Group items tagged

There's an interesting difference between (some) meteorologists and (almost all) climatologists over the anthropogenic factor in climate change; this article discusses a recent meeting in Portland primarily attended by skeptical meteorologists. Why the difference? Is it that meteorologists tend to focus on weather vs. climate, i.e., attend to different spatiotemporal scales? Or is it something about who decides to become a meteorologist vs. climatologist and what sort of training is necessary?

A succinct introduction to the idea of permaculture and why we need it. For those ENVS students who dont yet already know: There's a group of students working on putting in a permaculture garden/food forest on a plot of land right next to campus. If you're interested, read this for background and email me (jhuggins@lclark.edu) so I can tell you when and where our next meeting will be.

Well, sounds like we have a discussion going here! If you want, Julia, we can talk at length about it, but it's gonna be difficult to talk if skeptics are dismissed as not knowing what permaculture really is. If the heart of permaculture is "the idea that agriculture should harmonize with natural cycles," a Julie Guthman or a Bob Goldman or a JDP would probably say sounds good, what what sort of harmonization with what sorts of natural cycles? This is inspirational, but too vague to adequately describe the details of any agricultural technique -- a whole host of techniques far different from permaculture could make the same claim. And perhaps our difference concerns permaculture not as an agricultural technique (which Julie appeared to endorse in her brief remarks), but its e.g. class, religious, and political dimensions, so we'd probably need to broaden our discussion to include its full dimensionality. ENVS represents an inclusive approach: it's not the ecological dimension alone, nor other dimensions; it's as many dimensions as are significant. Others on this thread may or may not be interested in permaculture, but in general it's worth a broader conversation between faculty and students on proposed solutions to our ecological problems. We want to make sure that there's a healthy give and take and a healthy respect, which may lead to a broader understanding of why certain solutions don't necessarily enthrall all of us. (Anyone ready to reform the tax code, as Julie strongly recommended as one of her "ecological" solutions??)

Like Julia, my response is too long for Diigo (perhaps this a function we should write to them about changing?), but I've posted it as a Google Site (also like Julia): https://sites.google.com/site/envs220diigopermaculture/

I don't know if I like this, but if you're into the food thing this is a very real, very under reported force in the sustainable food movement, and there are a lot of big names in it. Its a long article, but worth the read. I guess the question is, if it solves the environmental issues (or if it can, another question worthy of skepticism) is it worth losing on some of the other values the local/sustainable movement has embraced? I'm skeptical on a lot of levels, but its an interesting thought.

Probably a must-read for those interested in climate issues, since this article makes the claim that glacial losses may be 10% that of what we once thought. Which raises the question of how serious climate change is, versus what we say it is, how issues like this reflect on environmentalism, and more. In particular, it calls to mind environmentalism's dependence on science as justification, which often works well, but sometimes scientific knowledge is improved and (therefore) changed. It isn't a clean way of accessing the truth, and you're taking a risk with much of science when its new. Those in hydrology can appreciate how imperfect much of the data collection and interpretation we have is, to speak to this point. For those who get nervous, the Christian Science Monitor is not religiously run or influenced, only founded by a religious institution historically. And they cover climate change news on the regular, without an agenda for skepticism. So don't let that throw you.

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.

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.

Shimon is an entomologist who has made significant breakthroughs in "natural" pest control. The bio from the talk explains the idea like this: "Beneficial bugs are replacing the use of chemical sprays in greenhouse vegetables and open field crops, producing pesticide-free food and eliminating hazardous exposure of millions of workers in third world countries. These insects are shipped worldwide, where they go to work protecting thousands of hectares of greenhouses and open fields, in vegetables, field crops, fruit trees, ornamental plants and more." I put natural in quotes above, though, because first and foremost I'm a good for nothin skeptic. Secondly, while I'm all for getting rid of nasty chemicals, this solution just screams invasive species... which we always seem to lump into the "not natural" effects of humanity. Shimon, the speaker, justifies this solution by emphasizing that there's absolutely no genetic modification, and that the effects on the crops are all natural because the insects are natural. "All we do is give them the optimal conditions... in order to let them proliferate, multiply, and reproduce." It just doesnt click in my head. Manipulating conditions for one kind of species and exploiting them was how we got into this agricultural mess in the first place.

Aside from that though, the speaker actually makes some really good points and it's worth familiarizing yourself with the idea of "natural" pest-control, as we'll likely see more of it in the future. (If this speaker has his way at least.)

Recently, a politician who may take a role in our energy committe made comments against the clean air act because it shut down coal mines in the United States that couldn't meet its standards. Demand for coal on a global scale still exists, however, and now China has pollution akin to that in our industrial era. When the U.S. makes laws that help make economic actions "fair", "green", "safe", or otherwise it makes the market function better according to our values. But when other nations don't have those same regulations, business moves out, and we ship things like our waste and pollution to the third world. This video highlights a means of solving that problem. While the speaker addresses common concerns, I'm not convinced. I think he's pretty optimistic all around. How does one convince nations operating for their own good to impose limitations on themselves that might slow their growth? Easy for us to sacrifice some growth for environmental health, but a higher standard of material living matters more in impoverished areas - the conception is that taking care of environmental issues, or social issues, is a luxury derived from wealth. I really don't see a solution yet - I like what the speaker is doing, but I'm skeptical about its reliability. The store price of a good remains, I think, most people's measure of a succesful buy. Is a culture shift required to change that? More information? I'd certainly start with the latter, for the sake of doing something...

This is an interesting little piece of news -- three concerned scientists have launched a new website where anyone interesting in asking a question about climate change can submit one through their forum, and they will respond to you by your requested date. One of the scientists believes in particular that it is time for scientists to take an active role in shifting US sentiment back towards the fact of climate change. It is being launched not necessarily in reaction to the new Congress elected, but regardless -- it is timely that some well regarded climate scientists are taking the problem of public education on. We've had lots of discussions on whether or not scientists should do such things like advocate for policy change, and unfortunately I'm more concerned by how this move to create this website will be analyzed rather than effectively used.

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.

In 160, Elijah asked about some of the plus sides to climate change. Now, this isn't talking about the plusses, but it is a fundamentally different approach to the stories we tell about climate changed, and the future we see ahead in a changing climate. Particularly interesting given this, from the same site: http://www.good.is/post/why-climate-change-ads-should-cheer-up-a-little/