Carbon locked in soils can be emitted by bacteria. Turning up the heat on them releases more carbon.
- A new study shows that an increase in temperature can increase the amount of carbon released by the soil.
- This is in line with previous studies, though this one demonstrates a larger increase than the older experiments.
- The risk is that increasing temperatures cause a positive feedback loop.
The dirty details of an aggravated carbon cycle<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="CabkeAzx" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="169377c88f392a86f6c42180b74820a5"> <div id="botr_CabkeAzx_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/CabkeAzx-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/CabkeAzx-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/CabkeAzx-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>There is a lot of carbon in the dirt. The world's soil contains more carbon than the atmosphere, all the plants, or all the animals<a href="https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/02/21/can-soil-help-combat-climate-change/" target="_blank"></a>. A third of this trove of carbon resides in the soils of the <a href="https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/26866/20200813/tropical-soils-highly-sensitive-climate-change.htm" target="_blank">tropics</a>. Under normal circumstances, this works as a carbon <a href="https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle" target="_blank">sink</a>, keeping carbon in storage and out of the atmosphere. Some of this carbon is used by bacteria in the soil to provide the building blocks of new microbes. They expel surplus carbon into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. </p><p>Many of these microbes are known to be more active when exposed to higher temperatures. To determine what this could mean for carbon emissions, a team from The University of Edenborough and the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute turned up the heat in tropical soils. </p><p>The researchers went to an undisturbed plot of forest on Barro Colorado Panama, the home of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. They placed heating rods just over a meter into the soil and turned up the heat, warming the earth by four degrees centigrade. They then measured the carbon emissions from the heated ground and another nearby patch left at ambient temperature. These measurements covered two years.</p><p>Their findings, published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2566-4" target="_blank">Nature</a>, show that the heated soil emitted 55 percent more carbon than the control plot<a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200812144102.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow"></a>. <br> <br> Study lead author Andrew Nottingham commented on these findings to the <a href="https://phys.org/news/2020-08-global-tropical-soils-leak-carbon.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">AFP</a>: "Carbon held in tropical soils is more sensitive to warming than previously recognized. Even a small increase in respiration from tropical forest soils could have a large effect on atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> concentrations, with consequences for global climate."</p><p>You can probably also spot the potential feedback loop here: If the global temperature increases too much, more carbon will be released from tropical soils, which then increase the greenhouse effect, which causes global temperatures to rise. </p>
Once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, thrice is evidence of a pattern.<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="8PLWDgcM" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="378380d273bf4a1c9606370acea15e58"> <div id="botr_8PLWDgcM_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/8PLWDgcM-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/8PLWDgcM-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/8PLWDgcM-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>Previous studies on this topic point in the same direction. Those studies and the models they inspired suggested that increased temperatures could increase soil-based carbon emissions, but they all underestimated how much carbon would be involved.</p><p>A 2016 study focusing on temperate soils also concluded that increasing soil temperatures would increase their carbon <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature20150" target="_blank">emissions</a>. They predicted that, if left unchecked, these emissions would equal the amount produced by a country similar to the United States over the next few <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">decades</a>. Another experiment in Colorado found similar <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6332/1420" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">results</a>. Both of these studies found lower increases in carbon emissions by percentage than the study on Barro Colorado. </p><p>However, these studies did not take place in the tropics, and the differences in the soils between temperate and tropical zones could explain the differences between the studies. Moreover, the dirt on Barro Colorado Island differs from the dirt in the Amazon and may be more inclined to produce more emissions when the heat is turned up. The same can be said of tropical soils <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/climate/tropical-soils-climate-change.html?searchResultPosition=3&utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=93170710&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8McWKRhE8U9ChcWW2qkqNyp2Qndzr1aJmGlrMUwK_h1bM8RDQukWcM8r2OcBKW2Y0bWlRr9o4WUixKDzIo4HzKkVv19g&utm_content=93170710&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">elsewhere</a>. </p><p>Another <a href="https://www.forestwarming.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">experiment</a>, very similar to the one in Panama, is currently underway in Puerto Rico. However, this experiment is taking the extra step of also heating the plants near the heated soil to see what the effect of warmer temperatures is on their ability to absorb carbon.