" I said to myself. "They haven't the slightest idea how it will behave," myself said back to me. "It's cranking the system in the wrong direction—growth, growth at any price!! And the control measures these nice folks are talking about—small parameter adjustments, weak negative feedback loops—are PUNY!"
Suddenly, without quite knowing what was happening, I got up, marched to the flip chart, tossed over a clean page, and wrote: " Places to Intervene in a System ," followed by nine items:

9. Numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards).
8. Material stocks and flows.
7. Regulating negative feedback loops.
6. Driving positive feedback loops.
5. Information flows.
4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishment, constraints).
3. The power of self-organization.
2. The goals of the system.
1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the goals, rules, feedback structure arise.

Everyone in the meeting blinked in surprise, including me. "That's brilliant!" someone breathed. "Huh?" said someone else.
I realized that I had a lot of explaining to do.
In a minute I'll go through the list, translate the jargon, give examples and exceptions. First I want to place the list in a context of humility. What bubbled up in me that day was distilled from decades of rigorous analysis of many different kinds of systems done by many smart people. But complex systems are, well, complex. It's dangerous to generalize about them. What you are about to read is not a recipe for finding leverage points. Rather it's an invitation to think more broadly about system change.
That's why leverage points are not intuitive.

9. Numbers.
Numbers ("parameters" in systems jargon) determine how much of a discrepancy turns which faucet how fast. Maybe the faucet turns hard, so it takes a while to get the water flowing. Maybe the drain is blocked and can allow only a small flow, no matter how open it is. Maybe the faucet can deliver with the force of a fire hose. These considerations are a matter of numbers, some of which are physically locked in, but most of which are popular intervention points.
Consider the national debt. It's a negative bathtub, a money hole. The rate at which it sinks is the annual deficit. Tax income makes it rise, government expenditures make it fall. Congress and the president argue endlessly about the many parameters that open and close tax faucets and spending drains. Since those faucets and drains are connected to the voters, these are politically charged parameters. But, despite all the fireworks, and no matter which party is in charge, the money hole goes on sinking, just at different rates.
The amount of land we set aside for conservation. The minimum wage. How much we spend on AIDS research or Stealth bombers. The service charge the bank extracts from your account. All these are numbers, adjustments to faucets. So, by the way, is firing people and getting new ones. Putting different hands on the faucets may change the rate at which they turn, but if they're the same old faucets, plumbed into the same system, turned according to the same information and rules and goals, the system isn't going to change much. Bill Clinton is different from George Bush, but not all that different.
Numbers are last on my list of leverage points. Diddling with details, arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Probably ninety-five percent of our attention goes to numbers, but there's not a lot of power in them.
Not that parameters aren't important—they can be, especially in the short term and to the individual who's standing directly in the flow. But they RARELY CHANGE BEHAVIOR. If the system is chronically stagnant, parameter changes rarely kick-start it. If it's wildly variable, they don't usually stabilize it. If it's growing out of control, they don't brake it.
Whatever cap we put on campaign contributions, it doesn't clean up politics. The Feds fiddling with the interest rate haven't made business cycles go away. (We always forget that during upturns, and are shocked, shocked by the downturns.) Spending more on police doesn't make crime go away.
However, there are critical exceptions. Numbers become leverage points when they go into ranges that kick off one of the items higher on this list. Interest rates or birth rates control the gains around positive feedback loops. System goals are parameters that can make big differences. Sometimes a system gets onto a chaotic edge, where the tiniest change in a number can drive it from order to what appears to be wild disorder.
Probably the most common kind of critical number is the length of delay in a feedback loop. Remember that bathtub on the fourth floor I mentioned, with the water heater in the basement? I actually experienced one of those once, in an old hotel in London. It wasn't even a bathtub with buffering capacity; it was a shower. The water temperature took at least a minute to respond to my faucet twists. Guess what my shower was like. Right, oscillations from hot to cold and back to hot, punctuated with expletives. Delays in negative feedback loops cause oscillations. If you're trying to adjust a system state to your goal, but you only receive delayed information about what the system state is, you will overshoot and undershoot.
