Group items tagged

Solomon, Steven. 2010. Water: the epic struggle for wealth, power, and civilization. New York: Harper. Steven Solomon's book Water: the epic struggle for wealth, power and civilization takes a look at how the control and efficient use of water has shaped human society from the ancient past to the present. With a look at water's influence in history from ancient civilizations to modern day, in his book, Solomon stresses that beyond the high value of precious resources such as oil, the control of water is far more important to the development of powerful societies. Weather through oceanic knowledge/skills or freshwater resource control/manipulation, throughout history water, Solomon argues has been the essential key to the rise and fall of great powers. Looking at different turning points in history, such as the rise of the Egyptian Kingdoms and Europe's establishment of the world trade system, Solomon shows how the control and advancements made in relation to fresh water control and/or seafaring highlights how water was the catalyst in each society's ability to gain and elicit control for a time being. With the support of his historical background in how water has played a keys role in the rise and fall of powerful kingdoms and nations, Solomon believes that water issues have the ability to impact political, economic, and environmental realities across the globe. Although lengthy, the book had a detailed amount of historical points that brought strength to his argument. I found his books to be very convincing in the fact that water played a pivotal role in explaining who in history were and were not able to rise to great power and take control impacting the direction of human civilization's growth. Throughout the past, water has shaped that way humans have developed. I agree with Solomon that it is by no means that this reality should change in the outcome of the future human history. For water related research or personal water related interest this book

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?

Here's an important 40th anniversary in the history of US environmentalism; would you agree with the author of this post, now that we know what we know 40 years later?

This is an introduction/ quick history of ecofeminism from the perspectives of a few different ecofeminists. The page also includes links to further resources.

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.

"Houston-based Noble Energy today confirmed that its Leviathan gas find under the water off the shore of Israel is easily the largest exploration discovery in its history, with an estimated 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas" I'm not quite sure what to make of this discovery. This article certainly gives it a declensionist spin, and I'm not quite sure that I can come up with any alternate positive side. On another note, the term "natural resource" really bugs me.

For those interested in the gulf oil spill: "Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made public a new website, the NOAA Deepwater Horizon Library. The site contains a treasure trove of information relating to the oil disaster in the gulf oil disaster. This includes reports on the incident itself, scientific reports on the wildlife affected, and a detailed history of the response and cleanup efforts undertaken by governments, private companies, and individuals. It also describes ongoing efforts to rebuild the coast and the Gulf ecosystem."

At face value, this doesn't look terribly environmental. And the explicit content really isn't (unless you count carbon emissions from burning tires in the streets and such), though no doubt there will be impacts on resource decisions, etc... if we dig for it. I bring it up more because of the implications it has for our ability to predict developments in the future. In ENVS 160, this applies pretty directly to the Limits to Growth model we've been discussing (as readily as it applies to optimistic predictions of world growth - predictions either way). It brings us to that ever present thorn in the side of decision makers: we don't know what the future holds, or what will make it get there. Where someone parked their car impacted the course of a nation, and the international focus on Egypt today can show how that has widespread impacts as well. If we're cautious and uncomfortable with the mystery of the future, resilience may be a way to hedge our bets, relating to another issue in the class. Otherwise, it largely seems to be a gamble. Even the broad trends can jump. How much will we ever be able to model, when it comes to systems this complex? A recognition of the limits of prediction, not a statement to their being invaluable (no one predicted the car, and it mattered in the outcome. But people could have predicted social unrest resulting in many people in the streets, and that was needed to take advantage of what the car provided)

After getting some fairly audible gasps in class after questioning Silent Spring today, I wanted to justify myself a little bit lest I be burned at the stake as some sort of heretic. The paper above is a brief and neat explanation of American academia's role in legitimizing ecology as a science, and touches on how Carson (and other's) pushed it back towards being a values-oriented natural history built heavily out of ideas that one could perhaps fit under the framework of "romanticism." Just to back myself up further, here (http://onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/carsonindex/kroll.aspx) is another article highlighting Carson's work as "subversive silence", i.e. very value/advocacy driven. Also highlights her focus on critiquing a certain type of laboratory science for being controlling - notably, one of romanticism's main tenants is a criticism of the rationalization of nature. Neither of this takes away from the fact that Carson was a) a decent scientist and b) wrote a book that did a lot of good. I'm not trying to dive into the "we could've stopped malaria" arguments she gets a lot, because I think that is a straw man argument. Nor do I think that it is bad to combine knowledge and values - quite the opposite. I simply think that a work that forced scientific depictions of its subject to change in response to public frameworks of thinking should be regarded as a great political work, not a great scientific one. I think it may be time to move beyond Silent Spring, certainly as a work of science, and perhaps even as a work of politics, and place it on the pedestal of history that it rightly deserves.

deBuys, William. 2011. A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest. New York: Oxford University Press deBuys goes into the political, ecological, ecological and climactic science behind what drives the current and future problems in the American Southwest. He summarizes the science behind climate change, Hadley cells and the problems behind urban planning in big cities like Phoenix. Aside from giving a stirring overview of the natural beauty the region boasts, deBuys says more than once that the book is a thorough history of a region that will drastically be affected by climate change within our grasp that we should not ignore. The problems, while numerous and quite difficult to sort through, should be easier to solve with our resources in the region. I agree with the need for cooperation to swash through the web of problems, but despite the issues of drought and water quality mutual to regions around the world, they are simply not the same. I fear it would be much harder to transpose a solution from the Southwest to the Mediterranean or Western China.

Here is an article about the pending removal of two dams on the Elwha River in the Olympic Peninsula, WA. This would be the largest dam removal in U.S. history, and possibly a precedent for future dam removals. The dams do not have fish ladders, and have significantly reduced the salmon population in the Elwha river, so their removal could dramatically impact the ecosystem.

This article talks about how the metaphors, language, and terminology we use to describe phenomena (in this case poverty) actually impact how we act and perceive policies and reality. It calls back to ideas about knowledge being communicated via social constructions that give us one view, but may be just as accurate as a description that gives a different view or description of the same phenomena. The same language issue (particularly issues of "natural" being "good") finds its way into environmentalism. Of course, it is neither fun nor (at face value) practical to always be wary of the semantic and syntactic details of our language (coming to LC, I remember being frustrated and resistant to the insistence of some of my professors that I use "gender neutral language" in essays, rather than using "he" or "she" to refer to conceptual individuals or "mankind" to the human race) , but perhaps it matters a little more than we think. Ultimately it is hard to know exactly how our language influences the way we think and act, and the language-shaping-thinking versus thinking-shaping-language debate is alive and well. Regardless, when in a field that practices a lot of advocacy work and various forms of story telling (even the stories we tell about the history of environmentalism or certain environmental conflicts) it is something to at least consider.