Group items tagged

Just noticed that I have been demoted from most active member position (not that I was paying very close attention to the group, ironically). And so, to feed two birds with one seed (as we environmentalists prefer to the phrase "to kill two birds with one stone"... unless of course, if the birds are proportionally overpopulated...) I figured I would both re-claim my hierarchical position and take part in shameless self-advocacy by sharing a link with you all about a project that my community in Juniper Dorm is currently undertaking... which many of you already know about because you live here. Nonetheless, in addition to the previously outlined motives, I figured that posting this link here could start up some needed academic discussions around this project; on both the specific questions we outline on the webpage, and the more general merits of this endeavor. What are the academic merits of endeavors like this? What are the potential academic drawbacks: could projects like this potentially encourage focuses that are too short-sighted? Is there value in examining the consumer sector's waste stream even if it is true that other sectors (e.g. industrial) have bigger contributions at the national and global level? I not only welcome, but explicitly solicit your thoughts and further questions on this matter.

This discussion is, I hope, an opportunity to start connecting the academics with other aspects of sustainability at LC (e.g. clubs like SEED and campus life groups like PEAS). I'll admit that, while I tried to be mindful of the academic/learning potential of this endeavor when I initiated in my dorm, I certainly haven't thought of everything we could learn from this, nor have I entirely digested whether or not this project is a worthwhile endeavor. My plea for your thoughts here is more than a formality -- this is personally important to me, and it also reflects bigger goals that have been developing this year regarding the future of sustainability at LC in the Sustainability Task Force and in other groups as well.

An interesting new academic journal, related to a lot of the issues brought up in the symposium this year. Looks to be pretty pro-agrarian. Peer reviewed, legitimate sources with a cause. Could have interesting stuff in the future. "Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development! JAFSCD is an international, online, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on agriculture and food systems and bridges the interests of development professionals (including activist farmers and businesspeople), educators, consultants, and the academic community. While kindred journals focus on critical sustainable food production practices, community food security, and the sociology and political economy of food and agriculture, there has not been a journal supporting the community of practice that is rapidly integrating and evolving around these issues. We look forward to fostering an applied research literature where these interests meet - and may sometimes collide - and the nascent field of agriculture and food systems as a whole advances."

This story provided a helpful context around genetically modified foods. Ira, from Science Friday, interviewed people in the academic, private (monsanto), scientific, social, and charitable (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) participants in the discussion surrounding genetically modified foods. I am someone who intrinsically thinks genetically modified foods are a good idea, though I do take issue with what are rumored to be the current regulatory practices. This story discusses the realities of the problems facing genetically modified foods and some of the research trying to deduce appropriate solutions.

Economics and Politics. "In essence, endless growth puts us on the horns of a seemingly intractable dilemma. Without it, we spiral into poverty. With it, we deplete the planet. Either way, we lose. Unless, of course, there's a third way. Could we have a healthy economy that doesn't grow? Could we stave off ecological collapse by reining in the world economy? Could we do it without starving?" An old idea revisited with a slightly lengthy (but easily read) background on limits to growth and it's place in economic history, plus a new perspective on how a limit to growth might actually work, and what that might look like. I find the concept of ' "uneconomic" growth-growth that actually drives living standards downward' (to improve happiness, nonetheless), and the argument behind it, intriguing. This is on page 4. After page 5 it starts to look like an idealistic no-grow-utopia. But then this is addressed in the conclusion, as well as some theories about the psychological changes that would have to happen. Then they bring it on back home to politics, and last but not least a reminder of our biological-ecological pending doom. Oh, all the environmental interdisciplinary-ness! "When it comes to determining the shape of our economy, the planet may possess the most powerful invisible hand of all."

Obviously, I don't know or care too much about economics. I dont know how my conversations keep ending up here. But. "Growth was meant to make people happy by making their lives better - and it has." Really? Who, to you, qualifies as "people"? And how do you define better? Soaring rates of depression, chemical dependency, and obesity? Or maybe it's these lives that are better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL0U_xmRem4)?