Same if your information is timely, but your response isn't. For example, it takes several years to build an electric power plant, and then that plant lasts, say, thirty years. Those delays make it impossible to build exactly the right number of plants to supply a rapidly changing demand. Even with immense effort at forecasting, almost every electricity industry in the world experiences long oscillations between overcapacity and undercapacity. A system just can't respond to short-term changes when it has long-term delays. That's why a massive central-planning system, such as the Soviet Union or General Motors, necessarily functions poorly.
A delay in a feedback process is critical RELATIVE TO RATES OF CHANGE (growth, fluctuation, decay) IN THE SYSTEM STATE THAT THE FEEDBACK LOOP IS TRYING TO CONTROL. Delays that are too short cause overreaction, oscillations amplified by the jumpiness of the response. Delays that are too long cause damped, sustained, or exploding oscillations, depending on how much too long. At the extreme they cause chaos. Delays in a system with a threshold, a danger point, a range past which irreversible damage can occur, cause overshoot and collapse.
Delay length would be a high leverage point, except for the fact that delays are not often easily changeable. Things take as long as they take. You can't do a lot about the construction time of a major piece of capital, or the maturation time of a child, or the growth rate of a forest. It's usually easier to slow down the change rate (positive feedback loops, higher on this list), so feedback delays won't cause so much trouble. Critical numbers are not nearly as common as people seem to think they are. Most systems have evolved or are designed to stay out of sensitive parameter ranges. Mostly, the numbers are not worth the sweat put into them.

8. Material stocks and flows.
The plumbing structure, the stocks and flows and their physical arrangement, can have an enormous effect on how a system operates.
When the Hungarian road system was laid out so all traffic from one side of the nation to the other had to pass through central Budapest, that determined a lot about air pollution and commuting delays that are not easily fixed by pollution control devices, traffic lights, or speed limits. The only way to fix a system that is laid out wrong is to rebuild it, if you can.
Often you can't, because physical building is a slow and expensive kind of change. Some stock-and-flow structures are just plain unchangeable.
The baby-boom swell in the US population first caused pressure on the elementary school system, then high schools and colleges, then jobs and housing, and now we're looking forward to supporting its retirement. Not much to do about it, because five-year-olds become six-year-olds, and sixty-four-year-olds become sixty-five-year-olds predictably and unstoppably. The same can be said for the lifetime of destructive CFC molecules in the ozone layer, for the rate at which contaminants get washed out of aquifers, for the fact that an inefficient car fleet takes ten to twenty years to turn over.
The possible exceptional leverage point here is in the size of stocks, or buffers. Consider a huge bathtub with slow in and outflows. Now think about a small one with fast flows. That's the difference between a lake and a river. You hear about catastrophic river floods much more often than catastrophic lake floods, because stocks that are big, relative to their flows, are more stable than small ones. A big, stabilizing stock is a buffer.
The stabilizing power of buffers is why you keep money in the bank rather than living from the flow of change through your pocket. It's why stores hold inventory instead of calling for new stock just as customers carry the old stock out the door. It's why we need to maintain more than the minimum breeding population of an endangered species. Soils in the eastern US are more sensitive to acid rain than soils in the west, because they haven't got big buffers of calcium to neutralize acid. You can often stabilize a system by increasing the capacity of a buffer. But if a buffer is too big, the system gets inflexible. It reacts too slowly. Businesses invented just-in-time inventories, because occasional vulnerability to fluctuations or screw-ups is cheaper than certain, constant inventory costs—and because small-to-vanishing inventories allow more flexible response to shifting demand.
There's leverage, sometimes magical, in changing the size of buffers. But buffers are usually physical entities, not easy to change.
