Group items tagged

Interesting list of topics the NYT includes in their theme series: marriage, money, food (twice), and technology, all with iconic images depicting some sort of cycle.  What's fresh and what's missing in this overall picture?

Check out this interesting debate, with lots of money already invested!, over the possibility of a high-tech fix to global warming by scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, once rejected out of hand but now seriously considered given our failure to enact policies to limit GHG emissions...amazing how the discussion changes in a matter of a few short years!...

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.

Discussion of the money networks surrounding The Tea Party.  This paper tries to argue that the support that large companies have towards the Tea Party also have interests in polluting.

Military scientists and entomologists collaborated and made some significant breakthroughs in the big bee die-off mystery. The researchers have concluded that a combination of fungal and viral infection is the most likely culprit. It is still uncertain how (or if) the bees can be saved, but now researchers at least have some starting ground. One suggestion at the end of the article is that the fungal part of the infection could potentially be curbed with fungicides to prevent bee deaths. This makes me nervous though. It sounds reasonable enough if the goal is to save bees, but deep down it sounds too much like the way western medicine works -- antibiotics to treat the diseases once they take hold, instead of addressing the root of the problem.

This makes me nervous: http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm "What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths" Speaks for itself.

Using technology as a teaching tool increases productivity in higher learning.  Bill Gates is throwing money at increasing technology especially at community colleges.  He refers to technology as "your only hope." 

More on the death of the Select Committee on Energy Independence. Details the reasoning behind eliminating the committee and the "laments" of people who supported the committee. Republicans argue that the committee was a waste of money because it overlapped with the House Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce. The opposing point of view: the committee was worth the money, it was influential in passing the first vehicle efficiency legislation in 30 years as well as other climate change-related legislation, and it was essential for initiating bi-partisan movement on climate change and in educating/persuading legislators that climate change does exist. Daniel Weiss (Center for American Progress Action Fund): "We're one of the only countries of the world where leading government officials deny settled science." Will likely be a major roadblock for future climate change legislation.

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.

An article run recently in the Portland Tribune details the price disparity between the local fruit of farmers markets and the local fruit sold at other shops throughout Portland. On one end are the sometimes obscene prices of farmers markets, tailoring to a predominantly wealthy white clientele, and on the other, you have prices at fruit stand shops that are for a blue collar society, sold at often over half the cost of farmers markets. A strange economic situation underlies the difference. Are Portland's own renowned farmers markets, cherished by so many, tailoring exclusively to rich white folks?

I think this is an important topic to address, however after reading the article I still agree with one of the comments another reader posted at the end of the article: "Many assumptions are made in this article about "local" produce. I would have asked some additional questions such as "What is your definition of locally produced?" Also, what are the labor practices on these farms? Of course I would choose $.89/pound over $1.50/pound unless that means the farmer is paying low wages to workers. What agricultural practices are these farmers using? We have an unrealistic idea of the true cost of food because of decades of subsidies and genetic modification. I'm willing to pay more to purchase beautiful, fresh, non-gmo, organically produced food by workers receiving a living wage. I'm willing to support small farmers and I like knowing that my money is going directly to the hand that grows it. It is true, many farmers markets are more expensive than traditional grocery stores and other outlets but they are offering much more than just a grocery shopping experience. It's a social, community building event." I also posted a response to the article: "I would like to second "local4food"'s comment. There's a bigger problem at hand here. We really shouldnt be focusing on getting the best deal for our food when we already have such a warped idea of the true cost of food. As someone who has both lived and worked on farms and grown a good deal of my own food, there's no way I can look at a bag of tomatoes and not think they're work $3 per pound... at least! Food is such an amazing resource. Shopping at farmers' markets makes me pay more attention to the amount food I buy and be more mindful of how much its really worth to me. I feel better too, knowing that the people who provide me with it are receiving the minimum compensation for their work. We should treat those who feed us with the upmost respect, not like measly vendors who ought to compete themselves nearly out of bus

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?

So, we can (and should) address domestic poster-child coal issues such as mountaintop removal, but let's not get complacent about the larger coal market: this article talks about the role China will play as a huge source of consumption.  What to do?

I'm not going to lie, I didn't see this coming. I'm sure many analysts did -- the U.S. makes tighter coal related regulations, but there is still tons of coal under the ground to be mined. Consequently, it should only make sense to the king of market economy countries that we would export the resource we can't use to a country that can. For all members of groups that have been working against coal domestically, this represents one of the biggest losses they can imagine. After making strides on regulation, one person quoted in this article said that it was one step forward (at home), but ten back (for the world). I've at least operated under the idea that if we can make coal unpalatable enough, we would stop burning it. We're working towards that, as is Europe. But the fact remains that there are "jobs" to be had mining, money to be made exporting, and so the story goes. And even if the U.S. were to regulate coal exports (which is something the free trade maniacs of the new Congress will never, ever let happen), China would turn to Australia, or Canada, or Brazil. This dilemma is crying out for a comprehensive strategy of global cooperation on climate change. But, as is most likely the case, Cancun will slide by, no new agreements will come out of it, and this new coal challenge will become just another part of the mired story of the inability of the world to stop burning all that it is burning. One of those rare and terrifying articles that asks serious questions about how we are to subvert a framework that encourages coal burning and other major externalities.

