Group items tagged

"A global coalition of about 200 companies said yesterday (26 October) that it was ready to support the introduction of a price tag on ecosystem services, in the hope that a global biodiversity panel will lay the foundations for an offset mechanism to encourage trading of nature services." This group is called the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The members are listed here: http://www.wbcsd.org/web/about/members.html

more on this topic here: http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/What-the-Earth-Is-Worth.aspx?utm_content=10.27.10+Spirituality&utm_campaign=Emerging+Ideas-Every+Day&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

"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!

This trailer for Bjorn Lomborg's movie Cool It takes an alternative look at Global Warming to the opinion expressed by Al Gore in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. He bases his opinions on approaches that aren't reliant on fear tactics.

One provocative article on the Japan nuclear scare, arguing that its impacts on the global nuclear industry will be minimal.

This is a report from Waste Management. WM is a company, not a governmental organization; this makes for an interesting report that addresses their "sustainability" from both the perspective of how their services contribute to global sustainability AND how they themselves are sustainable in their practices as a company. A great example, especially for an institution like Lewis and Clark -- as we also aim to contribute to global sustainability (e.g. ENVS department) but must also function sustainably as an institution (e.g. Facilities department). This report provides a model of how these two ideals can be integrated in one collective outlook. Additionally, following the trend of my previous posts, this report is yet another source of data about our waste stream. There is a strong focus on the future of our waste stream and the role WM hopes to play in it. There is a lot of emphasis placed on recycling, regenerative practices, and the use of waste as a resource.

Another reminder that anything like a global fisheries assessment is a complex matter, based on all sorts of assumptions and models.  The upshot: either things are terrible, or they're just not great (e.g., 70 vs. 33 percent of all stocks estimated to be declining). One of the challenges: how extrapolate known longitudinal data on fish stocks to the many others that are less well monitored?

From everybody's favorite National Review, a case for global warming - not only existing, but being really, really awesome. And this claim is even claimed to be based on science. Pretty interesting way of thinking. Especially once you accept that change is going to happen, there is something to be said for the logic of we-should-strive-to-maximize-primary-productivity-in-ecosystems (arguably). Really curious what people think, particularly the more ecologically and biologically minded among us.

Could Mt. Everest be the Panda of movements attempting to address issues of global warming? It isn't exactly charismatic megafauna, but maybe for climactic problems a bit of "charismatic geology" could do the trick?

At face value it appears China is trying to improve its clean energy reputation. By becoming the World's leader in wind turbine and solar panel exporters, it looks as though the country is paying attention to the environmental crisis at last. Though it may appear like this industry is doing good for the world, however, it is wrecking havoc in the political and economic spheres. Therefore this article, juxtaposed to Maniates' "Individualization" raises interesting questions regarding the limitations of "good intentions" in helping the environment. Sometimes doing good in one sense can be detrimental in another. "China Takes Lead" also illuminates the complexities regarding clean energy technologies due to their economic ramifications and political biases. 

I went to one of their community information meetings in downtown Portland last year and it was very interesting. This group is very locally oriented and stresses community sharing and sustainability here in Portland. Some of their projects include ride shares, supporting local business, growing your own food and sharing the excess, worm composting, etc. Very much started from and follows the views of Localism. It is a way to connect to others in Portland to share ideas, rides, a helping hand, etc. Localism in effect.

Primitive stoves that produce toxic smoke are one of the leading causes for death and disease in third world countries. It is also a huge driver of climate change. Proposal to provide 100 million clean burning stoves to villages in Africa, Asia, and South America

Interesting facts and information about the mainstream perceptions of biotech produced foods, GMO, and the like. On one side, they've got a huge percentage of the market cornered (86% I think), which likely strikes fear into the heart of many anti-biotech folk. On the other hand, you have a lot of scientists saying that GMO crops are no more likely to produce more than conventional - why then, are we doing it? To stop weeds, that are already coming back with greater resistance? However you analyze it, an interesting article (and a recommended source - people often write off the Christian Science Monitor because of the first word in its name, but its not a religious news source, it is very high quality, and they have people reporting from all over the world. They do very good analysis of global energy issues, and I would highly reccomend their coverage of China's growing green economy. They've done a lot of work on that)

"What Monsanto's fall from grace reveals about the GMO seed industry" http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-12-what-monsantos-fall-from-grace-reveals-abo-the-gmo-seed-industry

Not totally environmental, but it definitely relates to the symposium. I feel like we talked about ethics and economics a lot more than safety, but here is a compelling look at another issue in today's food system. Complete with photo gallery: http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/From-Field-to-Fork-The-foreign-and-domestic-food-chain

A lot of American restoration efforts tend to aim Pre-Columbian. But really, that is pretty arbitrary (and problematic - humans were intimately involved with Pre-Columbian environments, as well as post-contact environments). So why not aim further back? This Russian physicist is doing just that - for fun, and setting his standard back 10,000 years. But there is more to it. This could be part of a huge effort by this fellow to stop arctic melting, a positive feedback loop that accelerates and is accelerated by global warming. If humanity blew the first task of an intelligent tinkerer in not keeping all the parts, can it repair that by trying to put the parts back? I'll be interested to see where it goes. Plenty of the usual restoration discussions to be had.

