Group items tagged

For those who aren't convinced that action at the individual level is the best focus of our energy and/or activism: "Management and recycling of industrial products and materials are key priority areas. While typically not seen by the general public or part of most of our daily lives, these wastes are often generated in large volumes. Learn about EPA initiatives, such as the Coal Combustion Partnership Program, and the recycling and beneficial use of industrial byproducts generated during manufacturing processes.

Our ENVS 490 class this semester has examined a number of environmental conflicts in Oregon, many in its rural areas. This article discusses how serious the economic situation has become in these areas -- many of which were dependent on natural resource industries -- and includes an animated graphic to suggest that things have only been getting worse in the last few years.

Perhaps alternative energy technology's most promising industry, wind, is finding itself to be far more controversial as it becomes far more common and popular. Partially, this is just a good old example of showing us how nothing is perfect. But it does beg the question of large scale energy industry period - are those who see no place for that, in any form, on to something?

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. 

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

"A new report from the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) in Berkeley projects that development of cost-competitive algae biofuel production will require much more long-term research, development and demonstration. In the meantime, several non-fuel applications of algae could serve to advance the nascent industry."

This is for the ENVS 160 discussion we had today. And for the New Yorker reading on Jevons' Paradox we're doing. Jevon's is one of those economic ideas that seems to get necromanced by some combination of economists and the media every once in a while. I run the risk of sounding like I give it no credit with my critiques, but I truly think it needs to stay back in pre-industrial/industrial England where it belongs. Yes, its real. But no, it is not the end of efficiency measures, and especially not conservation. This Grist article was a response to the New Yorker article. But be careful - the article isn't stunning, but the comments are pretty impressive. The article more or less sides with Jevons, using case studies that are convincing to various degrees. But the comments draw some big names in economics and environmental thought, among them Amory Lovins, head of the acclaimed Rocky Mountain Institute. He gets into the numbers, and gives his own insight to the Jevons Paradox. If you're concerned about Jevons, this article/comments combo - and one other article I'll post - is a must read.

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

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.

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.

This article looks at what Chicago is doing to push their development in the green direction. This falls under progressive ecological modernization. It is particularly interesting examining this development in a city that one would more readily associate with the historically negative side of industrialization (birthplace of the skyscraper)

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.

Got the time to read an 81 page report from the USDA Economic Research Service? Perhaps not, but it could be worth the time. An information/research heavy look into the economics of a variety of food systems. Given the argument that sustainable agriculture won't be truly embraced until it can feasibly compete with industrial agriculture models, the information here could be very interesting. I've only just started to dive in, but so far its promising, as government reports go.

Also, for the record, two things worth checking out: there is a report summary, and a full report, though the summary offers little surprising information. There is also a case study on blueberries specific to Portland.

"When Walmart announced on Monday that it would install 15 megawatts' worth of solar arrays on as many as 30 of its stores in California and Arizona, it set out to shape the solar market in more ways than one." Good or bad? Part of me feels like this is fine, "great I'm glad they're helping out." But part of me is also very nervous about this. I dont know if I like the idea of Walmart "green coating" their business. I think we're planning on talking about this in class Thursday.

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.

I don't know if I like this, but if you're into the food thing this is a very real, very under reported force in the sustainable food movement, and there are a lot of big names in it. Its a long article, but worth the read. I guess the question is, if it solves the environmental issues (or if it can, another question worthy of skepticism) is it worth losing on some of the other values the local/sustainable movement has embraced? I'm skeptical on a lot of levels, but its an interesting thought.

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.

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...

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.