Group items tagged

Just here in time for fall semester: new theories on how to study effectively…and some vindication of techniques you may already be following.

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.

This article is about a waterway in New York that has been designated a Superfund after years of industrial activity along its banks. There is another canal in New York and other waterways across the country are Superfund sites as well. I'm interested to see what happens now and how they go about cleaning up toxins and contaminants from waterways.

Primitive stoves that produce toxic smoke are one of the leading causes for death and disease in third world countries. It is also a huge driver of climate change. Proposal to provide 100 million clean burning stoves to villages in Africa, Asia, and South America

This NY Times article discusses new research performed by Boston Childern's Hospital on a possible link between air pollution and diabetes.

Wait a second, I just looked at the entire quiz and the whole thing is about climate change. And more than a few questions were a bit vague.  Hmmm..."environmental knowledge"..."how green you are"...

The survey is legitimate (sort of... a bunch of the questions could use reworking, and the way they are asked is really misleading), but the title that the Oregonian chose is awful. I'm not sure how much it adds to the correlation of people associating climate change only with environmentalism (I think this was just a really poorly chosen headline, done by someone who is unfamiliar with issues), but I do think it is very interesting regarding the article from Grist that Julia posted recently on what to call people who care about climate change. And... this wasn't even close to a "quiz", as the Oregonian decided to call it. It's most certainly a survey (given the abundance of the likert scale in the questions), and it definitely doesn't test "environmental knowledge". The survey appears to be prodding for uncertainty, and controversy even. I think they will get polarized results, and I also think that these results will be that way because of how incredibly thoroughly climate change has been politicized.

I like these readers' comments: portlandiowa October 22, 2010 at 8:04AM "The researchers gave more than half of those who answered their quiz a grade of "F."" Probably those that didn't answer with the same personal opinions as the researchers on the cause of global warming. An engaged citizen October 22, 2010 at 10:07AM There's the problem right there, portlandiowa - those who are confused about the difference between theology (a system of beliefs) and science. Or even worse, those who think SCIENTISTS are confused between the two. I dunno.... I might agree with portlandiowa. And I'm a Bio/Chem Major??

This article forced me to look at environmental issues from the perspective of religious conservatives. It also gave me hope that people can change if the facts are presented in the correct way. These Kansans do care about the environment but for some different reasons than I do. I was surprised at the amount of overlap though. They want to make sure future generations enjoy life in the same way they do and leave the world better than they found it. Overall, this article gave me some hope.

The military essentially suddenly decided to use renewable energy out in the field, mostly in Afghanistan because transporting fuel is dangerous there. They used mostly civilian technology but the mass use should bring the cost down and with more scientists updating it the technology will also get better.

Now this is very interesting, if not particularly surprising. The US military has begun pushing for the development of renewable energy sources that can be readily deployed in battlefield situations and remote locations where traditional fossil fuels are prohibitively scarce. Trucking fuel to outposts and encampments in Afghanistan can be dangerous: "...for every 24 fuel convoys that set out, one soldier or civilian engaged in fuel transport was killed. " It is also extremely expensive. The US military buys fuel for around $1 a gallon, but shipping that fuel can easily cost hundreds of dollars per gallon. Taking those transport costs into account, the high initial costs of investing in renewable energy are put into perspective. The US navy has begun to experiment with ships that run on electricity at lower speeds, as well as jets that use mixtures of conventional and bio-fuels. It is likely the "experts" say, that development of these technologies for military use will lead to more affordable civilian versions.

"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.

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.

Classic environmental experiment, complete with social drama, business plots, and accusations of meddling by cultish groups. The video touches more on the idea of whether or not an alternative biosphere is possible. Interesting to note that this one relied heavily on fossil fuels - it was not entirely a closer system then, as far as my limited research tells me. Still a very intriguing experiment, for better or for worse.

This is potentially a huge project to bring wind energy to the East Coast. A lot of interesting issues were brought up like the potential spike in energy costs and the bureaucracy that such an initiative would have to get through to even be a reality. Its going to be a big deal if it follows through, so worth knowing about.