Recently, a politician who may take a role in our energy committe made comments against the clean air act because it shut down coal mines in the United States that couldn't meet its standards. Demand for coal on a global scale still exists, however, and now China has pollution akin to that in our industrial era. When the U.S. makes laws that help make economic actions "fair", "green", "safe", or otherwise it makes the market function better according to our values. But when other nations don't have those same regulations, business moves out, and we ship things like our waste and pollution to the third world. This video highlights a means of solving that problem. While the speaker addresses common concerns, I'm not convinced. I think he's pretty optimistic all around. How does one convince nations operating for their own good to impose limitations on themselves that might slow their growth? Easy for us to sacrifice some growth for environmental health, but a higher standard of material living matters more in impoverished areas - the conception is that taking care of environmental issues, or social issues, is a luxury derived from wealth. I really don't see a solution yet - I like what the speaker is doing, but I'm skeptical about its reliability. The store price of a good remains, I think, most people's measure of a succesful buy. Is a culture shift required to change that? More information? I'd certainly start with the latter, for the sake of doing something...

So, we can (and should) address domestic poster-child coal issues such as mountaintop removal, but let's not get complacent about the larger coal market: this article talks about the role China will play as a huge source of consumption.  What to do?

I'm not going to lie, I didn't see this coming. I'm sure many analysts did -- the U.S. makes tighter coal related regulations, but there is still tons of coal under the ground to be mined. Consequently, it should only make sense to the king of market economy countries that we would export the resource we can't use to a country that can. For all members of groups that have been working against coal domestically, this represents one of the biggest losses they can imagine. After making strides on regulation, one person quoted in this article said that it was one step forward (at home), but ten back (for the world). I've at least operated under the idea that if we can make coal unpalatable enough, we would stop burning it. We're working towards that, as is Europe. But the fact remains that there are "jobs" to be had mining, money to be made exporting, and so the story goes. And even if the U.S. were to regulate coal exports (which is something the free trade maniacs of the new Congress will never, ever let happen), China would turn to Australia, or Canada, or Brazil. This dilemma is crying out for a comprehensive strategy of global cooperation on climate change. But, as is most likely the case, Cancun will slide by, no new agreements will come out of it, and this new coal challenge will become just another part of the mired story of the inability of the world to stop burning all that it is burning. One of those rare and terrifying articles that asks serious questions about how we are to subvert a framework that encourages coal burning and other major externalities.

Rare enough, but it seems emissions actually dropped this year - in part due to natural patterns. Academic studies of the environment are often depressing in a number of ways, so its nice to have some good news by traditional environmental standards. Hard to know what the source of it is, but it seems like at least some efforts are working out. Deforestation efforts get particular credit.

Bad news on the economy: Article touches on the same news, but gives a lot more credit (probably fairly) to a faltering world economy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298983/ns/world_news-world_environment/

Short, but significant. Jim Sensenbrenner has announced that his committee on energy independence will be shutting down. The Select Committee on Energy Independence was called a waste of money. Calls to mind Julie Guthman's call to turn to policy and work on policy for environmental issues. Granted, that was agriculture, and this is energy, but ultimately I wonder if in this climate that is a waste or resources, or if because of the antagonism efforts to work on policy were never more necessary. I tend to lean toward the former camp, but still. This may not be all bad news, due to Jim Sensenbrenner. I can't help but do a little bashing. He's from my district, and I've never seen a politician get into so many flustered arguments with high school student's - and adult constituents. Commonly he has given the response "its a complicated issue, you wouldn't understand" to those who have question some of his policy decisions. He also made headlines for storming out of a committee meeting, gavel in hand, after members of the committee asked him to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure. I digress, but this committee was never being run in a way that was tremendously supportive of the climate change initiatives environmental groups tend to desire, and would likely have returned to that state. So it may not be such a bad thing that it is out of the way. Still an important foreshadow of where energy policy has fallen in the political landscape - clearly less of a priority than in the past, for both parties.

I think it's depressing. Although climate change and energy independence could arguably fall under the committees on natural resources and energy/commerce, the fact that there is no longer a committee that specifically targets these issues means they can more easily be ignored. What types of climate change initiatives was the committee against? I don't agree that it might be worth it to cut a somewhat effective committee that specifically targets climate change when there's no replacement for it. Passing climate policy in this climate will probably be difficult. But it will probably be a lot more difficult now that there isn't a group of people working on it directly. I think it was important in changing the view that climate change is a "Democratic" concern and getting Republican support for climate initiatives. At minimum, I think its presence was important in making sure the debate continues to be about what the largest concerns are/ what we can do to address them rather than whether or not climate change exists or not. Sensenbrenner: "While I was initially skeptical of the select committee's mission, it ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate and an opportunity for House Republicans to share a different view on the pressing energy and environment issues that we currently face."

This LA Times article talks about a newly released study from the economics department at San Francisco State. The study discusses the effect of sea-level rise on tourism in California. While sea-level has been rising globally for the last few decades, the west coast has largely been spared, however, as the study shows, this grace period may not last much longer.

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.