</p><p>The current study also did not heat the soil beyond the one-meter mark and cannot provide us with predictions of what more comprehensive heating of the soil would do to emissions. It was also comparatively short, and the effect may be reduced in the long run as the nutrients in the soil are depleted by the increased activity of the microbes, which are using the carbon and other resources to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02266-9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">reproduce</a>. </p><p>The team behind the most recent study will continue their experiment to try and understand how tropical ecosystems respond to increased <a href="https://www.earth.com/news/billions-of-tons-of-co2-could-be-released-from-tropical-soils/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer dofollow">temperatures</a> over more extended periods of time. </p><p>As we increase our understanding of the planet and its various environmental systems, the potential consequences of climate change become clearer and more horrifying. This new study supports previous findings that suggest disrupting soils can increase carbon emissions. While it may be too soon to tell if the significant increases found by this study are typical or an outlier, they do re-enforce the notion that a breakdown in the systems that keep the climate stable is possible if nothing changes. </p>
Declining bee populations could lead to increased food insecurity and economic losses in the billions.
From bee to farm to table<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUyOTUzOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1NzM3MDkwNH0.coXBXgDBoRvXaZYIgKaH9fH_jhlUKp3O22-h2rY8jMQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="a317b" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bd61c660c9d52353ba975145fab59625" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A bar graph showing the percentage of pollination limitation for the seven crops studied.
Ecological and edible incentives<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUyOTUzMS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNTM4NzQwMX0.vclSktT0d_Mvns_QTZ7ZkFT_pWgIIpyb6ZNP1Tla2Qs/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C215%2C0%2C216&height=700" id="93d5d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="b1e5b70e616daf5fcc0a63a041675e7a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="hand holding dead bees" />
A protester shows a handful of bees that died by pesticides. The protest was held during the Bayer AG shareholder meeting in 2019.
(PhooMaja Hitiji/Getty Images)<p>The concern extends beyond these seven. Crops such as coffee, avocados, lemons, limes, and oranges are also highly dependent on pollinators and may prove pollination limited. If declining bee populations are tied to such yields, it could mean barer supermarket shelves and increased prices. While that may only be an annoyance to some, to poor and vulnerable communities who already struggle to secure <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/december/data-feature-mapping-food-deserts-in-the-us/" target="_blank">salubrious, affordable food</a>, such a deficit would present another barrier to the vital micronutrients necessary for a healthy life and diet.</p><p>Unfortunately, <a href="http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/54228/1/Science_1255957_Goulson_RV_revised_CA_edited.pdf" target="_blank">the threats to bees are numerous</a>. Parasites, agrochemicals, monoculture farming, and habitat degradation all play a role, and neither stressor works in isolation. Sublethal exposure to neonicotinoids, an insecticide, can cause <a href="https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/baby-bees-and-pesticides" target="_self">impairments in bees</a>, while monoculture farming serves up a monotonous and unhealthy floral buffet. Both impede bees' immune systems, rendering them vulnerable to parasites such as <a href="http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/bees/varroa_mite.htm" target="_blank"><em>Varroa destructor</em></a>, a mite that can transmit debilitating viruses as it feeds on bees' fat bodies. And all of these stressors will likely be inflamed by climate change in the years to come. </p><p>Some have proffered mechanical solutions, such as Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology where technicians are developing <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/2120832-robotic-bee-could-help-pollinate-crops-as-real-bees-decline/" target="_blank">robotic bees</a>. These micro-drones are covered in gelled horsehair and have successfully cross-pollinated Japanese lilies. Other experiments include <a href="https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/orchards_nuts_vines/pollen-spray-could-replace-honeybees/article_f9a1c102-d5b3-519d-9dab-b0c44cfb99c5.html" target="_blank">pollen sprays</a>. However, the large-scale viability of tech-centric solutions seems questionable. After all, wild bees currently perform their ecological services pro bono and are as effective as managed honeybees. Any technological solution implemented in their absence would add to the agricultural costs and likely increase prices anyway.</p><p>Ecological amelioration will be necessary. To combat habitat fragmentation and strengthen biodiversity, many cities are implementing green-way strategies. For example, the Dutch city of Utrecht has decked its bus stop roofs with plants and grasses to <a href="https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/urban-bees?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1" target="_self">create bee and butterfly shelters</a>, while other cities are looking to foster <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2020/0731/Can-roadsides-offer-a-beeline-for-pollinators" target="_blank">bee-friend roadsides</a>. And <a href="https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/2015/CRPProgramsandInitiatives/Honey_Bee_Habitat_Initiative.pdf" target="_blank">government initiatives</a> incentivize farmers and landowners to adopt bee-friendly management practices. These solutions aren't only a matter of ecological conservation but also food security and public health.</p>
The complacent majority needs to step up and call for action on climate change.