The acid absorption capacity of eastern soils is not a leverage point for alleviating acid rain damage. The storage capacity of a dam is literally cast in concrete. Physical structure is crucial in a system, but the leverage point is in proper design in the first place. After the structure is built, the leverage is in understanding its limitations and bottlenecks and refraining from fluctutions or expansions that strain its capacity.

7. Regulating negative feedback loops.
Now we're beginning to move from the physical part of the system to the information and control parts, where more leverage can be found. Nature evolves negative feedback loops and humans invent them to keep system states within safe bounds.
A thermostat loop is the classic example. Its purpose is to keep the system state called "room temperature" fairly constant at a desired level. Any negative feedback loop needs a goal (the thermostat setting), a monitoring and signaling device to detect excursions from the goal (the thermostat), and a response mechanism (the furnace and/or air conditioner, fans, heat pipes, fuel, etc.).
A complex system usually has numerous negative feedback loops it can bring into play, so it can self-correct under different conditions and impacts. Some of those loops may be inactive much of the time—like the emergency cooling system in a nuclear power plant, or your ability to sweat or shiver to maintain your body temperature. One of the big mistakes we make is to strip away these emergency response mechanisms because they aren't often used and they appear to be costly. In the short term we see no effect from doing this. In the long term, we narrow the range of conditions over which the system can survive.
One of the most heartbreaking ways we do this is in encroaching on the habitats of endangered species. Another is in encroaching on our own time for rest, recreation, socialization, and meditation.
The "strength" of a negative loop—its ability to keep its appointed stock at or near its goal—depends on the combination of all its parameters and links—the accuracy and rapidity of monitoring, the quickness and power of response, the directness and size of corrective flows.
There can be leverage points here. Take markets, for example, the negative feedback systems that are all but worshiped by economists—and they can indeed be marvels of self-correction, as prices vary to keep supply and demand in balance. The more the price—the central signal to both producers and consumers—is kept clear, unambiguous, timely, and truthful, the more smoothly markets will operate. Prices that reflect full costs will tell consumers how much they can actually afford and will reward efficient producers. Companies and governments are fatally attracted to the price leverage point, of course, all of them pushing in the wrong direction with subsidies, fixes, externalities, taxes, and other forms of confusion. The REAL leverage here is to keep them from doing it. Hence anti-trust laws, truth-in-advertising laws, attempts to internalize costs (such as pollution taxes), the removal of perverse subsidies, and other ways of leveling market playing fields.
The strength of a negative feedback loop is important RELATIVE TO THE IMPACT IT IS DESIGNED TO CORRECT. If the impact increases in strength, the feedbacks have to be strengthened too.
A thermostat system may work fine on a cold winter day—but open all the windows and its corrective power will fail. Democracy worked better before the advent of the brainwashing power of centralized mass communications. Traditional controls on fishing were sufficient until radar spotting and drift nets and other technologies made it possible for a few actors to wipe out the fish. The power of big industry calls for the power of big government to hold it in check; a global economy makes necessary a global government.
Here are some other examples of strengthening negative feedback controls to improve a system's self-correcting abilities: preventive medicine, exercise, and good nutrition to bolster the body's ability to fight disease, integrated pest management to encourage natural predators of crop pests, the Freedom of Information Act to reduce government secrecy, protection for whistle blowers, impact fees, pollution taxes, and performance bonds to recapture the externalized public costs of private benefits.

6. Driving positive feedback loops.
A positive feedback loop is self-reinforcing. The more it works, the more it gains power to work some more.
The more people catch the flu, the more they infect other people. The more babies are born, the more people grow up to have babies. The more money you have in the bank, the more interest you earn, the more money you have in the bank. The more the soil erodes, the less vegetation it can support, the fewer roots and leaves to soften rain and runoff, the more soil erodes. The more high-energy neutrons in the critical mass, the more they knock into nuclei and generate more.
