Group items tagged

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.

So, where exactly do we draw the line on what we can morally eat if all life strives to live?  The author raises good questions regarding our tidy categories.

Another article discussing the "Jeevon Paradox" of energy efficiency, consumption and possible dangers that arise from the two.

An interesting article related to overfishing of sharks and the progress of their conservation. Animal club lobbied this past spring to pass a ban on shark fins in Oregon, and it's nice to see that legislators are getting on board to protect a portion of ocean biodiversity.

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.

In accordance to our recent 160 readings, the Rocky Mountain Wolf has been removed from the endangered species list. This is the first time Congress has gotten directly involved in the Endangered Species Act. What are your thoughts on government and political control "rather than a science-based federal agency, remove endangered species protections?"

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")

Grasshopper, anyone? This article expands upon a notion I have heard about several times before, but haven't considered its possibilities on large-scale. Many countries, such as Japan and Mexico, are already comfortable with bug consumption. It has proven to be extremely nutritious in amino acids and protein. It is also very efficient space-wise, as discovered in Japan. No matter the practicality of bugs in curbing global warming, the consumers must be willing to eat them. In American culture, bugs are perceived as dirty and disease-ridden. What would it take to reshape citizens' attitude around bugs to allow this expansion?

This is a neat setup and visual displaying environmental movements in conjunction with presidencies. Lots of cool facts included.

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?

Here is a story we have heard many times for many different species; what have we learned from these other efforts that may help us successfully conserve the chambered nautilus?

Levi Strauss and other companies are realizing that water shortages due to climate change have the capability of being a major threat to their success and existence. Jeans consume water in the irrigation of cotton, the process of making the jeans, and certainly the number of times a pair of jeans is washed in water. With such a strong dependency on water, Levi Strauss is working to conserve water and support organizations and companies trying to do the same.