- Climate change is often framed as a debate that has split society down the middle and that requires more evidence before we can act. In reality, 97 percent of scientists agree that it is real and only 3 percent are skeptical. A sticking point for some is the estimated timeline, but as Columbia University professor Philip Kitcher points out, a 4-5 Celsius temperature increase that makes the planet uninhabitable is a disaster no matter when it happens.
- In this video, 9 experts (including professors, astronomers, authors, and historians) explain what climate change looks like, how humans have already and are continuing to contribute to it, how and why it has become politicized, and what needs to happen moving forward for real progress to be made.
- David Wallace-Wells, journalist and New America Foundation National Fellow, says that the main goal of climate action is not to win over the skeptical minority, but to "make those people who are concerned but still fundamentally complacent about the issue to be really engaged in a way that they prioritize climate change in their politics and their voting and make sure that our leaders think of climate change as a first-order political priority."
If Arctic ice continues to melt at its projected rate, the bears will go extinct due to starvation by the end of the century according to a first-ever projected timeline.
- A new report on climate change by the University of Toronto is projecting that most of the polar bear population could reach extinction in under 100 years due to starvation.
- Polar bears are dependent on sea ice for hunting seals, a primary component of their diet. As temperatures rise and sea ice continues to shrink it has become increasingly challenging for the carnivores to hunt for food.
- The Arctic is likely to have warmed more than double the amount of the global average this year compared to pre-industrial temperatures.
Starving into extinction<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6a66d2ea09b66ae24f3d997218f573f0"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_JhaVNJb3ag?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Polar bears are dependent on sea ice for hunting seals, a primary component of their diet, and aren't exactly built for swimming to catch their prey in the open water. As temperatures rise and sea ice continues to shrink it has become increasingly challenging for the carnivores to hunt for food. The species could be starved out within the next 80 years, save for a few high-Arctic subpopulations.</p><p>"Here, we establish the likely nature, timing and order of future demographic impacts by estimating the threshold numbers of days that polar bears can fast before cub recruitment and/or adult survival are impacted and decline rapidly," the authors of the study said.</p><p>The study looked at 13 of the world's 19 subpopulations of polar bears that account for 80 percent of the species' total population. Researchers modeled the energy use of the polar bears to calculate the number of days the bears can fast before their reproductive abilities become impacted. They then mapped that onto the number of estimated iceless days that will be faced in the coming decades, determining that the amount of time the bears would be forced to fast surpassed the amount of time they were capable of fasting. In 20 years from now, some polar bears living in Canada will begin to face reproductive failure and in 40 years a majority of the global population will more than likely be affected. </p><p>"The dire predictions in our study result from polar bear's dependence on sea ice and the projected rapid loss of that ice due to human-driven climate change," Marika Holland, co-author of the paper <a href="https://time.com/5869316/climate-change-pushes-polar-bears-towards-extinction-study-finds/" target="_blank">told TIME</a>.</p><p>While the scientists noted that moderate cuts in emissions could potentially extend the bears' estimated life-expectancy for a bit, it won't be able to save some species populations from extinction by the end of the century.</p><p>"Land-based feeding is unlikely to occur at scales that shift the timelines for recruitment and survival declines by more than a few years, because foods that meet the energy demands of polar bears are largely unavailable on land," the study said, pointing out that some polar bear populations are already feeling the impact.</p>
