Group items tagged

In this article, the author discusses the devastating impacts humanity suffers from global warming. As he depicts, global warming results in several server problems for many countries that lack the ability to construct their own defensive infrastructures. In addition, he strongly believes that greening capitalism seems unlikely to truly take place and that it does not necessarily spell out the efficient cure to heal global warming. It is, according to his arguments, because capitalists and government see their benefits from capitalism as the first priority and often attempt to green capitalism only in their words. Another reason he offers from the article is to do with the fact that only when capitalism and its roots are profoundly understood, can it truly be seen why greening capitalism is an easy-said-than-done task.

Global Dimming: Global Warming's counterpart. Unfortunately, it's not a counteracting counterpart.

"[Matthew Kahn's] new book, Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future, argues that while it's too late to avoid the major effects of global warming, that's OK because most people will simply move to places that are effectively adapting to the changes. " An intriguing argument on the side of the climate debate we tend to ignore. Kahn believes that it's too late to stop global climate change or even slow it to a noticeable degree, yet he offers some optimistic opinions about what this could mean for humanity. For those who may not like the idea of giving up the "stop global warming" campaign, this interview offers some insight to the rationale behind this perspective. (I dont feel like my tags capture all the topics here, suggestions?)

"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.

Columnist Charles Blow begins by comparing the haves and have nots to climate change: "Is income inequality becoming the new global warming? In other words, is this another case where the facts of an existential threat lose traction among a weary American public as deniers attempt to reduce them to partisan opinions?" I suspect you can guess how he answers that question: as he gloomily concludes, "If denial is a river, it runs through doomed societies." Maybe it's time to better understand denial in all its forms, not just denial of anthropogenic environmental change, if we want to understand why such serious threats receive so little action.

Interesting blog post that suggests we'll see an increase in global food insecurity and a like "uptick of government enforcement in the area of agricultural commodities." 

This NY TImes article features the ongoing discussion of global warming. More specifically, this article discusses sea-level rise, with a predicted potential level of 3-6 feet by year 2100, a rise that would potentially ruin millions of homes.

Check out this conference, titled "Resilience, Innovation, and Sustainability: Navigating the Complexities of Global Change," for some interesting interdisciplinary work.

This brief article shows how global food prices (like cereal grains) are on the rise, while commodity prices (like oil) are actually falling. It also touches on connections between global climate change and food production.

Grasshopper, anyone? This article expands upon a notion I have heard about several times before, but haven't considered its possibilities on large-scale. Many countries, such as Japan and Mexico, are already comfortable with bug consumption. It has proven to be extremely nutritious in amino acids and protein. It is also very efficient space-wise, as discovered in Japan. No matter the practicality of bugs in curbing global warming, the consumers must be willing to eat them. In American culture, bugs are perceived as dirty and disease-ridden. What would it take to reshape citizens' attitude around bugs to allow this expansion?

I thought that this was an interesting article because it discusses uranium mining and the possible environmental contamination concerns that increased production are causing. Specifically, inappropriate clean-up processes are leading to contamination of aquifers and drinking water in areas where mining and production are occuring. This article relates to many of the energy debates and concerns that are brought up in many current environmental books--specifically in many of the books that were reviewed in ENVS 400. -Isabel Kuniholm

[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.

Not only are our political leaders talking less about doing something about climate change; the American public seem to be a lot less worried about it too. This article discusses why, and links to a recent Pew survey that chronicles the decline in public interest. This big change in political and popular discourse around climate change offers a good opportunity to rethink environmental studies and environmentalism as we move forward in these changed times.

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?

Check out this interesting debate, with lots of money already invested!, over the possibility of a high-tech fix to global warming by scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, once rejected out of hand but now seriously considered given our failure to enact policies to limit GHG emissions...amazing how the discussion changes in a matter of a few short years!...

The idea of Ecofeminism is that the domination of women and of nature are intrinsically linked. Focusing on womens lives and roles in cultural society helps identify the ways in which their roles are similar to the environment under the umbrella of patriarchal capitalism. In this article, globalization is defined as an outgrowth of patriarchal capitalism. And the basic biological differences of our genders determines social organization.

A fascinating review, certainly to understand the technological advances of this "sustainable city" but also to understand its shadows: "[the designer's] fantasy world is only possible as a meticulously planned community, built from the ground up and of modest size. What Masdar really represents, in fact, is the crystallization of another global phenomenon: the growing division of the world into refined, high-end enclaves and vast formless ghettos where issues like sustainability have little immediate relevance."  Is this what we are after?

A short editorial on the well-financed mounting opposition against AB 32 in California, a law passed in 2006 aiming to reduce greenhouse gas levels. The opposition is lead by energy companies fearful of the cutback in gasoline consumption and by critics of global warming (due to man-made emissions), who are pouring in a lot of money to kill the law. Needless to say, not the most uplifting article.

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??