Nick Kristof suggests another possible new area for environmental studies: environmental (and emotional) health during pregnancy. Are his statistics convincing?
Map-based interface comparing human quality of life (primarily related to health, education, and income, but including other measures as well) in different parts of the US. Turns out, surprise surprise, that there are some huge differences from place to place, suggesting the necessity of situated research to explain these differences.
This article addresses the dangers of industries growing too quickly without adopting practices to accommodate mass production. It also presents a scary picture of the holes in FDA standards and regulations.
The EPA has unveiled new, more stringent standards for coal-burning power plants. Their main argument for the regulations is for health purposes, not to penalize the industry. However, manufacturers argue that "stringent, unrealistic regulations such as these will curb the recent economic growth we have seen," and create job loss and plant closures.
Hydraulic Fracturing is a prominent controversy right now in this country. The dilemma lies between the benefits of economic production versus environmental/health concerns. Much like the environmental dilemma with the XL pipeline which uses fracking as a method, New York is going through thorough examination as to whether fracking should be pursued as soon as possible in the state. Interesting to note the overall of approach from the author as he displays a broad overview of the situation at hand as opposed to keen environmental analysis.
And lastly (for now), just to stir things up a bit, check out this piece on Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
This piece certainly raises interesting questions and offers unexpected claims. For example, in the Environmental Gains section it says, "Instead of recycling office paper, Gaines says, it should be used to generate energy in coal-fired power plants. 'Then you burn less coal and displace some of the coal emissions. Paper is a really good, clean fuel,' she says."
I'd caution against jumping too quickly on the "rethinking" bandwagon, though, especially considering the fact that this claim is followed by, "But Dennison argues that Gaines' analysis glosses over an important factor. 'The wood has to be harvested from a forest and the forest has to be managed to produce the wood. And that set of management practices has important environmental consequences with regard to biodiversity, habitat, and so forth, that have to be counted...' " ... DUH. If this is where the debate is, I'm not convinced that these ideas have been fully flushed out yet.
It's certainly important to challenge our dogmatic practices, but we also must make sure we've got our arguments all straightened out before we run with them. This is a place to start, at least.
(There are, also, a number of other interesting points in this article, not all of which are so obviously undeveloped. I do recommend this piece if I've succeeded in interesting you with questions about "waste")
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
From the NYT opinions blog. It may be old news now, but its always good to remember that the way we think about things - cognitively or not - does impact the things we do about them. Here we see how fear influences environmental policy and our own health in potentially deleterious ways. Strikingly similar to much of Barry Glassner's research as well, I believe.
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 bill just recently came to my attention. I havent had much time to research it further, but it sounds rather frightening. This YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOups0dfdwM&feature=channel) captures the fear based objections to the bill, and though it is propaganda, these are definitely issues we ought to be worried about! The "official summary" of the bill on this posted web site is long but seems to line up with the YouTube clip. Yikes! I propose more research.
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.
This article is about a waterway in New York that has been designated a Superfund after years of industrial activity along its banks. There is another canal in New York and other waterways across the country are Superfund sites as well. I'm interested to see what happens now and how they go about cleaning up toxins and contaminants from waterways.
This article on research is related to our last ENVS 220 lab. The article does not address environmental justice in relation to minorities or socioeconomic status, yet it warns of communities and populations potentially exposed to unsafe levels of pollutants beyond their control, a reminder that environmental injustice can occur in any demographic.
This also relates to the Pamela R. Davidson reading in that the study referenced in this article sounds suspiciously like one that Davidson might call into question. It is likely that many of the ambiguities she highlights were not taken fully into account. Thats not to say we shouldn't be concerned, however, and this article brings up an important point: should we really have to "vote with our dollars" to protect ourselves from potentially harmful chemicals, especially when the harmful practices themselves have damaged our ability to vote by warping our perspective on the real cost/value of food?
Upcoming limits on use of antibiotics to promote faster growth in livestock turn out to be far less than many food activists want, and far more than many farmers want. Is there any possibility for getting producers and consumers on the same page?
From their site: "We believe in listening to the needs the poor tell us about, not assuming we know best. We believe in products and services designed for specific cultural contexts, not just Western hand-me-downs. And we believe that careful attention to design can create innovative-and extremely affordable-solutions to the problems of the other 90%."
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
Group items tagged 
