Group items tagged

It's always easy to see how people subscribing to ideas we don't like succumb to groupthink, but we are capable of the same -- here, the topic concerns the anti-Islamicist trend in this country but it could equally concern any environmentalist/anti-environmentalist bandwagons out there. Dowd quotes a Scottish historian: "[People], it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."

I like this article. It solidifies a vague discomfort I've had with the climate emphasis lately. It doesnt say that environmentalists and PCCCCE are mutually exclusive titles, but they should be different. "For one thing, not all environmentalists are primarily PCCCCE (people who care about climate change and clean energy) -- there are still some, believe it or not, who focus on things like land preservation or biodiversity."

Shellenberger and Nordhaus' first big essay The Death of Environmentalism stated that in order for us to take more productive action on the ecological issues of today and tomorrow we must move past environmentalism to post-environmentalism. In their book The Breakthrough: from the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility they argue that the environmentalism that got us this far, is now failing to address the major ecological issues of our time including climate change, and that we must move past this "politics of limits" (what they claim traditional environmentalism is) and move forward to the what they call the "politics of possibility." This is the idea of harnessing all of our human innovation, technology, creative ideas, and passion and pushing for a new modernization, one in which there is more prosperity for all. This they claim will allow us to properly address and take action on the major ecological issues of our time, like climate change. It's a compelling argument but one that seems to have some holes in it. If we are to push for a new modernization, and increase everyone's prosperity, how exactly do we go about doing that? Modernization had terrible effects on the people who didn't have the resources to fight it, would this be round two of that history? How do we make that transition in a more manageable and civil way? Regardless, this book is a must read for environmental studies/science/policy students and teachers, as well as people who consider themselves environmentalists and those who do not. Shellenberger and Nordhaus are clearly trying to reach across the divide, meeting the political left, center and right, and have already influenced some politicians and big names in our society. Could this be the direction we head in? The Politics of possibility?

Interesting thoughts on environmentalism taking place in Orion magazine these days...see essay, online comments, and audio discussion.

I read this the other week. I don't know if I liked it or not though. I remember that he critiqued environmentalism for putting up wind farms instead of coal plants, though they are still destroying natural beauty. And he almost fetishized "the good old days" when people (read: hippies) used to get together and occupy a place with songs and community. I understand why one could be frustrated, but I think it's also important to realize that it will be a gradual change toward environmentalism, we can't all just run to the hills with our guitars to sit around the campfire to protest a six lane motorway. But y'know, we're ENVS majors, so let's just find a way for both narratives to coexist and play off of each other, perhaps they're both integral parts of checks and balances within the environmentalist movement.

"National environmental organizations have traditionally drawn their membership from the white and affluent, and have faced criticism for focusing more on protecting resources than protecting people. But with a black president committed to environmental issues in the White House and a need to achieve broader public support for initiatives like federal legislation to address global warming, many environmentalists say they feel pressure to diversify the movement further, both in membership and at higher levels of leadership."

Lisa Jackson has been going around the nations meeting with local environmental organizations for a range of reasons lately, and she has definitely been pushing - perhaps subtly - this agenda. When she came to Milwaukee, where I live, she had her meeting in an urban nature center in the very heart of the inner city, a generally impoverished, overwhelmingly African-American area of town. Not the usual place for high-level government officials to have meetings, so I feel like she means what she says in this article. Anecdotal evidence, but I was still impressed. Makes me nervous given than the new plan for Lisa Jackson is summed up this way: "I think she'll be very much in demand on the Hill, at times not of her choosing," said a former staffer on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "It will diminish her free time, shall we say." I hope the environmental movement really addresses this seriously, if its going to expand to the scale many seem to think it needs to for serious, rapid change. Really interesting article, thanks!

For anyone looking to see what the proposed budget cuts might mean for national parks, the EPA, various clean this-and-that regulations, and more.

