Group items tagged

Shellenberger and Nordhaus' first big essay The Death of Environmentalism stated that in order for us to take more productive action on the ecological issues of today and tomorrow we must move past environmentalism to post-environmentalism. In their book The Breakthrough: from the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility they argue that the environmentalism that got us this far, is now failing to address the major ecological issues of our time including climate change, and that we must move past this "politics of limits" (what they claim traditional environmentalism is) and move forward to the what they call the "politics of possibility." This is the idea of harnessing all of our human innovation, technology, creative ideas, and passion and pushing for a new modernization, one in which there is more prosperity for all. This they claim will allow us to properly address and take action on the major ecological issues of our time, like climate change. It's a compelling argument but one that seems to have some holes in it. If we are to push for a new modernization, and increase everyone's prosperity, how exactly do we go about doing that? Modernization had terrible effects on the people who didn't have the resources to fight it, would this be round two of that history? How do we make that transition in a more manageable and civil way? Regardless, this book is a must read for environmental studies/science/policy students and teachers, as well as people who consider themselves environmentalists and those who do not. Shellenberger and Nordhaus are clearly trying to reach across the divide, meeting the political left, center and right, and have already influenced some politicians and big names in our society. Could this be the direction we head in? The Politics of possibility?

Do we buy this upbeat take on localizing not just the service-sector economy but the manufacturing sector as well?  What sorts of goods, and what sorts of consumers, would/would not it encompass?  What sorts of ecological benefits may/may not be obtained?

Publisher's summary: "Author E. N. Anderson maintains that the world can escape impending ecological disaster only by embracing a political and ethical transformation that will imbue modern societies with the same shared sense of emotional rationality practiced by traditional cultures." One of humankind's most perennial utopias is the utopia of the good old days, and this one is near and dear to many in the environmental movement.  What's wrong with this picture?

This article looks at what Chicago is doing to push their development in the green direction. This falls under progressive ecological modernization. It is particularly interesting examining this development in a city that one would more readily associate with the historically negative side of industrialization (birthplace of the skyscraper)

If this counts as ecological modernization, then I'm all for it.

I feel like with great ideas like this one, I am always waiting for the catch, because this solution seems too good to be true. That being said, I am in complete support and I think that more thought could be put into the whole concept of human waste. Especially on campus I think there are opportunities for experiments with other methods of dealing with waste than flush toilets. I know that at other schools there are composting contraptions, point being the way we deal with waste now is not necessarily the best way.

I know what you mean about the catch... but if you think about this, it makes a lot of sense. Poop is compact energy sources that we just throw away (or better yet, use to pollute our water resources). It's energy just waiting to be used and if we can think of a way to get a little more use out of that material, then we should. This is exactly the kind of creative thinking we're gonna have to start doing. We've gotta realize that we dont have an energy crisis in the sense that we're running our of energy sources: we have an energy crisis in that we think we have to use external energy. We let so much that already exists in our local systems just pass us by! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure

A perspective on the environmental movement that most likely everyone in LCENVS (and beyond) should keep in mind. "She learned the same thing about growing fruits and vegetables: Anyone can grow shit themselves. Anyone. Broke-Ass was sick of reading about kids who just graduated from art or architecture school manning their self-righteous food-coops with heirloom everything; looking down on everyone who wasn't raising bees on their rooftops in Brooklyn. To Broke-Ass, it all smacked of Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess with her ladies at the Petit Hameau at Versailles. You don't need to have white-kid dreadlocks, a degree from Bennington, or any more than a passing interest in limiting your carbon footprint to raise your own crap. You just need to be hungry." Moral of the story is (in my opinion), maybe environmentalism isnt limited to the privileged middle/upper classes and we're doing ourselves a disservice by assuming so or treating it that way. Can we extrapolate this from agriculture and apply it to the greater environmental movement? Maybe our priority shouldnt be ecological modernization -- maybe we should focus on taking advantage of sustainability where it already exists and has potential to exist, instead of sending the message that it can only be achieved through college degrees, high tech appliances, and hybrid cars. Maybe... these are all maybes. But nonetheless I think they're maybes worth considering.

This entry in the "Green" blog section of the New York Times talks about the progression of lighting products and their efficiency. For the most part it focuses on the movement from fluorescent lights to LED lights which are slightly more efficient. This movement relates to the idea of modernization and technological development as being a positive feature in addressing environmental issues.

Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris is about a new conservation ethic. Marris argues that pristine nature as glorified and portrayed by the "wilderness cult" of the 19th century does not exist in modern day, and that it is futile for conservationists to try and attempt to rewind the clock of ecosystems back to some arbitrary baseline like "before humans arrived." In place of classic conservation, Marris argues for radical rewilding, assisted migration, novel ecosystems, and designer ecosystems. The book is geared towards a popular audience, and as such, it might be a bit elementary for environmental studies majors. That said, for the most part the argument Marris makes is still compelling, although perhaps not novel.

This bill just recently came to my attention. I havent had much time to research it further, but it sounds rather frightening. This YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOups0dfdwM&feature=channel) captures the fear based objections to the bill, and though it is propaganda, these are definitely issues we ought to be worried about! The "official summary" of the bill on this posted web site is long but seems to line up with the YouTube clip. Yikes! I propose more research.

Will Allen has become one of the patron saints of the modern alternative food movement, appearing in the White House, championing Michelle Obama's new programs, becoming the father of modern Urban Agriculture, and being named one of People's 100 most influential people (among other awards and achievements). He is really worth checking out. While I have been very excited to see ideas for vertical farms popping up everywhere from Milwaukee to Toronto to Chicago and beyond, my enthusiasm is beginning to lag. While vertical farms offer great potential for feeding people locally, consistently, cheaply (maybe), and in an environmentally friendly way, are these sometimes soil-less, urban high rises really just a factory farm for vegetables? If so, does it matter? I'm still in favor of them, so far, but I can't help but wonder if the food movement of tomorrow will be "ground-grown" or "grown in soil". I'd really appreciate thoughts and a discussion, if anyone is interested. While I see many positives in the economic/ecological realm of things, I'm less sold on the philosophy of the idea. Are "natural systems" methods still natural if they're in something we would not necessarily consider "nature" off-hand?

In this piece, New Yorker writer reports on recent remarks by Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum claiming that Obama's environmental and energy agenda constitute a "theology." When questioned further on his line of reasoning, Santorum said, "Radical environmentalism...[is] this idea that man is here to serve the earth rather than to husband and steward the earth's resources." I mean, to be honest, I don't take Santorum seriously. However, what do we think of his argument here? After having recently read Shellenberger and Nordhaus's argument in their opening to their new book "Love Your Monsters," Santorum's statements here struck me as, well, pretty similar to some of what S&N are saying. S&N say that environmentalism has all the touches of a theology; so does Santorum. (They say the same thing for different reasons, of course.) Has environmentalism become a theology? And by conceptualizing it as a theology, do we presuppose some sort of inherent antagonism between Science and Religion?

lcenvsfall220 A description of the idea of Ecospirituality with a focus on holistic nursing and healing.

Pan-STARRS spots its first potentially unsafe asteroid through a telescope a-top Haleakala.

The construction of the third largest dam in the world is being planned in Brazil. The construction of this dam is creating problems for the population who will be displaced by it.

"When Walmart announced on Monday that it would install 15 megawatts' worth of solar arrays on as many as 30 of its stores in California and Arizona, it set out to shape the solar market in more ways than one." Good or bad? Part of me feels like this is fine, "great I'm glad they're helping out." But part of me is also very nervous about this. I dont know if I like the idea of Walmart "green coating" their business. I think we're planning on talking about this in class Thursday.

Here's one of those studies that apparently shatters our intuition: energy efficiency won't help reduce the use of energy??  Read on for the reason why, all about the "rebound effect" and indirect vs. direct energy consumption.  Again, looks like sustainability requires that we address the bigger picture.

This brings up some concerns I have about the environmental movement in general. I often feel like our emphasis is in the wrong place. Even before it was acceptable to question environmental activism (without being labeled a no-good capitalist hippie-hater) I have felt uncomfortable with some of the campaigns and goals out there. Alternative Energy is a key one for me. I dont think we have an energy source crisis, I think we have an energy use crisis. I dont just mean "energy use" in terms of petroleum (CO2 emitting) energy either. Even if we find alternate energy sources (like the solar panels article I posted on the LCENVS220 group), or more efficient machines/lights, we still will expect the same (or more) amount of work to be done from external energy sources. I think we should focus on realizing what energy already exists in our natural systems and learn to synchronize with that to accomplish our goals, instead. This, I think, will address broader (and dare I add more important?) problems than CO2 emissions.

Boulder biotech company finds a way to use bacteria E. Coli in a process that would eliminate the need for petroleum used in common household items, thereby cutting CO2 emissons used to manufacture those products by more than half.

The military essentially suddenly decided to use renewable energy out in the field, mostly in Afghanistan because transporting fuel is dangerous there. They used mostly civilian technology but the mass use should bring the cost down and with more scientists updating it the technology will also get better.