Group items tagged

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?

My main focus of what I think will be my concentration is the idea of how environment affects the continuation or elimination/transformation of indigenous culture verses the modern day. This piece begins to comment on that, showing examples of how modern day impacts are changing the natural environment in places like Columbia, which force the indigenous people living there out of their traditional lifestyles. This displacement of culture often results in an abandonment of ones culture--many youths are resettling in urban areas because their traditional way of life cannot adapt to the rapidly changing environment. The article brings up the question of old verses new, and the question of how can they remain in the same world peacefully--if that's even an option?

Publisher's summary: "Author E. N. Anderson maintains that the world can escape impending ecological disaster only by embracing a political and ethical transformation that will imbue modern societies with the same shared sense of emotional rationality practiced by traditional cultures." One of humankind's most perennial utopias is the utopia of the good old days, and this one is near and dear to many in the environmental movement.  What's wrong with this picture?

This entry in the "Green" blog section of the New York Times talks about the progression of lighting products and their efficiency. For the most part it focuses on the movement from fluorescent lights to LED lights which are slightly more efficient. This movement relates to the idea of modernization and technological development as being a positive feature in addressing environmental issues.

Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris is about a new conservation ethic. Marris argues that pristine nature as glorified and portrayed by the "wilderness cult" of the 19th century does not exist in modern day, and that it is futile for conservationists to try and attempt to rewind the clock of ecosystems back to some arbitrary baseline like "before humans arrived." In place of classic conservation, Marris argues for radical rewilding, assisted migration, novel ecosystems, and designer ecosystems. The book is geared towards a popular audience, and as such, it might be a bit elementary for environmental studies majors. That said, for the most part the argument Marris makes is still compelling, although perhaps not novel.

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 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.

One of the cornerstones of the early modern environmental movement, the Clean Air Act is now forty years old.  This brief article reviews events around the 40th anniversary and discusses controversial extensions to control carbon dioxide emissions.

If this counts as ecological modernization, then I'm all for it.

I feel like with great ideas like this one, I am always waiting for the catch, because this solution seems too good to be true. That being said, I am in complete support and I think that more thought could be put into the whole concept of human waste. Especially on campus I think there are opportunities for experiments with other methods of dealing with waste than flush toilets. I know that at other schools there are composting contraptions, point being the way we deal with waste now is not necessarily the best way.

I know what you mean about the catch... but if you think about this, it makes a lot of sense. Poop is compact energy sources that we just throw away (or better yet, use to pollute our water resources). It's energy just waiting to be used and if we can think of a way to get a little more use out of that material, then we should. This is exactly the kind of creative thinking we're gonna have to start doing. We've gotta realize that we dont have an energy crisis in the sense that we're running our of energy sources: we have an energy crisis in that we think we have to use external energy. We let so much that already exists in our local systems just pass us by! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure

Will Allen has become one of the patron saints of the modern alternative food movement, appearing in the White House, championing Michelle Obama's new programs, becoming the father of modern Urban Agriculture, and being named one of People's 100 most influential people (among other awards and achievements). He is really worth checking out. While I have been very excited to see ideas for vertical farms popping up everywhere from Milwaukee to Toronto to Chicago and beyond, my enthusiasm is beginning to lag. While vertical farms offer great potential for feeding people locally, consistently, cheaply (maybe), and in an environmentally friendly way, are these sometimes soil-less, urban high rises really just a factory farm for vegetables? If so, does it matter? I'm still in favor of them, so far, but I can't help but wonder if the food movement of tomorrow will be "ground-grown" or "grown in soil". I'd really appreciate thoughts and a discussion, if anyone is interested. While I see many positives in the economic/ecological realm of things, I'm less sold on the philosophy of the idea. Are "natural systems" methods still natural if they're in something we would not necessarily consider "nature" off-hand?

A perspective on the environmental movement that most likely everyone in LCENVS (and beyond) should keep in mind. "She learned the same thing about growing fruits and vegetables: Anyone can grow shit themselves. Anyone. Broke-Ass was sick of reading about kids who just graduated from art or architecture school manning their self-righteous food-coops with heirloom everything; looking down on everyone who wasn't raising bees on their rooftops in Brooklyn. To Broke-Ass, it all smacked of Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess with her ladies at the Petit Hameau at Versailles. You don't need to have white-kid dreadlocks, a degree from Bennington, or any more than a passing interest in limiting your carbon footprint to raise your own crap. You just need to be hungry." Moral of the story is (in my opinion), maybe environmentalism isnt limited to the privileged middle/upper classes and we're doing ourselves a disservice by assuming so or treating it that way. Can we extrapolate this from agriculture and apply it to the greater environmental movement? Maybe our priority shouldnt be ecological modernization -- maybe we should focus on taking advantage of sustainability where it already exists and has potential to exist, instead of sending the message that it can only be achieved through college degrees, high tech appliances, and hybrid cars. Maybe... these are all maybes. But nonetheless I think they're maybes worth considering.