More details: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0405/Five-ways-House-Republicans-are-striking-fear-in-environmentalists/Greenhouse-gases-and-farm-dust

Mainstream environmentalism is trying to modify both its image and its approach - some focuses included radicalizing actions, localizing focuses, and antagonizing political and corporate opponents. It also focuses on how information is conveyed, focusing more on quick, easy to interpret, pretty imagery and less on pessimistic facts and figures. Bill McKibben is cited as one of the acclaimed leaders of this approach, particularly given the Keystone XL Pipeline issue (discussed earlier in the year in 220). Notably, another headline sharing the papers this week is on that very pipeline - a recent payroll tax move passed by the senate requires a final decision on the project within 90 days. Given that the success was for the decision to be postponed until after the elections, that has been largely undone. It will be interesting to see how that success plays out, and if that reflects on the themes of this article. It bears the question: if you were the political adviser to the environmental movement, what advice would you give?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Fox News isn't the go-to site for news for most folks reading this. But for the sake of debate, lets not jump right into mockery for their latest claim: the muppets are commies, and their critique of the oil industry is part of a broader leftist media anti-oil campaign that is decades old, and has indoctrinated a new generation of environmentalists. Now, I'm sure there are crazy elements to this. I think using language that implies it is some sort of organized, left-of-center conspiracy is already off the mark. BUT is there some weight to this? The left does have a lot of media dominance in its own circles, and entertainment media has its fair share. And how many movies do feature industrialists, smokestacks, and such as evil? Does the message need to be explicit? I would not be surprised to find that an analysis of many of the films and narratives we are subjected to do have a fairly reliable evil industrialist archetype. I am curious how much that shapes our perception of reality.

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.

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.

One of environmentalism's favorite past times: ragging on other environmentalist movements for not being as green as the other guy (forgive my cynicism). For what its worth, that may help direct action in the right direction. Or it may stall action due to debate. I find its often a fine line to tread, and calls heavily into realms of psychology and the other social sciences (also a favorite victim of another line of thought in environmentalism) regarding people's various reactions to environmental initiatives or ecologically sound decisions. A lot of folks that I know who are into environmental things have started off trying to bring about ecological change, gotten frustrated, and joined the off-the-gridders. They're very happy people now - but are they doing as much environmental good? It is a worthy question. A lot of great environmental minds have been lost to the off-the-grid, live-in-the-woods mentality. And a lot of great environmental minds have come out of it. Wish they had a little more in terms of research they're citing, since they both make a lot of claims about consumption but don't cite any sources beyond their own experience. That said, its a good intra-movement debate, one I've had with others on this campus, and continue to have with myself.

A different look at the impacts the midterm will have on the varying aspects of the environmental movement, with a far more negative outlook than that of the Huffington Post blog. I found this article to be much more nuanced than the last, and it covers a broader range of issues. Even for those who aren't politically inclined, it wouldn't hurt to read just to have a general sense of what we can expect from the federal government in certain issues. I have to ask, is now the time for getting into Guthman's policy-based approach to solving agricultural issues? More broadly, should one always try and engage in policy issues, or is it more productive to apply energies elsewhere until the political climate is favorable to change?

Everyone's favorite players and the battle over cities that probably won't happen. Interesting article on the politics of cities, and how environmentalists have indeed been killing some forms of condensed living in favor of "viewsheds" and suburban dwellings for exurbanites. Draws into a lot of topics discussed this week in ENVS.

This one rings close to home for me. The Great Lakes have been described as one of mankind's greatest experiments in ecology, and perhaps that true - if you discount any need for routine study and management, control groups, or any semblance of a procedure. This article is about a classic environmentalist concept - restoring ecosystems. But it is forced, as those working with the Great Lakes often are, to look at things a little differently. I was impressed that those quoted in the article actually acknowledge that some things are simply changed forever, and probably cannot be reverted to earlier forms. The focus becomes instead a forward looking one: "What good are these efforts? Scien­tists caution that restoration in any strict sense is probably impossible...Nonetheless, they argue that restoration efforts can make the lakes ecologically healthier, more resilient, and better able to absorb new shocks, including climate change and invasion by more nonnative species." From doing some research on this for papers last year, I'm starting to think that the Great Lakes (and I am absolutely and clearly biased) are on the front edge of intentional ecology and ecological engineering, and have forced people to come at restoration in ways a lot of smaller scale projects haven't. Its a neat place to study if you're into that sort of thing.

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.

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.

In 160, Elijah asked about some of the plus sides to climate change. Now, this isn't talking about the plusses, but it is a fundamentally different approach to the stories we tell about climate changed, and the future we see ahead in a changing climate. Particularly interesting given this, from the same site: http://www.good.is/post/why-climate-change-ads-should-cheer-up-a-little/