Group items tagged

Our ENVS 490 class this semester has examined a number of environmental conflicts in Oregon, many in its rural areas. This article discusses how serious the economic situation has become in these areas -- many of which were dependent on natural resource industries -- and includes an animated graphic to suggest that things have only been getting worse in the last few years.

Here's an interesting quote from BPA: "In the interest of getting as much wind on the system as we can, it's important to find other resources.''  This article clarifies how the upturn in wind production is driving an upturn in other (often conventional) sources of energy, and how, ironically, wind energy will be more stable once much larger energy systems (read: lots of powerlines) are built.  Wind, the icon of energy self-sufficiency, actually may depend on mega-networks and conventional sources to achieve its rightful place.

At different public meetings in Kansas and Texas, the proposed oil pipeline that would run from Canada to the US received very different responses. The meeting in Texas was met with widespread support, mostly due to the number of jobs it would create as well as helping to decrease the United States' dependence on foreign oil, while the meeting in Kansas was met with harsh criticism, due to the potential for environmental devastation. This article shows an interesting contrast between the priorities of the two states, and how some are willing to look the other way when it comes to creating jobs.

This is straight out of the matrix - you know how the whole AI system runs of humans producing energy like batteries? These guys are seriously looking at doing just that. This story comes from GlobalPost, a new site that has great international reporting (when a lot of big papers had to fire their journalists as the industry started to decline, GP picked a lot of their international folks up as freelancers, so they developed a good set of connections around the world fast). They're doing a series on power and energy around the world, "Powerland", which this is a part of. Very cool news organization. In a new twist in the progress of the global energy system, Japan is now looking to reduce its energy dependence on Nuclear Power (a source so many other places are looking to for reducing their energy dependence on oil, coal, etc...) So the company featured in this video comes in with an interesting mix of waste diversion/energy production at the same time. The little, marginal bits of energy thrown about when ever anyone does anything - taking a step, talking on a phone, sitting down and chilling - is harnessed to power things in its surroundings. It is sort of like using exercise equipments rotations to generate energy, which some colleges have gotten major press for. I know the military was also looking at putting something in the soles of boots that would create energy when compressed, so that marching or walking could actually power some of a soldier's personal electronics. There are no numbers to see how scalable this is, but looking at the energy margins is interesting. They do add up - one step is nothing, but if you're in Tokyo and there are millions of collected steps all the time, that is a lot of energy-producing floor vibration. One has to wonder as to how serious an alternative this sort of technology is to other types. Almost like being able to paint solar panels onto things, and just take advantage of wherever the sun hits. Its almost desperate, b

For a different thing to pay attention to, listen to the street activist (I think - not clear what the source is) message at the very beginning of the video. Interesting the stance Japan seems to be taking, at least within some parts of its culture, in response to the Fukushima incident.

I noticed that the Powerland series on GP is being sponsored by Shell, which raises some interesting questions. Multinational energy corporations may be turning to energy alternatives because they know that oil is going down the proverbial drain. Paying attention to where companies like Shell, BP, and Chevron-Texaco might yield some worthwhile information about our energy future.

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.

Probably a must-read for those interested in climate issues, since this article makes the claim that glacial losses may be 10% that of what we once thought. Which raises the question of how serious climate change is, versus what we say it is, how issues like this reflect on environmentalism, and more. In particular, it calls to mind environmentalism's dependence on science as justification, which often works well, but sometimes scientific knowledge is improved and (therefore) changed. It isn't a clean way of accessing the truth, and you're taking a risk with much of science when its new. Those in hydrology can appreciate how imperfect much of the data collection and interpretation we have is, to speak to this point. For those who get nervous, the Christian Science Monitor is not religiously run or influenced, only founded by a religious institution historically. And they cover climate change news on the regular, without an agenda for skepticism. So don't let that throw you.

The military essentially suddenly decided to use renewable energy out in the field, mostly in Afghanistan because transporting fuel is dangerous there. They used mostly civilian technology but the mass use should bring the cost down and with more scientists updating it the technology will also get better.

Now this is very interesting, if not particularly surprising. The US military has begun pushing for the development of renewable energy sources that can be readily deployed in battlefield situations and remote locations where traditional fossil fuels are prohibitively scarce. Trucking fuel to outposts and encampments in Afghanistan can be dangerous: "...for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier or civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed. " It is also extremely expensive. The US military buys fuel for around $1 a gallon, but shipping that fuel can easily cost hundreds of dollars per gallon. Taking those transport costs into account, the high initial costs of investing in renewable energy are put into perspective. The US navy has begun to experiment with ships that run on electricity at lower speeds, as well as jets that use mixtures of conventional and bio-fuels. It is likely the "experts" say, that development of these technologies for military use will lead to more affordable civilian versions.

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.

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.

This will probably be more interesting to me and other Midwesterners who live around the freshwater seas of the Great Lakes. But the article has a lot of value outside of that, for all the approaches to an invasive species it highlights (its also nice to have a bit of "traditional environmentalism" in terms of ecological issues, which has lost a lot of the spotlight to other valid environmental concerns). Plus its interesting to read about electric sting guns and high security, water-and-sledge-hammer-proof science laboratories, and australians cursing about fish. Of course, there are the initial question about why invasive species are seen as a problem, or if they should be. Then there is the classic "shoot first, ask questions later" versus the move to sacrifice action for the sake of a better solution later. I think that our campus tends to value rationality and reason, and there is a bit more of a critical thought first attitude (though this may be a sweeping and inaccurate generalization) so it was interesting to see where that approach didn't seem to work. Granted, these are case studies, not widespread truths. But the article may force us to question critical questioning, when it holds up action. A lot to glean from the various bits in here, depending how you read it.

"An economy run on slave labour has much in common with one run on fossil fuels, argues Jean-Francois Mouhot. Ending suffering means we all need to become modern-day abolitionists."

Some researches are claiming that a lot of methane disappeared very quickly after the oil spill. Their hypothesis? Bacteria did it. While clearly controversial, it is an impressive testement to ecosystems ability to respond to surprises (though hardly a reliable one). Could it also lend some new ideas to efforts to figure out how to deal with the next big oil spill? While I don't pretend to know whether or not its a good idea, one critic mentioned that other limiting factors may have inhibited population growth of presumably beneficial bacteria. Could intentional actions towards removing those limiting factors in other spills allow bacteria to consume methane more rapidly? And if we pluck that strand, what would we find it connected to? Of course, that all depends on the accuracy of the study.

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.