Group items tagged

Overpopulation was one of the major issues of the early 1970s environmental movement, then became such a divisive issue that it was hard for anyone to discuss. This article considers opportunities and challenges in slowing population growth for India; would be interested if others find it to be reasonable. 

Social science tells us we're addicted to having children (I imagine evolutionary thought would concur). For the many, many people who go to population as the reason we have so many of our problems, this is probably a pretty dark article to read.

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.

The construction of the third largest dam in the world is being planned in Brazil. The construction of this dam is creating problems for the population who will be displaced by it.

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.

As most of us are aware, the world's population recently passed the 7 billion mark and we're scheduled to hit 9 billion by 2050. This article discusses 7 problems that we'll have to worry about as population continues to rise. We, as ENVS students, are already aware of these issues; water, climate change, and food security to name a few. However, some of the academics interviewed have very interesting ideas about solutions to these challenges (no-growth economy for example). For the feminists among us, Roger Short states that "We need to feminise the world and look first and foremost at the interests of women because they're the ones that are going to decide our future and it is their determination to limit the size of their families which will be the saviour of the world," which I thought was pretty interesting.

Most forecasts have presumed that animal farming is stuck on a treadmill that will only have to move faster and faster to keep up with a growing population and greater demand for meat. Animals must become more confined and concentrated--there's no turning back! The authors in this collection, however, while recognizing the severity of the problems with our current animal farming practices, take a more optimistic outlook, arguing that a renewal of the agrarian contract is more than just philosophically compelling. It is also in the interests of business and consumer welfare. I would especially recommend this book to retailers, farmers, and producers because their reading it would be a great first step towards the communication and collaboration that is necessary to solve the slough of problems around animal farming.

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 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.

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." 

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?

From their site: "We believe in listening to the needs the poor tell us about, not assuming we know best. We believe in products and services designed for specific cultural contexts, not just Western hand-me-downs. And we believe that careful attention to design can create innovative-and extremely affordable-solutions to the problems of the other 90%."

"About 80% of the world's population lives in areas where the fresh water supply is not secure, according to a new global analysis." This article addresses a new study published in "Nature" that is looking at patterns of global water stress. It weighs the benefits of the western approach (damns, canals, etc...) against more integrated, "natural" approaches such as preserving wetlands and floodplains. The centerpiece of the study is a great example of GIS mapping on a global scale.

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.

Some researches are claiming that a lot of methane disappeared very quickly after the oil spill. Their hypothesis? Bacteria did it. While clearly controversial, it is an impressive testement to ecosystems ability to respond to surprises (though hardly a reliable one). Could it also lend some new ideas to efforts to figure out how to deal with the next big oil spill? While I don't pretend to know whether or not its a good idea, one critic mentioned that other limiting factors may have inhibited population growth of presumably beneficial bacteria. Could intentional actions towards removing those limiting factors in other spills allow bacteria to consume methane more rapidly? And if we pluck that strand, what would we find it connected to? Of course, that all depends on the accuracy of the study.

This is a fairly direct critique of the Owen's piece from the New Yorker by the same fellow as my last article, the Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center. Its a harsh one. In the comments he also addresses issues of population being the real problem with increasing energy use, for any interested in a little bit of that debate.

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.

An NYT article highlighting Vaclav Smil's outlook on energy. We have read a few Smil articles in ENVS 160 about population and peak oil, in which he expresses the same ideas in this article. Smil does not oppose new energy alternatives, however he believes oil and coal are still necessary; we just need to be more efficient.

Another reminder that anything like a global fisheries assessment is a complex matter, based on all sorts of assumptions and models.  The upshot: either things are terrible, or they're just not great (e.g., 70 vs. 33 percent of all stocks estimated to be declining). One of the challenges: how extrapolate known longitudinal data on fish stocks to the many others that are less well monitored?