Positive feedback loops drive growth, explosion, erosion, and collapse in systems. A system with an unchecked positive loop ultimately will destroy itself. That's why there are so few of them.
Usually a negative loop kicks in sooner or later. The epidemic runs out of infectable people—or people take increasingly strong steps to avoid being infected. The death rate rises to equal the birth rate—or people see the consequences of unchecked population growth and have fewer babies. The soil erodes away to bedrock, and after a million years the bedrock crumbles into new soil—or people put up check dams and plant trees.
In those examples, the first outcome is what happens if the positive loop runs its course, the second is what happens if there's an intervention to reduce its power.
Reducing the gain around a positive loop—slowing the growth—is usually a more powerful leverage point in systems than strengthening negative loops, and much preferable to letting the positive loop run.
Population and economic growth rates in the world model are leverage points, because slowing them gives the many negative loops, through technology and markets and other forms of adaptation, time to function. It's the same as slowing the car when you're driving too fast, rather than calling for more responsive brakes or technical advances in steering.
The most interesting behavior that rapidly turning positive loops can trigger is chaos. This wild, unpredictable, unreplicable, and yet bounded behavior happens when a system starts changing much, much faster than its negative loops can react to it.
For example, if you keep raising the capital growth rate in the world model, eventually you get to a point where one tiny increase more will shift the economy from exponential growth to oscillation. Another nudge upward gives the oscillation a double beat. And just the tiniest further nudge sends it into chaos.
I don't expect the world economy to turn chaotic any time soon (not for that reason, anyway). That behavior occurs only in unrealistic parameter ranges, equivalent to doubling the size of the economy within a year. Real-world systems do turn chaotic, however, if something in them can grow or decline very fast. Fast-replicating bacteria or insect populations, very infectious epidemics, wild speculative bubbles in money systems, neutron fluxes in the guts of nuclear power plants. These systems are hard to control, and control must involve slowing down the positive feedbacks.
In more ordinary systems, look for leverage points around birth rates, interest rates, erosion rates, "success to the successful" loops, any place where the more you have of something, the more you have the possibility of having more.

5. Information flows.
There was this subdivision of identical houses, the story goes, except that the electric meter in some of the houses was installed in the basement and in others it was installed in the front hall, where the residents could see it constantly, going round faster or slower as they used more or less electricity. Electricity consumption was 30 percent lower in the houses where the meter was in the front hall.
Systems-heads love that story because it's an example of a high leverage point in the information structure of the system. It's not a parameter adjustment, not a strengthening or weakening of an existing loop. It's a NEW LOOP, delivering feedback to a place where it wasn't going before.
In 1986 the US government required that every factory releasing hazardous air pollutants report those emissions publicly. Suddenly everyone could find out precisely what was coming out of the smokestacks in town. There was no law against those emissions, no fines, no determination of "safe" levels, just information. But by 1990 emissions dropped 40 percent. One chemical company that found itself on the Top Ten Polluters list reduced its emissions by 90 percent, just to "get off that list."
Missing feedback is a common cause of system malfunction. Adding or rerouting information can be a powerful intervention, usually easier and cheaper than rebuilding physical structure.
The tragedy of the commons that is exhausting the world's commercial fisheries occurs because there is no feedback from the state of the fish population to the decision to invest in fishing vessels. (Contrary to economic opinion, the price of fish doesn't provide that feedback. As the fish get more scarce and hence more expensive, it becomes all the more profitable to go out and catch them. That's a perverse feedback, a positive loop that leads to collapse.)
It's important that the missing feedback be restored to the right place and in compelling form. It's not enough to inform all the users of an aquifer that the groundwater level is dropping. That could trigger a race to the bottom. It would be more effective to set a water price that rises steeply as the pumping rate exceeds the recharge rate.
Suppose taxpayers got to specify on their return forms what government services their tax payments must be spent on. (Radical democracy!) Suppose any town or company that puts a water intake pipe in a river had to put it immediately DOWNSTREAM from its own outflow pipe. Suppose any public or private official who made the decision to invest in a nuclear power plant got the waste from that plant stored on his/her lawn.
