Group items tagged

In this book, the authors discuss the use of protected areas for conservation and their ties to capitalism. The authors discuss the dualism in which many environmentalists view conservation and the preservation of protected areas as a means to halt the impacts of capitalism; however, they argue that capitalism permeates conservation practices. The authors argue that the forces of capitalism and conservation both "re-categoriz[e]" the environment. The boundaries between conservation and capitalism are not easily defined. I would recommend this book to someone who is familiar with the conservation and environmental movements. In addition, I would also recommend it to those who are familiar with the conservation movement and oppose it. I think they would gain some helpful insights about conservation that they may have not considered before.

An interesting article related to overfishing of sharks and the progress of their conservation. Animal club lobbied this past spring to pass a ban on shark fins in Oregon, and it's nice to see that legislators are getting on board to protect a portion of ocean biodiversity.

Here is a story we have heard many times for many different species; what have we learned from these other efforts that may help us successfully conserve the chambered nautilus?

Levi Strauss and other companies are realizing that water shortages due to climate change have the capability of being a major threat to their success and existence. Jeans consume water in the irrigation of cotton, the process of making the jeans, and certainly the number of times a pair of jeans is washed in water. With such a strong dependency on water, Levi Strauss is working to conserve water and support organizations and companies trying to do the same.

[A repost...didn't work first time...] For those of you considering ENVS-ish winter break reading, here's an informative interview of Naomi Klein, whose November article "Capitalism vs. the Climate" in The Nation (by no means some right-wing rag) argues that "passionate corporate and conservative foes of curbs on greenhouse gases are *right* [my emphasis] in asserting that a meaningful response to global warming would be a fatal blow to free markets and capitalism." Revkin's helpful interview links to a number of recent sources in the climate policy debate.

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.

A different way of looking at biodiversity conservation. Could this possibly deter other efforts though?

Saving endangered species throws off entire ecosystems. As much as I support science's role in the environmental movement, this article is a pretty good reminder that a "science-can-and-will-fix-all" attitude can be dangerous. It's also a good reminder of just how little we know and understand about ecosystems. We should definitely make sue that fundamentalist beliefs about environmentalism (save all endangered species first and foremost, for example) dont get in our way of actually doing something progressive.

This article forced me to look at environmental issues from the perspective of religious conservatives. It also gave me hope that people can change if the facts are presented in the correct way. These Kansans do care about the environment but for some different reasons than I do. I was surprised at the amount of overlap though. They want to make sure future generations enjoy life in the same way they do and leave the world better than they found it. Overall, this article gave me some hope.

This is an enormous issue in the county I'm from. The Water District wants to put in a desalinization plant in the San Francisco Bay for drinking water. This problem began about 3 years and is on the ballot this election. It could have statewide impacts because many water districts in California are considering desal plants. I really hope they consider all other options before turning to desal.

"If a creature has a spine and walks, flies, swims, or crawls, it may be in serious trouble." Perhaps not surprising, but a depressing read all the same. A good article highlighting the idea that we are in a period where biodiversity is in rapid decline, with serious implications in the past. Given that having multiple species of geckos is allowing people like Kellar Autumn here on campus to learn all sorts of useful information that only one or two geckos might not provide (as only one example), the "practical and measurable" importance of biodiversity should never be overstated. Of course, its just a really cool thing to have, and that alone makes me a fan. Also nice to hear that conservation efforts are effective - and, as the last section shows, not just at saving animals.

No light read, at 39 pages, but a good source for anyone doing research on the value of ecosystems from an economic perspective. My scant review of it indicates that it brings together a lot of different studies on the benefits people get from natural systems, and how much it would cost us to replace those with artificial systems. From the preface: "Applying economic thinking to the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services can help clarify two critical points: why prosperity and poverty reduction depend on maintaining the flow of benefits from ecosystems; and why successful environmental protection needs to be grounded in sound economics, including explicit recognition, efficient allocation, and fair distribution of the costs and benefits of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources." This report has been cited a lot lately in efforts to create some sort of system that would remove externalities from the pricing of all sorts of goods, and account for the costs of natural capital (i.e. the environment) in producing more or less everything. That would be a major environmental achievement, and social achievement in general.

A better read: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1116/the-economics-of-ecosystems Summarizes the report well, and also puts out the big question: can we put a price on everything? I personally am frustrated by how often debates turn into a cost-benefit analysis about the "practicality" of an idea - and I say that as a fan of the field of economics. Should we be resorting to that to defend environmental things that we value, or are there larger ideas and principles at play? Do we weaken the strength of a principles-based argument with a practicality/economically based one?

