Group items tagged

Promising research on the science side of environmentalism. Solar panels that are thinner than the wavelength of light allow for longer "captivity" of the proton, and thus "absorb more than 10 times the energy predicted by conventional theory." This relates to our ENVS 160 unit regarding the limits to growth. More technology = changing limits, once again. The article ends with a slightly unsettling note however: Fan, one of the researchers is quoted, "Where this will have a larger impact is in some of the emerging technologies; for example, in organic cells." Oh technology, are you a friend or foe?

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.

I would consider this a must-read for those into the alternative energy side of things. While the energies it highlights aren't all new and exciting, the numbers game it plays is pretty key. This is no optimistic one-technology-solves-it-all piece, and it issues a key reminded that no alternative energy we have reaches the input/output energy found in oil. By my reading, key to getting into the next energy phase we should expect is energy reduction, and energy efficiency. Our efficiency numbers, both from a physics and an economics perspective, are awful. The guys behind the Rocky Mountain Institute wrote a book called Natural Capitalism, which offers some great insights into energy efficiency as it stands and as it could be, if anyone is interested in that side of things. One of my favorite aspects of increasing energy efficiency is how its good for economies and good for the environment - still, there is the worry that if it makes things too cheap, people will use too much (the book cites fuel efficiency standards that were so good the cost of driving dropped significanly, and so many more people drove than more energy ended up being used). There are tools to avoid that though. I digress, but still, an excellent view of where alternative energy stands as of now.

One such technology that leads to energy efficiency: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2009/1231/No-more-power-lines

oh man oh man oh man. huge, invisible, underground networks that transmit electricity? sounds familiar... "I have long proposed that mycelia are the earth's "natural Internet." I've gotten some flak for this, but recently scientists in Great Britain have published papers about the "architecture" of a mycelium - how it's organized. They focused on the nodes of crossing, which are the branchings that allow the mycelium, when there is a breakage or an infection, to choose an alternate route and regrow. There's no one specific point on the network that can shut the whole operation down. These nodes of crossing, those scientists found, conform to the same mathematical optimization curves that computer scientists have developed to optimize the Internet. Or, rather, I should say that the Internet conforms to the same optimization curves as the mycelium, since the mycelium came first." -- Paul Stamets more: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/07/natures-internet-vast-intelligent.html

The film itself is interesting, but not surprising in its general concept - instead of apocalyptic imagery and fear, embrace a more positive, benefits centered climate change thing. What I thought was more interesting was how they intentionally draw from a whole range of cultural perspectives, which I think is most significant when read as an implicit statement that issues of relating to other cultural mindsets and attitudes, rather than just having solid science and good ideas, may make the difference in solving environmental issues. Perhaps its an obvious statement, but it is worth remembering as we sit on a campus fairly lacking in cultural or ideological diversity. Other people see the world in certain ways, and sometimes we have to convince them through those ways rather than via the logic of our own worldview. But do we sacrifice our cause by trying to achieve our goals via means/arguments we don't neccesarily agree with?

I just watched the trailer, but I think I still got the point. Why not encourage consumption of cleaner, more-efficient renewable energy as opposed to trying to change the values of a whole culture and come off as a proselytizing environmental-elitist? It would sure be a lot less stressful way to try to enact change. I'd have to see the film in its entirety but it seems that they are taking something of a "let markets fix the problem" approach, but in a way that I can agree with. We have to come to terms with the fact that Americans aren't going to magically start consuming less just because us conservationists think it's the right way to live. I love the line where one guy says not to [support renewable efficient energy] because you care about the environment, do it cause you're a greedy bastard and want cheap power. People aren't going to change exactly how we want them, so let's just work with them.

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

This article discusses how hundreds of Japanese residents sought refuge in a nuclear power plant after the tsunami hit. 240 people remain, all of whom are supposedly enjoying a relatively luxurious life compared to their fellow citizens.

From Anti-Matter to floating wind farms, these are some practical and not-practical-yet energy alternatives. Many are well known, others are not, and some are new twists on older ideas. The question I still have is speed - can we implement these fast enough?

Do we all think of the Earth as a victim to human negligence and greed? Is it unsalvageable and defenseless? Klare believes the Earth is a "powerful actor in its own right and as an avenger, rather than simply victim." Perhaps we should change our perception of Earth to a more robust depiction.

And lastly (for now), just to stir things up a bit, check out this piece on Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. This piece certainly raises interesting questions and offers unexpected claims. For example, in the Environmental Gains section it says, "Instead of recycling office paper, Gaines says, it should be used to generate energy in coal-fired power plants. 'Then you burn less coal and displace some of the coal emissions. Paper is a really good, clean fuel,' she says." I'd caution against jumping too quickly on the "rethinking" bandwagon, though, especially considering the fact that this claim is followed by, "But Dennison argues that Gaines' analysis glosses over an important factor. 'The wood has to be harvested from a forest and the forest has to be managed to produce the wood. And that set of management practices has important environmental consequences with regard to biodiversity, habitat, and so forth, that have to be counted...' " ... DUH. If this is where the debate is, I'm not convinced that these ideas have been fully flushed out yet. It's certainly important to challenge our dogmatic practices, but we also must make sure we've got our arguments all straightened out before we run with them. This is a place to start, at least. (There are, also, a number of other interesting points in this article, not all of which are so obviously undeveloped. I do recommend this piece if I've succeeded in interesting you with questions about "waste")

I, like most of us (I would guess), am not a fan of consumerism. In general I view it as pretty close to something that is inherently bad. While I see a need and value in consumption, consumerism has failed to impress me. However this art exhibit in Germany takes a deeper look, and digs into some things that need to be considered. Particularly interesting is the role shopping plays in one's perception of independence, freedom, or one's role as a lover or caretaker. It points out that in many countries shopping is one of the rare opportunities in which it is acceptable for women to have some degree of agency, or to even leave the house. And it points out the power of shopping and market places as cultural and social areas (though in many parts of the U.S., I would question how true that is. Still, I know of one grocery store where I'm from where people often go and spend time socializing with people from around the area, and the southern side of my family has recounted tales of getting dressed up to go to the local grocery store, so I can see it). What I really liked about what this exhibit does is that it seems to critique consumerism merely by calling attention to it, but it does not attack an essentialized straw man. Rather it sounds as though it attempts to dig deeper into what consumerism is, both positive and negative, and judge it on those grounds rather than merely give it the more general abuse it usually recieves.