There is a systematic tendency on the part of human beings to avoid accountability for their own decisions. That's why there are so many missing feedback loops—and why this kind of leverage point is so often popular with the masses, unpopular with the powers that be, and effective, if you can get the powers that be to permit it to happen or go around them and make it happen anyway.

4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints).
The rules of the system define its scope, boundaries, degrees of freedom. Thou shalt not kill. Everyone has the right of free speech. Contracts are to be honored. The president serves four-year terms and cannot serve more than two of them. Nine people on a team, you have to touch every base, three strikes and you're out. If you get caught robbing a bank, you go to jail.
Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the USSR and opened information flows (glasnost) and changed the economic rules (perestroika), and look what happened.
Constitutions are strong social rules. Physical laws such as the second law of thermodynamics are absolute rules, if we understand them correctly. Laws, punishments, incentives, and informal social agreements are progressively weaker rules.
To demonstrate the power of rules, I ask my students to imagine different ones for a college. Suppose the students graded the teachers. Suppose you come to college when you want to learn something, and you leave when you've learned it. Suppose professors were hired according to their ability to solve real-world problems, rather than to publish academic papers. Suppose a class got graded as a group, instead of as individuals.
Rules change behavior. Power over rules is real power.
That's why lobbyists congregate when Congress writes laws, and why the Supreme Court, which interprets and delineates the Constitution—the rules for writing the rules—has even more power than Congress.
If you want to understand the deepest malfunctions of systems, pay attention to the rules, and to who has power over them.
That's why my systems intuition was sending off alarm bells as the new world trade system was explained to me. It is a system with rules designed by corporations, run by corporations, for the benefit of corporations. Its rules exclude almost any feedback from other sectors of society. Most of its meetings are closed to the press (no information, no feedback). It forces nations into positive loops, competing with each other to weaken environmental and social safeguards in order to attract corporate investment. It's a recipe for unleashing "success to the succesful" loops.
3. The power of self-organization.
The most stunning thing living systems can do is to change themselves utterly by creating whole new structures and behaviors. In biological systems that power is called evolution. In human economies it's called technical advance or social revolution. In systems lingo it's called self-organization.
Self-organization means changing any aspect of a system lower on this list—adding or deleting new physical structure, adding or deleting negative or positive loops or information flows or rules. The ability to self-organize is the strongest form of system resilience, the ability to survive change by changing.
The human immune system can develop responses to (some kinds of) insults it has never before encountered. The human brain can take in new information and pop out completely new thoughts.
Self-organization seems so wondrous that we tend to regard it as mysterious, miraculous. Economists often model technology as literal manna from heaven—coming from nowhere, costing nothing, increasing the productivity of an economy by some steady percent each year. For centuries people have regarded the spectacular variety of nature with the same awe. Only a divine creator could bring forth such a creation.
In fact the divine creator does not have to produce miracles. He, she, or it just has to write clever RULES FOR SELF-ORGANIZATION. These rules govern how, where, and what the system can add onto or subtract from itself under what conditions.
Self-organizing computer models demonstrate that delightful, mind-boggling patterns can evolve from simple evolutionary algorithms. (That need not mean that real-world algorithms are simple, only that they can be.) The genetic code that is the basis of all biological evolution contains just four letters, combined into words of three letters each. That code, and the rules for replicating and rearranging it, has spewed out an unimaginable variety of creatures.
Self-organization is basically a matter of evolutionary raw material—a stock of information from which to select possible patterns—and a means for testing them. For biological evolution the raw material is DNA, one source of variety is spontaneous mutation, and the testing mechanism is something like punctuated Darwinian selection. For technology the raw material is the body of understanding science has accumulated. The source of variety is human creativity (whatever THAT is) and the selection mechanism is whatever the market will reward or whatever governments and foundations will fund or whatever tickles the fancy of crazy inventors.
