Group items tagged

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.

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." 

Law professor / futurist Joel Garreau on, well, environmentalism as religion.

St. Regis Princeville Resort settles endangered bird species law suit. They take steps towards maintaining laws.

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 Vietnamese army has been accused of illegally selling timber from Laos. This timber is then used to build furniture which is transported to Europe. While the EIA say that this trade is illegal, the company in question stated that they were following the laws of Laos.

Impressive show by a nation, I wouldn't have expected this from anywhere.

I plug this one a lot, and the Monitor has great coverage on it, but I'll put it out there again. First, because the news that the Supreme Court is not hearing a case on the issue is pertinent both to this issue, and to the chance to have established some sense of precedent for similar environmental cases in the future, as that becomes a bigger and bulkier part of society (and therefore the law). Second, because it really highlights the destructive capabilities of things causing environmental change, even in real time. I think one of the most interesting parts comes in here: "If the Asian carp does take hold in the Great Lakes, the ecosystem will no doubt do what ecosystems do best: adapt. After all the term "invasive species" is, by definition, relative, often marking a transitional phase as a species establishes itself in a new ecosystem. ...Whether the economy adapts to the Asian carp, however, remains to be seen." That highlights the real reason there is so much concern. These lakes are damned important to the well-being of the states around them. And its not just the Great Lakes, once in place Asian Carp readily move into wetlands, river ways, and even other lakes. Minnesota calls itself the land of 10,000 lakes, Wisconsin has more in its "Lakes District", and Michigan follows suit. The economies built around them have covered most of my summer pay over the past few years, so this is a very personal issue as well.

Slate piece that examines the environmental impact of e-readers vis a vis books. 

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.

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?

Good to know: in the midst of the confusion around companies "greenwashing" their products, not even a "certified organic" label is a guarantee for good karma. Take home lesson (in my opinion): always do your homework and never try to cut corners in doing the right thing (buying sustainable food, for example). This is a long report, but the first part sums up the problem pretty well.

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

If you read any of the stuff I'm throwing on here, this one should be it. Pacifist Costa Rica is getting police up in arms because of a neighbor's infraction on their environmental systems. Armed defense of the environment sanctioned by a government? With harm to biodiversity being cited as a cause? Thats very interesting, and shows how far environmentalism has become a value in certain parts of the world.

"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!

Last of my posting on the political situation, just wanted to provide some variety. This is a more moderate view. It points out the fact that all things considered, the Obama administration has not been a huge help with environmental issues in so far, so the change will be tough on the environment, but not neccessarily dramatic. And it also has a touch of optimism at the end, that bills supporting certain aspects of energy issues may pass via compromise. But all told, its a lot of the old bad news, and more. Funding cuts seem to be a big worry - if you can't get rid of a committee, department, or what have you, its not as hard to make sure it has no money. I'd be interested in seeing how the elections at the state level might play out as well. The state parks system in my home state is under threat now, and I imagine the same might be true in other places. Anyone from other states know anything personally about whats going on at that scale?

A different look at the impacts the midterm will have on the varying aspects of the environmental movement, with a far more negative outlook than that of the Huffington Post blog. I found this article to be much more nuanced than the last, and it covers a broader range of issues. Even for those who aren't politically inclined, it wouldn't hurt to read just to have a general sense of what we can expect from the federal government in certain issues. I have to ask, is now the time for getting into Guthman's policy-based approach to solving agricultural issues? More broadly, should one always try and engage in policy issues, or is it more productive to apply energies elsewhere until the political climate is favorable to change?

A follow up to the post I made earlier in the semester about the food safety bill. As far as I can tell, it has been passed. This article highlights an important variation to the bill (from the October version) though; exemptions for small farms and those who sell directly at farmers markets. My original posting was in response to scare propaganda claiming that the food safety bill would outlaw small farming and farmers markets, so this new variation definitely changes things. The other side of the issue is covered here as well though, which questions if this will be the most effective solution, or just an opportunity for loopholes. Come on PoliSci majors, a little insight here?

Not your usual brand of militant environmentalism, but the name seems to fit. Similar to Costa Rica's move a few weeks ago to use government sponsored force in the defense of a biodiverse region along their border, we know see places where park rangers are given the same right as police when it comes to shooting criminals (i.e. poachers) where they work. Much of this is the usual (and important) we're-losing-the-Tigers-at-rapid-rates, but what I found interesting was the fact that environmental concerns are prompting this sort of response from government entities. It is coming to be something that governments are willing to defend with arms, even though the place in question might not be mineral rich or have some other resource value (those would have been defended in the past). Is this a real change in the value system of governments? I imagine if this occurred in America, there would be a pretty negative response from the public for excessive force. I wonder if that is true in India as well.