The melting arctic<p>Of course, as the <a href="https://www.iucn.org/content/action-now-save-polar-bears" target="_blank">International Union for Conservation of Nature</a> has cited, climate change is the main cause of the population's suffering and decline.</p><p>According to the World Meteorological Organization, the Arctic is likely to have warmed more than double the amount of the global average this year compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Since the 1970s, satellites have shown sea ice melting by 13 percent per decade. If greenhouse gas emissions stay on their current trajectory, the only polar bears that will be left by the end of the century will likely be those living in the Queen Elizabeth Islands in Canada's Arctic Archipelago. </p><p>Keeping tabs on polar bears, the largest land-dwelling carnivore on earth, is how scientists keep their finger on the pulse of the health of Arctic populations at-large. Their loss, as Holland <a href="https://time.com/5869316/climate-change-pushes-polar-bears-towards-extinction-study-finds/" target="_blank">told TIME</a>, "would reverberate throughout the ecosystem." </p><p>But the bears won't go down without a fight for their survival. As Arctic temperatures rise, melting the species' normal hunting grounds, the bears may begin to move toward land to find food. For example, in 2019 authorities in Russia's remote arctic region declared a state of emergency as a mob of starving polar bears charged into villages. </p>
Any hope?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUxMTYxMy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMTM5ODY0M30.RqKPGBEzFaJsP81U2JcpbnMglhCYfg-TQpG7qPZT6H4/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C301%2C0%2C302&height=700" id="c7cea" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f92dedfaaf59e0d8df8c00e016d1f288" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="arctic fox in snow" />
Arctic foxes are another species endangered as their habitats and diets are threatened by melting sea ice due to greenhouse gas emissions.Photo by Jonatan Pie on Unsplash<p>Polar bears have faced extermination in the past. In 1965, scientists were worried that commercial polar bear hunting would cause the species to go extinct. A 1973 worldwide ban on hunting led to a resurgence in bear population, yet the melting sea ice that now threatens the lives of the <a href="http://pbsg.npolar.no/export/sites/pbsg/en/docs/2019-StatusReport.pdf" target="_blank">estimated 26,000</a> that live on earth today is a much more complex issue to solve. While the species' future looks grim, the study does point out that decreasing fossil fuel burning may reduce Arctic sea ice loss. </p><p>If there is a sliver of hope left for the polar bears and <a href="https://www.un-habitat.org/endangered-animals-arctic-region/" target="_blank">other Arctic species</a> endangered by melting Arctic ice, it rests on rapid and radical human action against fossil fuel emissions.</p>
Stone stackers enjoy the practice as a peaceful challenge, but scientists warn that moving small stones has mountainous consequences.
Stacking up the history<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUwNTg1My9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNjcyOTIzOX0.UtKz33QrDgK5scyJPbikuAQax_4yN2toQjkXyUf4AlM/img.jpg?width=980" id="6294c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5044ba5b984c8e2de74234ee8f590be7" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A Bates cairn at Acadia National Park. Revived in the '90s by park officials, these cairns mark the park's many interlocking trails.
Eroding our natural heritage<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUwNTg1OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDEwNDIxN30.0zMFQ-3YDlkJFRw453NfSO-Vg3pfK311a8usC1WRm0w/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C88%2C0%2C0&height=700" id="c8e70" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9cd939f4081d342a425d1738f616be74" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Rock cairns marking a trail at Hawai'i Volcanoes National park. These official cairns can easily be mistaken for personal rock stacks.
