Group items tagged

At face value it appears China is trying to improve its clean energy reputation. By becoming the World's leader in wind turbine and solar panel exporters, it looks as though the country is paying attention to the environmental crisis at last. Though it may appear like this industry is doing good for the world, however, it is wrecking havoc in the political and economic spheres. Therefore this article, juxtaposed to Maniates' "Individualization" raises interesting questions regarding the limitations of "good intentions" in helping the environment. Sometimes doing good in one sense can be detrimental in another. "China Takes Lead" also illuminates the complexities regarding clean energy technologies due to their economic ramifications and political biases. 

I like this article. It solidifies a vague discomfort I've had with the climate emphasis lately. It doesnt say that environmentalists and PCCCCE are mutually exclusive titles, but they should be different. "For one thing, not all environmentalists are primarily PCCCCE (people who care about climate change and clean energy) -- there are still some, believe it or not, who focus on things like land preservation or biodiversity."

Analysis of why the heavy democractic defeats this week won't neccessarily be a major impediment to progress on clean energy - something at admittedly was not progressing anyhow. Also argues for a private sector approach, turning clean energy into a commodity American's will want to make a part of their regular lives.

Perhaps alternative energy technology's most promising industry, wind, is finding itself to be far more controversial as it becomes far more common and popular. Partially, this is just a good old example of showing us how nothing is perfect. But it does beg the question of large scale energy industry period - are those who see no place for that, in any form, on to something?

One of the cornerstones of the early modern environmental movement, the Clean Air Act is now forty years old.  This brief article reviews events around the 40th anniversary and discusses controversial extensions to control carbon dioxide emissions.

As the elections in Hawai'i approach, candidates are jumping on the "green" bandwagon to pioneer alternative sources of energy. Will they follow through on it? Will the consequences weigh out the benefits. In Hawai'i, we've been having lots of problems w/ clean energy because it disrupts native ecosystems, in turn reducing biodiversity. How are we able to balance the needs of humans and still keeping in mind the intrinsic value other living systems?

From the Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center. Also a Grist article (clearly the first Jevons they ran got readership), one of three (I'll post a link to the next one as well), this is a fairly lengthy article on Jevons' that basically comes down to this: "So you'll have to pardon my incredulity when I hear people like Owen claim that Jevons effects are everywhere, because everywhere I look, I can't find them." He then argues that contrary to Jevonian logic "All that's really clear is that for significant periods, energy efficiency has not increased fast enough to cause energy use to go down." Another case for persuing more energy efficiency, not less. One fair critique is that both this fellow and Lovins have vested interests in efficiency efforts. But they do the math right before your eyes, so I'm fairly comfortable with what they're saying. Beyond the math, there are a bunch of theoretical arguments that also force Jevons to take a far humbler stance in environmental and economic theory.

An example of how alternative economic models (or even longstanding ones, applied to a new product) can make things like clean energy more feasible for people, even if the initial costs of installation, production, or what not remain the same. Important to remember that how you move things of value around matters, perhaps just as much as what the values are in the first place? If nothing else, the importance of looking at things in a new way, allowing for more options.

For the record, if I understood Richard Bettega of facilities correctly, a lease-based program similar to this is what is behind our current solar panels on Pamplin. If a wealthy enough investor can be found, we'll be starting up another program here on South Campus or above the swimming pool. I'm not sure on the details, but they're along the lines of this.

I thought that this was an interesting article because it discusses uranium mining and the possible environmental contamination concerns that increased production are causing. Specifically, inappropriate clean-up processes are leading to contamination of aquifers and drinking water in areas where mining and production are occuring. This article relates to many of the energy debates and concerns that are brought up in many current environmental books--specifically in many of the books that were reviewed in ENVS 400. -Isabel Kuniholm

This is a fairly direct critique of the Owen's piece from the New Yorker by the same fellow as my last article, the Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center. Its a harsh one. In the comments he also addresses issues of population being the real problem with increasing energy use, for any interested in a little bit of that debate.

Although ideas in the article are unoriginal, it presents an interesting argument that I am not entirely sure is the best method to go about oil dependency. The author is convinced that adding a fee to any greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a new and clean energy system. "This is what motivates changes in behavior and technological investments." Will this monetary burden be enough to change people's habits and lifestyle, or will we become creative in other ways to dance around this dependence? One major critique I have of this proposal is how slow this conversion process will be. It also seems as if we are simply designing a new way to herd the sheep of society without taking a moment to look up and recognize the bigger implications and options.

Recently, a politician who may take a role in our energy committe made comments against the clean air act because it shut down coal mines in the United States that couldn't meet its standards. Demand for coal on a global scale still exists, however, and now China has pollution akin to that in our industrial era. When the U.S. makes laws that help make economic actions "fair", "green", "safe", or otherwise it makes the market function better according to our values. But when other nations don't have those same regulations, business moves out, and we ship things like our waste and pollution to the third world. This video highlights a means of solving that problem. While the speaker addresses common concerns, I'm not convinced. I think he's pretty optimistic all around. How does one convince nations operating for their own good to impose limitations on themselves that might slow their growth? Easy for us to sacrifice some growth for environmental health, but a higher standard of material living matters more in impoverished areas - the conception is that taking care of environmental issues, or social issues, is a luxury derived from wealth. I really don't see a solution yet - I like what the speaker is doing, but I'm skeptical about its reliability. The store price of a good remains, I think, most people's measure of a succesful buy. Is a culture shift required to change that? More information? I'd certainly start with the latter, for the sake of doing something...

And lastly (for now), just to stir things up a bit, check out this piece on Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. This piece certainly raises interesting questions and offers unexpected claims. For example, in the Environmental Gains section it says, "Instead of recycling office paper, Gaines says, it should be used to generate energy in coal-fired power plants. 'Then you burn less coal and displace some of the coal emissions. Paper is a really good, clean fuel,' she says." I'd caution against jumping too quickly on the "rethinking" bandwagon, though, especially considering the fact that this claim is followed by, "But Dennison argues that Gaines' analysis glosses over an important factor. 'The wood has to be harvested from a forest and the forest has to be managed to produce the wood. And that set of management practices has important environmental consequences with regard to biodiversity, habitat, and so forth, that have to be counted...' " ... DUH. If this is where the debate is, I'm not convinced that these ideas have been fully flushed out yet. It's certainly important to challenge our dogmatic practices, but we also must make sure we've got our arguments all straightened out before we run with them. This is a place to start, at least. (There are, also, a number of other interesting points in this article, not all of which are so obviously undeveloped. I do recommend this piece if I've succeeded in interesting you with questions about "waste")