A challenge to the idea that vertical farming may be more energy efficient than traditional approaches. Like the debate around local food though, it bothers me that we focus on energy and/or CO2 emissions when we measure environmental impact. In a much bigger picture, I'm not even so sure that another agricultural revolution, like this, is really what's best for the planet in the long run.

Good points all. While the excitement about vertical farms is good for attracting investors, the economic realities of all the systems involved are definitely questionable. That said, the Economist left out some things that are worth mentioning, both for and against the idea. First of all, the use of hydroponics is thrown out pretty willingly and easily, but its hardly simple. For one, you're moving away from the use of soil (and fertilizer, manure, other related mediums) as the primary medium for agricultural production. We are simulatenously just realizing that we don't really know much about soil as a medium. And even with water we have the same problems. The "known unknowns" are pretty great either way, and scale plays in. Most hydroponics (though there are major exceptions) are run by research organizations or universities, which means there is a lot more free and regular support, particularly from the sciences, than most commercial operations will be able to afford. Its much easier, when things go wrong, to have a cadre of free sciences hovering around. As for "you can grow anything in hydroponics", speaking from work I've done with those systems, you can - but good luck with a lot of it. Plus water filtration becomes an issue, though there are biological ways of handling that (even then you're creating a very limited ecosystem - they can get thrown off ridiculously easily). On the other hand, while light inputs are definitely a notable consideration, light science and "light engineering" is making leaps and bounds. So while I'd say issues with light are writing it off just yet, I wouldn't count on that as the everlasting limiting factor. Along with the various spinning, rotating, window side containers there are also various types of windows, "light tunnels", and even the good ol' basic efficient lighting systems and such to consider. And design, rather than technology, can also contribute - several vertical farm designs "stagger" floors to reduce

shading from the building itself. Also, for anyone following alternative agriculture from the technology/commerce/urban ag side, there are two details the Economist got wrong. Sweetwater Organics, featured on NBC a few weeks ago, is already running a commerical hydroponics farm out of an old railroad warehouse. The nutrients for their water chemistry come from fish (poop), who are also raised in tandem with the plants, also for food. Also, at least one vertical farm plan has moved off the drawing board (sort of) into fundraising stages, and the land for it is cleared (both physically and legally) for building. This is at Will Allen's Growing Power, in Milwaukee, WI. Will, the "father of modern urban agriculture" and a frequent visitor to the White House with Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" program, is hoping to build the five story building within a few years. It will be located (and provide food to) in a food desert, in one of Milwaukee's largest low-income housing projects. So the world will soon have a test case for this idea. Other cities may follow, but as far as I know the closest one (in terms of multiple floors of greenhouses) is planned for Toronto, and is at least two decades out - which probably means its anyone's guess whether it'll happen.

an examination of the issue of resource overconsumption in our modern agrifood system

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

In this piece, New Yorker writer reports on recent remarks by Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum claiming that Obama's environmental and energy agenda constitute a "theology." When questioned further on his line of reasoning, Santorum said, "Radical environmentalism...[is] this idea that man is here to serve the earth rather than to husband and steward the earth's resources." I mean, to be honest, I don't take Santorum seriously. However, what do we think of his argument here? After having recently read Shellenberger and Nordhaus's argument in their opening to their new book "Love Your Monsters," Santorum's statements here struck me as, well, pretty similar to some of what S&N are saying. S&N say that environmentalism has all the touches of a theology; so does Santorum. (They say the same thing for different reasons, of course.) Has environmentalism become a theology? And by conceptualizing it as a theology, do we presuppose some sort of inherent antagonism between Science and Religion?

This is a book by ecologist and environmentalist Stewart Brand who is previously known for helping create and write the Whole Earth Catalogue. In this book Brand discusses the current state of our environment and specifically focuses on climate change. He then spends the rest of the book discussing radical modern approaches that he believes will help combat climate change. Some of these methods include using nuclear power as our main source of energy and genetically modifying all of our crops to be more resilient to climate change. He also argues that densely populated cities are more efficient and that new technology must be used to help fix the environmental problems that have been caused by previous technologies. This book is well written and offers a perspective on environmental issues that most other current environmental books do not agree with. I would recommend this book to all environmental studies majors.

lcenvsfall220 A description of the idea of Ecospirituality with a focus on holistic nursing and healing.

Pan-STARRS spots its first potentially unsafe asteroid through a telescope a-top Haleakala.