We'll be discussing several issues connected to this in ENVS 160 come spring, not only related to the technical and political drawbacks of pricing ecosystem services, but also the naive notions of "natural" vs. "artificial" that it often presupposes. The whole exercise reveals about the very best mainstream environmental thought can deliver…which is not good enough, in many recent scholars' opinions.

Not your usual brand of militant environmentalism, but the name seems to fit. Similar to Costa Rica's move a few weeks ago to use government sponsored force in the defense of a biodiverse region along their border, we know see places where park rangers are given the same right as police when it comes to shooting criminals (i.e. poachers) where they work. Much of this is the usual (and important) we're-losing-the-Tigers-at-rapid-rates, but what I found interesting was the fact that environmental concerns are prompting this sort of response from government entities. It is coming to be something that governments are willing to defend with arms, even though the place in question might not be mineral rich or have some other resource value (those would have been defended in the past). Is this a real change in the value system of governments? I imagine if this occurred in America, there would be a pretty negative response from the public for excessive force. I wonder if that is true in India as well.

Energy policy doesnt need to take environmental concerns into account because God will decide when the world will end. He cites these biblical excerpts as the infallible, perfect word of God. Yet let me also note that in his excerpts, God also declares that all inclinations of man's heart is evil from birth. Hmmm.... what, then, must this say about his motives? Obviously, I'm kidding, but I just wanted to share and highlight some of the absurdity I see. Yes, we can write this off as absurd and clearly not logical, so why prod so much at things that are clearly not worth our time? It's an important reality check to remember that this is happening in the world outside of LC's progressive bubble though, and despite how obviously absurd this seems, somehow it's still here, has power, and it is being taken seriously... by someone at least.

"There is a theological debate that this is a carbon starved planet." Like many, I'm tempted to simply poke fun at this guy and laugh at his obscenely ridiculous propositions (I'd wager to say that not too many priests or pastors would agree with the quote from Rep. Shimkus above), and to dismiss him as uneducated and spewing the same sort of tired "job-losing" rhetoric that seems to be the platform of conservatives in America these days. Yet -- he was elected. Maybe this is a flaw of our electoral process. Or maybe it truly does underscore how conflicted our country is ideologically. Somehow though, I don't buy the reliance on the Bible silliness that these guys spew out. It's really just another sentimental framework to hide their utmost faith in the actual religion of the 20th century -- the citadels of free-markets. An important reality check for sure.

Lengthy thoughts from me again, apologies: https://sites.google.com/site/economicresponse/a-thought-experiment

A final argument for efficiency, regardless of Jevons, and for more than just environmental reasons. Could efficiency measures - and the companies that bring them about - restore our faltering economy? Energy efficiency in the United States is, according to a few numbers I've seen, hovering around 10-13%. Even if the numbers are way off, that is a lot of room to grow - we could do a lot more, with a lot less energy (which may take some wind out of the sails of catatrophist peak oil theory, though it says nothing about peak oil in general). I am cautious about the "innovation will save the day" argument because even the best ideas get caught up in other forces, and may never surface, but this is a testimony to the fact that "innovation could save some aspect of the day, if we play our cards right." I don't want it to seem like I'm advocating for "the solution" here, but after seeing so much concern about Jevons on moodle, I wanted to step in and give conservation and efficiency measures their time in the sun. Like many of the proposed solutions, they have a place - and unlike many proposed solutions, they are palatable to citizens, governments, markets, businesses, and the political sphere alike. A penny (or kilowatt hour) saved is a penny earned. If the various critiques of Jevons that are floating around are any guide, it certainly won't do any harm.

This is for the ENVS 160 discussion we had today. And for the New Yorker reading on Jevons' Paradox we're doing. Jevon's is one of those economic ideas that seems to get necromanced by some combination of economists and the media every once in a while. I run the risk of sounding like I give it no credit with my critiques, but I truly think it needs to stay back in pre-industrial/industrial England where it belongs. Yes, its real. But no, it is not the end of efficiency measures, and especially not conservation. This Grist article was a response to the New Yorker article. But be careful - the article isn't stunning, but the comments are pretty impressive. The article more or less sides with Jevons, using case studies that are convincing to various degrees. But the comments draw some big names in economics and environmental thought, among them Amory Lovins, head of the acclaimed Rocky Mountain Institute. He gets into the numbers, and gives his own insight to the Jevons Paradox. If you're concerned about Jevons, this article/comments combo - and one other article I'll post - is a must read.