Group items tagged

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.

There's an interesting difference between (some) meteorologists and (almost all) climatologists over the anthropogenic factor in climate change; this article discusses a recent meeting in Portland primarily attended by skeptical meteorologists. Why the difference? Is it that meteorologists tend to focus on weather vs. climate, i.e., attend to different spatiotemporal scales? Or is it something about who decides to become a meteorologist vs. climatologist and what sort of training is necessary?

Perhaps alternative energy technology's most promising industry, wind, is finding itself to be far more controversial as it becomes far more common and popular. Partially, this is just a good old example of showing us how nothing is perfect. But it does beg the question of large scale energy industry period - are those who see no place for that, in any form, on to something?

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.

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.

This is a book by ecologist and environmentalist Stewart Brand who is previously known for helping create and write the Whole Earth Catalogue. In this book Brand discusses the current state of our environment and specifically focuses on climate change. He then spends the rest of the book discussing radical modern approaches that he believes will help combat climate change. Some of these methods include using nuclear power as our main source of energy and genetically modifying all of our crops to be more resilient to climate change. He also argues that densely populated cities are more efficient and that new technology must be used to help fix the environmental problems that have been caused by previous technologies. This book is well written and offers a perspective on environmental issues that most other current environmental books do not agree with. I would recommend this book to all environmental studies majors.

Slate piece that examines the environmental impact of e-readers vis a vis books. 

Tocco de Casuaria, Italy is a small town that has installed wind and solar energy and is now producing a 30% surplus of energy that they are able to sell to the electricity company. With this money, the people of Tocco have been able to increase the wages of street workers as well as town maintenance. The financial benefits of using renewable energy, versus a deep concern for the health of the natural environment, has been the driving force for this town and other towns across Europe to adapt this new technology. This conversion is more difficult in the U.S. because the government does not provide a great incentive for people using renewable energy as far as a cash return from excessive energy production.

Wait a second, I just looked at the entire quiz and the whole thing is about climate change. And more than a few questions were a bit vague.  Hmmm..."environmental knowledge"..."how green you are"...

The survey is legitimate (sort of... a bunch of the questions could use reworking, and the way they are asked is really misleading), but the title that the Oregonian chose is awful. I'm not sure how much it adds to the correlation of people associating climate change only with environmentalism (I think this was just a really poorly chosen headline, done by someone who is unfamiliar with issues), but I do think it is very interesting regarding the article from Grist that Julia posted recently on what to call people who care about climate change. And... this wasn't even close to a "quiz", as the Oregonian decided to call it. It's most certainly a survey (given the abundance of the likert scale in the questions), and it definitely doesn't test "environmental knowledge". The survey appears to be prodding for uncertainty, and controversy even. I think they will get polarized results, and I also think that these results will be that way because of how incredibly thoroughly climate change has been politicized.

I like these readers' comments: portlandiowa October 22, 2010 at 8:04AM "The researchers gave more than half of those who answered their quiz a grade of "F."" Probably those that didn't answer with the same personal opinions as the researchers on the cause of global warming. An engaged citizen October 22, 2010 at 10:07AM There's the problem right there, portlandiowa - those who are confused about the difference between theology (a system of beliefs) and science. Or even worse, those who think SCIENTISTS are confused between the two. I dunno.... I might agree with portlandiowa. And I'm a Bio/Chem Major??

Discussion of the money networks surrounding The Tea Party.  This paper tries to argue that the support that large companies have towards the Tea Party also have interests in polluting.

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.

"About 80% of the world's population lives in areas where the fresh water supply is not secure, according to a new global analysis." This article addresses a new study published in "Nature" that is looking at patterns of global water stress. It weighs the benefits of the western approach (damns, canals, etc...) against more integrated, "natural" approaches such as preserving wetlands and floodplains. The centerpiece of the study is a great example of GIS mapping on a global scale.

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.

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?

A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet This grant is open to college student applications with proposals for in the following areas: Energy, Built Environment, Materials and Chemicals, Water, Agriculture. Anticipated Type of Award: Grant Estimated Number of Awards: Approximately 64 awards for Phase I; Approximately 15 awards for Phase II Anticipated Funding Amount: Approximately $2,310,000 total for all Phase I & II grant awards. Potential Funding per Award: Up to $15,000 per Phase I grant including direct and indirect costs. Any proposals requesting an award of more than $15,000 will not be considered. Proposals for Phase I grants must be for only one year. Upon the successful completion of Phase I, grant recipients will have the opportunity to apply for a P3 Phase II grant of up to $90,000 total for two years including direct and indirect costs (see Background section for more information). Proposals for Phase II grants requesting an award of more than $90,000 will not be considered. Cost-sharing is not required for either Phase I or Phase II grants. Anyone interested in working on a proposal? Permaculture garden/research center maybe? Sustainability House? Others?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

More of a fun story than a striking one, but also a good example of how changing the little things can do a lot - especially when its a lot of little things.