Perhaps because it relates so much to the various issues we have declared to be running rampant in the world today? It is very much connected to any environmental issue. Among a range of other issues. Anyways, I wrote a pretty lengthy response to your questions. I'll post the primary response to your questions here. A lot of it is based on the differences between economics, politics, industrialism, capitalism, and consumerism. In the tradition of Diigo debates, I have crafted a google site. https://sites.google.com/site/economicresponse/home The main page directly answers the question. The other page sets up some distinctions I see, personally, beteen various economic systems. I do not cite academic sources there, and I'm sure it would not take long to find economists who disagree with me, for what it is worth. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to flesh it out with other's ideas, and I apologize for that.

And, just to further ensure my rightful position, erm I mean further encourage academic discussion... I have a series of articles and websites with useful information about waste to share with you all. The first of several, this UNEP report is a fantastic overview of and introduction to the idea of "waste." You all may or may not have already covered many of these ideas in 160, but if not, do take a look. Though much of it is basic, I did find myself learning a surprising number of things (e.g. I never considered just how many definitions of waste there are and how that can affect effective measurement of the human waste stream). It's worth taking the time to flip through the pages of this report as it touches on some of the questions I posed in my previous posting. For example, in the "Municipal Waste" section they report claims that, "Although our garbage bins represent only a small part of the total waste generated, it is an important part: the one in which everyone can take action. The part where we can take responsibility by deciding to reduce waste - by recycling and avoiding the purchase of over-packaged goods." Do you agree?

Our beloved president and his stance on sustainability, and how it should be integrated with academics. And I'm into that. But, I'm not sure he had a lot of substance behind his writing. I don't think it is a great leap forward to just say "we should integrate academics and issues of sustainability on college campuses." While I agree with Dr. Glassner in that it isn't happening, really at all, anywhere and should therefore be brought into the dialogue, I wish he had waited until we had something to show off to the world as an institution to add a little heft to the argument. I'm hoping this year's Sustainability Council can be a force that comes up with some of those ideas that can get a lot of buy-in, really teach students something as they engage with the work and ideas of sustainability. But it could use some solid environmental studies students to back it up. So blatant plug, if you think you have an awesome idea, the council has funding and could help you out. Find a member (I'm representing undergraduate students, but there are others to go through as well) and maybe we can come up with a proposal.

This article, which I've now read for two different philosophy classes, isn't directly related to Environmental Studies. However, it discusses the development of philosophical movements and the importance of collaboration for innovation, which reminded me of our unit on the relationship between the Sciences and Humanities. Many famous thinkers were driven by the interests of their friends and peers, which weren't necessarily related to their academic interests at all.

Living Through the End of Nature by Paul Wapner presents a new way forward for environmentalism after the end of nature. Wapner argues that humans have altered the physical environment to such an extent that it can no longer be viewed separately from humans. Additionally, many argue that nature is just a social construction and never existed in the first place. Since popular environmentalism focuses on how humans can reduce their impact on nature, the end of nature presents a problem for the movement. However, Wapner argues that the end of nature will actually make the environmental movement stronger and more politically effective by making political debate less contentious and by focusing on the connections between people, landscapes, species, and narratives. Moving beyond nature will also soften the boundaries that currently exist, and protect the well-being of humans and the nonhuman world by focusing on opportunities that involve both, such as urban sustainability, social justice, poverty alleviation, and the rights of indigenous people. Overall Wapner's book is well argued and well supported by concrete examples. However, he continually presents wildness and wilderness in terms of otherness which leads the reader to question if he actually believes his own argument about the end of nature. Wapner provides good historical background of the environmental movement which makes this book useful for readers that are beginning to be interested in environmentalism, or potentially beginning students who would like to learn about different perspectives on the topic. I would recommend this book to almost anyone, though the academic style to Wapner's writing makes this book more appropriate for a classroom setting than for a popular audience.

Rare enough, but it seems emissions actually dropped this year - in part due to natural patterns. Academic studies of the environment are often depressing in a number of ways, so its nice to have some good news by traditional environmental standards. Hard to know what the source of it is, but it seems like at least some efforts are working out. Deforestation efforts get particular credit.

