Group items tagged

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.

As most of us are aware, the world's population recently passed the 7 billion mark and we're scheduled to hit 9 billion by 2050. This article discusses 7 problems that we'll have to worry about as population continues to rise. We, as ENVS students, are already aware of these issues; water, climate change, and food security to name a few. However, some of the academics interviewed have very interesting ideas about solutions to these challenges (no-growth economy for example). For the feminists among us, Roger Short states that "We need to feminise the world and look first and foremost at the interests of women because they're the ones that are going to decide our future and it is their determination to limit the size of their families which will be the saviour of the world," which I thought was pretty interesting.

Most forecasts have presumed that animal farming is stuck on a treadmill that will only have to move faster and faster to keep up with a growing population and greater demand for meat. Animals must become more confined and concentrated--there's no turning back! The authors in this collection, however, while recognizing the severity of the problems with our current animal farming practices, take a more optimistic outlook, arguing that a renewal of the agrarian contract is more than just philosophically compelling. It is also in the interests of business and consumer welfare. I would especially recommend this book to retailers, farmers, and producers because their reading it would be a great first step towards the communication and collaboration that is necessary to solve the slough of problems around animal farming.

Farm Together Now in its most elemental form is a book about American farmers in the 21st century. In particular, this book addresses the other side of American agriculture: innovations moving towards sustainable farming practices. This is achieved through 20 interviews with farmers and activists across the nation along with 60 beautiful photos of their lives.  Although honing all 20 of the interviews down into one specific argument is difficult, the purpose of this book is to see the unity in all of their individual and sometimes philosophically contradictory approaches to sustainable agriculture. The authors argue that a shift in the dominant agricultural paradigm will not occur unless farmers and citizens are united in resisting it and are invested in working together to forge a more sustainable agricultural system.  What this book lacks is a deeper discussion of conflicting views in sustainable agriculture. The three issues that Franceschini and Tucker identified are provocative and would make a very interesting follow-up book.  Despite the author's insistence that we "Farm together now", they do not explore how sustainable farmers can reconcile their differences to do just that.  Although it's likely that urban, educated people are the main consumers of this book, I feel that it has value outside of those exclusive communities and would be beneficial for farmers, artists, and anyone looking for solutions to local problems. Personally, I would recommend this book to anyone because I feel that the authors made a sometimes-scary topic more approachable through this intimate portrayal of farmers. 

"What's particularly tragic, and what I had never realized, is that the misery and suffering was the result of human action. Encouraged by a combination of well-meaning governmental incentives and predatory schemes by land investors..." This brief synopsis includes an overview of how large-scale farming and government subsidies can unknowingly create environmental disasters.

Timothy Egan is a well-known contributor to the New York Times on environmental issues, especially those affecting the U.S. West. I'd assume his book is eminently readable. If you're interested in the Dust Bowl, one classic is Donald Worster's Dust Bowl (1979; new Oxford edition 2004).

This article addresses the dangers of industries growing too quickly without adopting practices to accommodate mass production. It also presents a scary picture of the holes in FDA standards and regulations.

Military scientists and entomologists collaborated and made some significant breakthroughs in the big bee die-off mystery. The researchers have concluded that a combination of fungal and viral infection is the most likely culprit. It is still uncertain how (or if) the bees can be saved, but now researchers at least have some starting ground. One suggestion at the end of the article is that the fungal part of the infection could potentially be curbed with fungicides to prevent bee deaths. This makes me nervous though. It sounds reasonable enough if the goal is to save bees, but deep down it sounds too much like the way western medicine works -- antibiotics to treat the diseases once they take hold, instead of addressing the root of the problem.

This makes me nervous: http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm "What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths" Speaks for itself.