Interesting facts and information about the mainstream perceptions of biotech produced foods, GMO, and the like. On one side, they've got a huge percentage of the market cornered (86% I think), which likely strikes fear into the heart of many anti-biotech folk. On the other hand, you have a lot of scientists saying that GMO crops are no more likely to produce more than conventional - why then, are we doing it? To stop weeds, that are already coming back with greater resistance? However you analyze it, an interesting article (and a recommended source - people often write off the Christian Science Monitor because of the first word in its name, but its not a religious news source, it is very high quality, and they have people reporting from all over the world. They do very good analysis of global energy issues, and I would highly reccomend their coverage of China's growing green economy. They've done a lot of work on that)

"What Monsanto's fall from grace reveals about the GMO seed industry" http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-12-what-monsantos-fall-from-grace-reveals-abo-the-gmo-seed-industry

"National environmental organizations have traditionally drawn their membership from the white and affluent, and have faced criticism for focusing more on protecting resources than protecting people. But with a black president committed to environmental issues in the White House and a need to achieve broader public support for initiatives like federal legislation to address global warming, many environmentalists say they feel pressure to diversify the movement further, both in membership and at higher levels of leadership."

Lisa Jackson has been going around the nations meeting with local environmental organizations for a range of reasons lately, and she has definitely been pushing - perhaps subtly - this agenda. When she came to Milwaukee, where I live, she had her meeting in an urban nature center in the very heart of the inner city, a generally impoverished, overwhelmingly African-American area of town. Not the usual place for high-level government officials to have meetings, so I feel like she means what she says in this article. Anecdotal evidence, but I was still impressed. Makes me nervous given than the new plan for Lisa Jackson is summed up this way: "I think she'll be very much in demand on the Hill, at times not of her choosing," said a former staffer on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "It will diminish her free time, shall we say." I hope the environmental movement really addresses this seriously, if its going to expand to the scale many seem to think it needs to for serious, rapid change. Really interesting article, thanks!

One of environmentalism's favorite past times: ragging on other environmentalist movements for not being as green as the other guy (forgive my cynicism). For what its worth, that may help direct action in the right direction. Or it may stall action due to debate. I find its often a fine line to tread, and calls heavily into realms of psychology and the other social sciences (also a favorite victim of another line of thought in environmentalism) regarding people's various reactions to environmental initiatives or ecologically sound decisions. A lot of folks that I know who are into environmental things have started off trying to bring about ecological change, gotten frustrated, and joined the off-the-gridders. They're very happy people now - but are they doing as much environmental good? It is a worthy question. A lot of great environmental minds have been lost to the off-the-grid, live-in-the-woods mentality. And a lot of great environmental minds have come out of it. Wish they had a little more in terms of research they're citing, since they both make a lot of claims about consumption but don't cite any sources beyond their own experience. That said, its a good intra-movement debate, one I've had with others on this campus, and continue to have with myself.

This site features major scientists and humanists discussing points of creative overlap, with plenty of interesting ideas and models we could learn from as we attempt to do the same in environmental studies.

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 will probably be more interesting to me and other Midwesterners who live around the freshwater seas of the Great Lakes. But the article has a lot of value outside of that, for all the approaches to an invasive species it highlights (its also nice to have a bit of "traditional environmentalism" in terms of ecological issues, which has lost a lot of the spotlight to other valid environmental concerns). Plus its interesting to read about electric sting guns and high security, water-and-sledge-hammer-proof science laboratories, and australians cursing about fish. Of course, there are the initial question about why invasive species are seen as a problem, or if they should be. Then there is the classic "shoot first, ask questions later" versus the move to sacrifice action for the sake of a better solution later. I think that our campus tends to value rationality and reason, and there is a bit more of a critical thought first attitude (though this may be a sweeping and inaccurate generalization) so it was interesting to see where that approach didn't seem to work. Granted, these are case studies, not widespread truths. But the article may force us to question critical questioning, when it holds up action. A lot to glean from the various bits in here, depending how you read it.

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.