When you understand the power of self-organization, you begin to understand why biologists worship biodiversity even more than economists worship technology. The wildly varied stock of DNA, evolved and accumulated over billions of years, is the source of evolutionary potential, just as science libraries and labs and scientists are the source of technological potential. Allowing species to go extinct is a systems crime, just as randomly eliminating all copies of particular science journals, or particular kinds of scientists, would be.
The same could be said of human cultures, which are the store of behavioral repertoires accumulated over not billions, but hundreds of thousands of years. They are a stock out of which social evolution can arise. Unfortunately, people appreciate the evolutionary potential of cultures even less than they understand the potential of every genetic variation in ground squirrels. I guess that's because one aspect of almost every culture is a belief in the utter superiority of that culture.
Any system, biological, economic, or social, that scorns experimentation and wipes out the raw material of innovation is doomed over the long term on this highly variable planet.
The intervention point here is obvious but unpopular. Encouraging diversity means losing control. Let a thousand flowers bloom and ANYTHING could happen!
Who wants that?

2. The goals of the system.
Right there, the push for control, is an example of why the goal of a system is even more of a leverage point than the self-organizing ability of a system.
If the goal is to bring more and more of the world under the control of one central planning system (the empire of Genghis Khan, the world of Islam, the People's Republic of China, Wal-Mart, Disney), then everything further down the list, even self-organizing behavior, will be pressured or weakened to conform to that goal.
That's why I can't get into arguments about whether genetic engineering is a good or a bad thing. Like all technologies, it depends upon who is wielding it, with what goal. The only thing one can say is that if corporations wield it for the purpose of generating marketable products, that is a very different goal, a different direction for evolution than anything the planet has seen so far.
There is a hierarchy of goals in systems. Most negative feedback loops have their own goals—to keep the bath water at the right level, to keep the room temperature comfortable, to keep inventories stocked at sufficient levels. They are small leverage points. The big leverage points are the goals of entire systems.
People within systems don't often recognize what whole-system goal they are serving. To make profits, most corporations would say, but that's just a rule, a necessary condition to stay in the game. What is the point of the game? To grow, to increase market share, to bring the world (customers, suppliers, regulators) more under the control of the corporation, so that its operations become ever more shielded from uncertainty. That's the goal of a cancer cell too and of every living population. It's only a bad one when it isn't countered by higher-level negative feedback loops with goals of keeping the system in balance. The goal of keeping the market competitive has to trump the goal of each corporation to eliminate its competitors. The goal of keeping populations in balance and evolving has to trump the goal of each population to commandeer all resources into its own metabolism.
I said a while back that changing the players in a system is a low-level intervention, as long as the players fit into the same old system. The exception to that rule is at the top, if a single player can change the system's goal.
I have watched in wonder as—only very occasionally—a new leader in an organization, from Dartmouth College to Nazi Germany, comes in, enunciates a new goal, and single-handedly changes the behavior of hundreds or thousands or millions of perfectly rational people.
That's what Ronald Reagan did. Not long before he came to office, a president could say, "Ask not what government can do for you, ask what you can do for the government," and no one even laughed. Reagan said the goal is not to get the people to help the government and not to get government to help the people, but to get the government off our backs. One can argue, and I would, that larger system changes let him get away with that. But the thoroughness with which behavior in the US and even the world has been changed since Reagan is testimony to the high leverage of articulating, repeating, standing for, insisting upon new system goals.

1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises.
Another of Jay Forrester's systems sayings goes: It doesn't matter how the tax law of a country is written. There is a shared idea in the minds of the society about what a "fair" distribution of the tax load is. Whatever the rules say, by fair means or foul, by complications, cheating, exemptions or deductions, by constant sniping at the rules, the actual distribution of taxes will push right up against the accepted idea of "fairness."