Addresses the big environmental question of where the force to solve environmental problems will come from. This talk argues for coorporations as the major force - and not the small ones either. Cargill as the change we need? He also touches on ideas of economic externalities at the very end, which is one (atleast in my opinion) of the most important economic ideas (and ideas in general) that relates to environmentalism. Not paying attention to the value of environmental resources is bad for the environment, and bad for the economy. The most recent economic meltdown could be argued to be a product of similar misjudgments in value in the housing market. Simply a good philosophy of progress to keep an eye on. Also interesting how businesses are realizing they want to be competitive into the future, and that is the very definition of sustainability

Definitely valuable points made in this talk. Oddly enough though, for the same reason that I was concerned about the fungicides saving bees, the fundamental theory if this talk worries me. There is a "treat the immediate illness/symptom" ideology at play here. This very well may be the only option for avoiding the pending doom, but we can't rely on this as a long term solution to our sustainability crisis. True, it might be impractical to wait for consumers to get their act together, but if we just give up on that effort all together, we're not going to save ourselves for very long. There needs to be a drastic change in consumerism. If consumers are sent the message that sustainability is being taken care of at the higher level of companies and producers (and this is my main concern with this talk) then we remove all incentive for consumers to change their ways. Jim posted an article about a week ago about how energy efficient appliances do not actually result in reduced energy use, and the main reason this happens is because it makes the consumers feel like they can go back to old (pre-responsibility) energy use habits (or even more) once the appliances are labeled "efficient." In the same way, this sustainable companies idea might not work very long. I'm thinking, for example, the point where he mentions palm oil in China. He says we could say to consumers "go ahead and use palm oil because its all 'good,' " when in reality -- granted, this palm oil might be better than other alternatives, but still -- any use of palm oil is something we should be trying to move away from. This might be a valuable short-term method of saving the world, but in my opinion it has to be just that: short-term. I agree with you that the mention of economic externalities was one of the most important parts. Too bad he didnt expand on this. I would love it if someone should give a TED talk on just this idea (my parents wont listen when I try to explain that even the organic foo

Sounds like, in the long run, a call for a shift in the economic system itself. A little further out there, but I found this one a few nights ago: http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html I recall thinking it sounded a little idealistic at the time, but yesterday's idealism can be today's movement and tomorrow's reality, I suppose. A vague plan for the future from him, but a plan of sorts all the same. Still not sure I buy it, but I can't deny liking the sound of it.

This article highlights a new solution that's "already being spear-headed by farmers on the ground." It preserves biodiversity, alleviates hunger, addresses malnutrition, protects against drought, and produces sustainable yields... a miracle GMO? No... traditional vegetables? Who knew? "Many indigenous vegetables use less water than hybrid varieties and some are resistant to pests and disease without the use of chemical inputs, which are expensive both financially and environmentally." Does is seem surprising, odd, and even a bit backwards that the idea of using traditional crops and biodynamic farming is presented as a new and innovative idea? "While what we eat is important, what may be even more essential over the long term is preserving knowledge about how to plant, grow, and cook what we eat." It MAY be more essential...?

As one consultant says, "It's kind of a wild west, anybody can claim themselves to be green."  Of particular interest in this article is the emphasis on third-party certification, but given the motley array of third-party certifiers out there (this is a growth market, after all), even they cannot necessarily be trusted.  I'm also reminded of our AESS conference theme last summer, "Many Shades of Green": perhaps the whole "green" label is problematic?

An interesting article from NYTimes Magazine about the communities that are built around alternative movements and the ways these communities shape the movements themselves.

If its going to be used anyway, it might as well be sustainable use? I think that is the general argument in favor of this plan. Just an interesting idea to ponder, and it gives us something other than food and climate to talk about.

A counter to my article on the Amazon, this is a really cool video on Agroforestry as a means of preserving rainforest. Interestingly, Mr. Smits has been meeting with people defending rainforests in other parts of the world, I would imagine to help spread his methods in a way appropriate to the local context. This is one example of very old agricultural ideas being used as very new solutions to modern problems, empasizing the importance of locality and context in environmentalism, and showing how economics and the environment are not neccessarily pitted against eachother.