Bad news on the economy: Article touches on the same news, but gives a lot more credit (probably fairly) to a faltering world economy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298983/ns/world_news-world_environment/

For those who aren't convinced that action at the individual level is the best focus of our energy and/or activism: "Management and recycling of industrial products and materials are key priority areas. While typically not seen by the general public or part of most of our daily lives, these wastes are often generated in large volumes. Learn about EPA initiatives, such as the Coal Combustion Partnership Program, and the recycling and beneficial use of industrial byproducts generated during manufacturing processes.

This is the sequel to my last post. Though still introductory in language and targeted audience (this is designed for the general public, not college students) this report does at least lead into some deeper, more fascinating, and perhaps more controversial issues. Of particular interest are: "Recycling - the right choice?," "The relativity of "basic needs," and "The making of international legislation."

A report from a waste stream analysis conducted in Arizona (cough cough situated research). Includes insights such as, "Feedback from small com- munity stakeholders suggests that mandating recycling in Arizona at this time could be counterproductive. It would require cities and towns with scant financial resources to initiate recycling programs having capital costs and transportation costs that, alone, make recycling economically burdensome."

This is a report from Waste Management. WM is a company, not a governmental organization; this makes for an interesting report that addresses their "sustainability" from both the perspective of how their services contribute to global sustainability AND how they themselves are sustainable in their practices as a company. A great example, especially for an institution like Lewis and Clark -- as we also aim to contribute to global sustainability (e.g. ENVS department) but must also function sustainably as an institution (e.g. Facilities department). This report provides a model of how these two ideals can be integrated in one collective outlook. Additionally, following the trend of my previous posts, this report is yet another source of data about our waste stream. There is a strong focus on the future of our waste stream and the role WM hopes to play in it. There is a lot of emphasis placed on recycling, regenerative practices, and the use of waste as a resource.

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")

The above article is the Break Through Institute's semi-recent report on the Jevons' Paradox, which I posted additional links to here and debated in class. For the record, the report is favorable. Also for the record, I have not read it completely, and am not laying down final judgment. However: I promised Jim I would respond to this at some point. I still hope to. In the meantime, this is worth musing over (if the link doesn't work, I have the PDF). https://files.me.com/jgkoomey/0aqqfm I really appreciate Break Through and the dismantling of environmentalism's sacred cows, but I'm concerned about this one. Many of their other critiques and analysis seem to have the empirical evidence, but I have yet to be convinced by what I've seen here. Obviously it is a long report, and I have not gotten to read through it entirely, but so far I remain unconvinced. I think they're thinking about the problem in the right way (the economy is a complex social, political, and economic system, it does defy basic models and equations, and if the emergence idea continues to hold up it is a right environment for them) and I really enjoy reading their analysis, but I remain unconvinced by the numbers. Our economy is not composed in such a way that energy is a primary limiting factor to production, which would surely deaden the effect, among other theoretical threats to the idea on both a micro and macro scale. Politically, efficiency measures will continue to allow solar energy and other alternative competitors to carry more weight than they do now, allowing us to free ourselves from the need for energy intense liquids or solids like coal, gas, and oil in favor of less "compact" energy sources. Break Through Institute offers some excellent political analysis, and their efforts at getting outside and away from the usual political roadblocks and antics are appreciated. But I wonder if they

Obviously, its not my expertise either, and I'm woefully ignorant in all this ultimately. But their credentials don't seem to be in deep energy analysis and research, and one academic report where I do find Jesse Jenkins (of BTI, who helped write that report and is an energy expert) still encouraged energy efficiency measures (http://www.brookings-tsinghua.cn/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/0209_energy_innovation_muro/0209_energy_innovation_muro_full.pdf). I'm not bold enough to lay down final judgment, but I'm going to need a lot more convincing. BTI makes a lot of convincing arguments that I really like - so far, this hasn't been one of them. But like I said, I'm still reading. And trying to get a handle on what Shellenberger, Nordhaus, and Jenkins have under their belts in terms of economic, versus political (when the two are even seperable), analysis. If there is other stuff worth reading in that regard, I'd love to get my hands on it.

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.