Group items tagged

This Nick Kristof op-ed on Occupy Wall Street is good in that he recommends three key policies protestors could advocate to clean up our major financial institutions, and all have been clearly specified by certain experts. What it left me wondering, however, was: what would a comparable enviro protest look like? Where would it occupy, and what exactly would it demand? Our ENVS 220 class will be discussing the recent ELF documentary soon, and I just saw a few flyers on campus of an old-growth logging campaign, yet my students who've visited Douglas County learn that these issues are much more complicated than they appear in Multnomah County. Is there anything today in contemporary environmentalism that's as clear an injustice as Wall Street wealth?

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 article from NPR looks at how the temporary suspension of Environmental regulations in an effort to speed up the post-Irene damages may cause even more environmental damage than Irene originally made.

This article is about a waterway in New York that has been designated a Superfund after years of industrial activity along its banks. There is another canal in New York and other waterways across the country are Superfund sites as well. I'm interested to see what happens now and how they go about cleaning up toxins and contaminants from waterways.

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.

Connecting immigration sentiments to the anti-invasive fervor of environmentalists (a stylistic, more than a substantive trick, I think) this writer questions the war against non-native species, citing the dynamic and evershifting nature of, well, "nature." I appreciate the sentiment and the focus more on the function of ecological systems, rather than its ever-shifting make up (species lists being as much a burden to ecological thought as a blessing), but its a hard line to tread when you start picking which non-natives and which natives to battle. Zebra mussels, for example, were cited in the piece as lake-cleaning food sources for many small fish and in turn birds. This is true, most research shows that the zebra mussel is becoming a major food source around the great lakes. But is it an improvement? It is a difference, certainly. From a human perspective, its much worse: even beyond the obvious decimation of fishing industries (note the author says it increases populations of SMALL fish), try walking barefoot on a beach cluttered with the remains of zebra mussels. No fun. Lots of blood. Whole generations forced to wear water shoes where bare feet once sufficed. So, if we're forced into acknowledging that we can't rely on the essences of stable-state ecosystems as our guide to how ecological systems should be, what do we use? And can we (should we?) get past anthropocentrism (maybe I should sacrifice my feet, the fishing industry, and the various non-human populations of organisms getting hit by zebra mussels for the zebra mussels, small fish, and birds) in doing so? This is a big question, and I definitely don't have any great answers. But its worth pondering.

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")

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.