In this Mother Jones piece, we learn about how consumers angry about Frito Lay's noisy new SunChip bag -- which, as the company touts on their website, is 100% compostable, and which you can actually watch it happen over the course of 14 weeks in your backyard compost pile -- have somehow applied enough of their angst against the company, and have gotten them to drop the noisy bag. Most likely because they couldn't hear the television over it. The author also has some interesting discussion of aesthetic concerns in our consumer choices from fluorescent lights to plant fiber bags, and how sometimes, at the root, it appears we value softer light and quieter bags more than we do environmental impact.

Progress in the DOT leads to more biking and public transportation = more livable communities. This is an interview with Ray LaHood about the recent advances and obstacles in improving our public and alternative transportation systems. Portland is mentioned a few times for being great.

I think that progress in this area is crucial if we are ever going to solve our long term consumption problems. So much of they way we act is caused by how our communities are built. Urban compactness contributes to a more minimalist lifestyle because you don't need a car, and because you have access to so many different public services, you don't need to buy private ones for yourself. The whole reason we have an absurd overconsumption problem is because we have people living in the cheap, crappy sprawl we've built, all driving cars everywhere to the box stores and restaurant chains that sell them a whole bunch of shit that is poorly made and terrible for them and the environment. City dwellers aren't all models for how to live or how much to consume, but you make it easy for people to lead better lives when there are options for them to bike or take public transit to work as well as to secondhand clothing stores and good, healthy, bulk food markets. James Howard Kunstler's book The Geography of Nowhere is a great read on this topic, and his TED talk on the subject is great as well.

Relates to next year's symposium on cities: here are some of the popular (and impressive, though unsurprising) approaches cities are taking to becoming more environmentally friendly. Many are rooted in energy concerns and transport, among a few other social equity issues. However almost all commonly share large-scale government investment approaches to creating spatially isolated things (exceptions include bike shares and Curitiba's bus system). Look to Masdar City for one that is fully designed as an environmentalist's paradise (cars are banned). But I would point out that such cities are incredibly expensive to build, and in this case, they're almost guaranteed to be built on the sale of oil. While I don't like to play a game of blood money blame, there is some irony. I'd like to see some cost-benefit analysis that address whether the costs, both monetary and external from the use of oil, really make these projects "better", or if they are more of a show than a practical reality. Curitiba in Brazil is one worth researching as well, if you're interested in cities. Also a design-centric city, Curitiba also tries to build off popular demand, and alongside their environmental wins they have a good list of social records to lay claim to as well. Unlike Portland's own MAX, they have a decent percentage of citizens who actually pay to ride the public transit (despite the fact that it also is run via a system where fare checkers are few and far between), and analysts have credited it to the civic pride generated by the aesthetic value and efficiency of the system. The demand there is a little more organic and if I remember right, the bus system actually uses a few private businesses who compete to provide optimal service. Government steps in to keep things relatively well organized - an interesting economic approach as well. Interesting government programs that combine solutions to poverty, waste, and education in one as well.

Cleveland has an interesting thing as well - low-income, private efforts to address problems locally and at a smaller scale. Theoretically, their approach could be used in a whole range of places, and addresses social concerns in Cleveland far better than something like a new green stadium would. It just requires people willing to set up systems like the one in the article (and funding - the systems they have were funded by another organization, not reliable in terms of expanding the scale of the project or keeping it going into the long term It is also a fairly fancy system - and costlier too. But the idea can be done cheaply). As we prepare to enter discussions on the symposium (meeting on the 10th! A week from today) I'm curious which approach people find more appealing.

So, where exactly do we draw the line on what we can morally eat if all life strives to live?  The author raises good questions regarding our tidy categories.

Here you go: a battle between House Demos and Republicans over something that really matters!

A national park plans to be converted into agricultural land, yet this poses a great threat for wildlife migrations.

Questions our assumption that there's a healthy or natural diet that humanity needs to return to. Another example of where we may be creating false divides between nature and culture.