The shared idea in the minds of society, the great unstated assumptions—unstated because unnecessary to state; everyone knows them—constitute that society's deepest set of beliefs about how the world works. There is a difference between nouns and verbs. People who are paid less are worth less. Growth is good. Nature is a stock of resources to be converted to human purposes. Evolution stopped with the emergence of Homo sapiens . One can "own" land. Those are just a few of the paradigmatic assumptions of our culture, all of which utterly dumbfound people of other cultures.
Paradigms are the sources of systems. From them come goals, information flows, feedbacks, stocks, flows.
The ancient Egyptians built pyramids because they believed in an afterlife. We build skyscrapers, because we believe that space in downtown cities is enormously valuable. (Except for blighted spaces, often near the skyscrapers, which we believe are worthless.) Whether it was Copernicus and Kepler showing that the earth is not the center of the universe, or Einstein hypothesizing that matter and energy are interchangeable, or Adam Smith postulating that the selfish actions of individual players in markets wonderfully accumulate to the common good.
People who manage to intervene in systems at the level of paradigm hit a leverage point that totally transforms systems.
You could say paradigms are harder to change than anything else about a system, and therefore this item should be lowest on the list, not the highest. But there's nothing physical or expensive or even slow about paradigm change. In a single individual it can happen in a millisecond. All it takes is a click in the mind, a new way of seeing. Of course individuals and societies do resist challenges to their paradigm harder than they resist any other kind of change.
So how do you change paradigms? Thomas Kuhn, who wrote the seminal book about the great paradigm shifts of science, has a lot to say about that. In a nutshell, you keep pointing at the anomalies and failures in the old paradigm, you come yourself, loudly, with assurance, from the new one, you insert people with the new paradigm in places of public visibility and power. You don't waste time with reactionaries; rather you work with active change agents and with the vast middle ground of people who are open-minded.
Systems folks would say one way to change a paradigm is to model a system, which takes you outside the system and forces you to see it whole. We say that because our own paradigms have been changed that way.

0. The power to transcend paradigms.
Sorry, but to be truthful and complete, I have to add this kicker.
The highest leverage of all is to keep oneself unattached in the arena of paradigms, to realize that NO paradigm is "true," that even the one that sweetly shapes one's comfortable worldview is a tremendously limited understanding of an immense and amazing universe.
It is to "get" at a gut level the paradigm that there are paradigms, and to see that that itself is a paradigm, and to regard that whole realization as devastatingly funny. It is to let go into Not Knowing.
People who cling to paradigms (just about all of us) take one look at the spacious possibility that everything we think is guaranteed to be nonsense and pedal rapidly in the opposite direction. Surely there is no power, no control, not even a reason for being, much less acting, in the experience that there is no certainty in any worldview. But everyone who has managed to entertain that idea, for a moment or for a lifetime, has found it a basis for radical empowerment. If no paradigm is right, you can choose one that will help achieve your purpose. If you have no idea where to get a purpose, you can listen to the universe (or put in the name of your favorite deity here) and do his, her, its will, which is a lot better informed than your will.
It is in the space of mastery over paradigms that people throw off addictions, live in constant joy, bring down empires, get locked up or burned at the stake or crucified or shot, and have impacts that last for millennia.
Back from the sublime to the ridiculous, from enlightenment to caveats. There is so much that has to be said to qualify this list. It is tentative and its order is slithery. There are exceptions to every item on it. Having the list percolating in my subconscious for years has not transformed me into a Superwoman. I seem to spend my time running up and down the list, trying out leverage points wherever I can find them. The higher the leverage point, the more the system resists changing it-that's why societies rub out truly enlightened beings.
I don't think there are cheap tickets to system change. You have to work at it, whether that means rigorously analyzing a system or rigorously casting off paradigms. In the end, it seems that leverage has less to do with pushing levers than it does with disciplined thinking combined with strategically, profoundly, madly letting go.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.