A problem of scale<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUwNTg2Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDAyMzIyMn0.RVpaBb7HR7oj8SYl4AT0ycxK29rWMw0cq-Y6BTJLZV8/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C59%2C0%2C60&height=700" id="98a76" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="eff63ccecc069c1f658f705f9b4c3800" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
A collection of rock stacks on Angels Landing summit plateau at Zion National Park that shows the "contagious effect" of such stacks.
(Photo: Mike Young / National Park Service)<p>Of course, any one stone stack isn't much of a concern; the problem is one of scale. While ancestral cairns were produced at a more artisan pace, today's stone stacking has practically become industrial, driven by an economy of clicks and likes.</p><p>"Social media has kind of popularized stone stacking as meditative, and you used to have a handful of people doing it, but it has really escalated over the past few years on public lands," Wesley Trimble, the program-outreach and communications manager for the American Hiking Society, <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/people-are-stacking-too-many-stones" target="_blank">told the New Yorker</a><u>.</u></p><p>Acadia National Park, for example, is one of the most visited national parks in the U.S., hosting more than 3.5 million visitors per year. It's also relatively small—<a href="https://www.nps.gov/acad/learn/management/statistics.htm#:~:text=Acadia%20National%20Park%20protects%20more,by%20the%20National%20Park%20Service" target="_blank">47,000 acres</a> compared to <a href="https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/management/statistics.htm" target="_blank">Yosemite's</a> 760,000 or <a href="https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/parkfacts.htm" target="_blank">Yellowstone's</a> more than 2 million. With such a density of human activity, even minute damages have the potential to devastate Acadia's ecology if performed by enough people.</p><p>As Christie Anastasia, Acadia's public affairs specialist, told Big Think in an interview, in 2016 and 2017 park volunteers deconstructed nearly 3,500 illicit stone stacks on just two mountains—the influence of potentially less than one percent of visitors. Luckily for park visitors, Acadia's rangers and generous volunteers have been trained to dismantle illicit stacks and replace the stones in a way that limits repercussions. But that initial displacement still damages the landscape and leaves creatures homeless during the interim.</p><p>That's just Acadia. In total, U.S. national parks hosted more than 328 million visitors in 2019, a number that clarifies the exponential damage small stone stacks can cause if even just one percent of visitors take up the hobby.</p><p>"People come to national parks for lots of different reasons, but our parks have been set aside as historic and cultural resources in an unaltered state. When people come across these stone stacks, that can hurt their experience," she said.</p>
Leave no trace<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzUwNTg2NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNTQzODgwNn0.XUvxWRdnB6eXCsj4mL6bBmjw8lzcxqgZHhrLOLZuF9A/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C59%2C0%2C60&height=700" id="786e6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e38180145474afafedb584ac6fc15031" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Angels Landing summit plateau after being restored by park rangers and volunteers.
(Photo: Mike Young / National Park Service)<p>When it comes to nature and our national parks, writers, conservationist, and scientists all agree on one unassailable rule: Leave no trace. When it comes to obvious human influences, such as plastics, dog scat, or forest fires, few would disagree.</p><p>But for many, stone stacks are beguilingly innocent in this regard. The materials come from the land and seem perfectly attune with nature. They blend our dual loves of artistry and the environment, and when these projects step outside of time and pass down to us from our ancestors, they crown some of our most cherished historical sites.</p><p>So, it's not a question of whether stone stacking is or is not an acceptable pastime. "It's a question of where the activity belongs," Anastasia said. "At the end of the day, stone stacking is not an activity that belongs in national parks." Though she stresses that it isn't a value judgment; it is simply a question of where an activity can and should be enjoyed.</p><p>If you want to stack stones, you can do so without fault in your backyard or interurban park or man-made beach. Leave your mark there and proudly share your creations on social media. But when it comes to nature, our actions add up to a social whole we must be conscious of. We can leave our mark in both what we create and what we leave untouched.</p>