Short, but significant. Jim Sensenbrenner has announced that his committee on energy independence will be shutting down. The Select Committee on Energy Independence was called a waste of money. Calls to mind Julie Guthman's call to turn to policy and work on policy for environmental issues. Granted, that was agriculture, and this is energy, but ultimately I wonder if in this climate that is a waste or resources, or if because of the antagonism efforts to work on policy were never more necessary. I tend to lean toward the former camp, but still. This may not be all bad news, due to Jim Sensenbrenner. I can't help but do a little bashing. He's from my district, and I've never seen a politician get into so many flustered arguments with high school student's - and adult constituents. Commonly he has given the response "its a complicated issue, you wouldn't understand" to those who have question some of his policy decisions. He also made headlines for storming out of a committee meeting, gavel in hand, after members of the committee asked him to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure. I digress, but this committee was never being run in a way that was tremendously supportive of the climate change initiatives environmental groups tend to desire, and would likely have returned to that state. So it may not be such a bad thing that it is out of the way. Still an important foreshadow of where energy policy has fallen in the political landscape - clearly less of a priority than in the past, for both parties.

I think it's depressing. Although climate change and energy independence could arguably fall under the committees on natural resources and energy/commerce, the fact that there is no longer a committee that specifically targets these issues means they can more easily be ignored. What types of climate change initiatives was the committee against? I don't agree that it might be worth it to cut a somewhat effective committee that specifically targets climate change when there's no replacement for it. Passing climate policy in this climate will probably be difficult. But it will probably be a lot more difficult now that there isn't a group of people working on it directly. I think it was important in changing the view that climate change is a "Democratic" concern and getting Republican support for climate initiatives. At minimum, I think its presence was important in making sure the debate continues to be about what the largest concerns are/ what we can do to address them rather than whether or not climate change exists or not. Sensenbrenner: "While I was initially skeptical of the select committee's mission, it ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate and an opportunity for House Republicans to share a different view on the pressing energy and environment issues that we currently face."

Understandably, at first glance one would be skeptical because this article seems to have greenwashing written all over it. Still, it is an important step in the right direction, and as the Super Bowl isn't going anywhere we might as well applaud efforts to be aware of it's footprint.

Relates to next year's symposium on cities: here are some of the popular (and impressive, though unsurprising) approaches cities are taking to becoming more environmentally friendly. Many are rooted in energy concerns and transport, among a few other social equity issues. However almost all commonly share large-scale government investment approaches to creating spatially isolated things (exceptions include bike shares and Curitiba's bus system). Look to Masdar City for one that is fully designed as an environmentalist's paradise (cars are banned). But I would point out that such cities are incredibly expensive to build, and in this case, they're almost guaranteed to be built on the sale of oil. While I don't like to play a game of blood money blame, there is some irony. I'd like to see some cost-benefit analysis that address whether the costs, both monetary and external from the use of oil, really make these projects "better", or if they are more of a show than a practical reality. Curitiba in Brazil is one worth researching as well, if you're interested in cities. Also a design-centric city, Curitiba also tries to build off popular demand, and alongside their environmental wins they have a good list of social records to lay claim to as well. Unlike Portland's own MAX, they have a decent percentage of citizens who actually pay to ride the public transit (despite the fact that it also is run via a system where fare checkers are few and far between), and analysts have credited it to the civic pride generated by the aesthetic value and efficiency of the system. The demand there is a little more organic and if I remember right, the bus system actually uses a few private businesses who compete to provide optimal service. Government steps in to keep things relatively well organized - an interesting economic approach as well. Interesting government programs that combine solutions to poverty, waste, and education in one as well.

Cleveland has an interesting thing as well - low-income, private efforts to address problems locally and at a smaller scale. Theoretically, their approach could be used in a whole range of places, and addresses social concerns in Cleveland far better than something like a new green stadium would. It just requires people willing to set up systems like the one in the article (and funding - the systems they have were funded by another organization, not reliable in terms of expanding the scale of the project or keeping it going into the long term It is also a fairly fancy system - and costlier too. But the idea can be done cheaply). As we prepare to enter discussions on the symposium (meeting on the 10th! A week from today) I'm curious which approach people find more appealing.

This highlights the rare but occassional shrinking city. Detroits population and economic state is declining, and the city - structurally - may actually have to get smaller. This is, as the article notes, not exactly what urban planning is traditionally oriented towards. But that does not mean it will never happen. Imagine fuel prices increasing without a good alternative coming in - people will likely begin to abandon hinterlands and outskirts and suburbs for cities, and this problem will occur even without dramatic and rare economic decline. Or just the general appeal of cities. Or Stewart Brand's defused population bomb comes true, and economic decline due to aging populations strikes many more aging cities. So it is worth paying attention to, especially since it offers space, which I like to see as opportunity. You can do a lot with that - Detroit gets a lot of urban agriculture press, and some of the first urban farms did emerge from reclaimed abandoned property where buildings had been burned down for insurance money. And the size of the space emptying out might even make it functionally scalable, which has been a major problem. Empty neighborhoods that are structurally intact are also really interesting to me - that is a lot of initial capital set up that could be utilized in the future, allowing for some groups with very little amassed wealth or capital to potentially do something with it. Who knows what, but there looks to be a lot to play with here, and it could be really cool.

For anyone looking to see what the proposed budget cuts might mean for national parks, the EPA, various clean this-and-that regulations, and more.

More details: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0405/Five-ways-House-Republicans-are-striking-fear-in-environmentalists/Greenhouse-gases-and-farm-dust

This article discusses the government's recently launched research on how anaerobic digestion, "a renewable energy technology that generates heat and electricity from waste organic matter," could possibly replace manufactured nitrogen fertilizer. They hope this will save money for the farmers and increase yield.