Group items tagged

Progress in the DOT leads to more biking and public transportation = more livable communities. This is an interview with Ray LaHood about the recent advances and obstacles in improving our public and alternative transportation systems. Portland is mentioned a few times for being great.

I think that progress in this area is crucial if we are ever going to solve our long term consumption problems. So much of they way we act is caused by how our communities are built. Urban compactness contributes to a more minimalist lifestyle because you don't need a car, and because you have access to so many different public services, you don't need to buy private ones for yourself. The whole reason we have an absurd overconsumption problem is because we have people living in the cheap, crappy sprawl we've built, all driving cars everywhere to the box stores and restaurant chains that sell them a whole bunch of shit that is poorly made and terrible for them and the environment. City dwellers aren't all models for how to live or how much to consume, but you make it easy for people to lead better lives when there are options for them to bike or take public transit to work as well as to secondhand clothing stores and good, healthy, bulk food markets. James Howard Kunstler's book The Geography of Nowhere is a great read on this topic, and his TED talk on the subject is great as well.

A follow up to the post I made earlier in the semester about the food safety bill. As far as I can tell, it has been passed. This article highlights an important variation to the bill (from the October version) though; exemptions for small farms and those who sell directly at farmers markets. My original posting was in response to scare propaganda claiming that the food safety bill would outlaw small farming and farmers markets, so this new variation definitely changes things. The other side of the issue is covered here as well though, which questions if this will be the most effective solution, or just an opportunity for loopholes. Come on PoliSci majors, a little insight here?

Not much to say, but a solid read for some of the conceptual problems that arise with the question of wilderness. Highlights the problems of thinking that something we do as a recreational vacation can be easily incorporated into being an ongoing, preferable lifestyle (anarcho-primitivism, I'm looking at you).

Do we buy this upbeat take on localizing not just the service-sector economy but the manufacturing sector as well?  What sorts of goods, and what sorts of consumers, would/would not it encompass?  What sorts of ecological benefits may/may not be obtained?

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?

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.

A lot of American restoration efforts tend to aim Pre-Columbian. But really, that is pretty arbitrary (and problematic - humans were intimately involved with Pre-Columbian environments, as well as post-contact environments). So why not aim further back? This Russian physicist is doing just that - for fun, and setting his standard back 10,000 years. But there is more to it. This could be part of a huge effort by this fellow to stop arctic melting, a positive feedback loop that accelerates and is accelerated by global warming. If humanity blew the first task of an intelligent tinkerer in not keeping all the parts, can it repair that by trying to put the parts back? I'll be interested to see where it goes. Plenty of the usual restoration discussions to be had.

Not your usual brand of militant environmentalism, but the name seems to fit. Similar to Costa Rica's move a few weeks ago to use government sponsored force in the defense of a biodiverse region along their border, we know see places where park rangers are given the same right as police when it comes to shooting criminals (i.e. poachers) where they work. Much of this is the usual (and important) we're-losing-the-Tigers-at-rapid-rates, but what I found interesting was the fact that environmental concerns are prompting this sort of response from government entities. It is coming to be something that governments are willing to defend with arms, even though the place in question might not be mineral rich or have some other resource value (those would have been defended in the past). Is this a real change in the value system of governments? I imagine if this occurred in America, there would be a pretty negative response from the public for excessive force. I wonder if that is true in India as well.

Our beloved president and his stance on sustainability, and how it should be integrated with academics. And I'm into that. But, I'm not sure he had a lot of substance behind his writing. I don't think it is a great leap forward to just say "we should integrate academics and issues of sustainability on college campuses." While I agree with Dr. Glassner in that it isn't happening, really at all, anywhere and should therefore be brought into the dialogue, I wish he had waited until we had something to show off to the world as an institution to add a little heft to the argument. I'm hoping this year's Sustainability Council can be a force that comes up with some of those ideas that can get a lot of buy-in, really teach students something as they engage with the work and ideas of sustainability. But it could use some solid environmental studies students to back it up. So blatant plug, if you think you have an awesome idea, the council has funding and could help you out. Find a member (I'm representing undergraduate students, but there are others to go through as well) and maybe we can come up with a proposal.

One economist's view on the 'local food movement'. He explores whether local food is really more efficient. Views along the same lines as this one are pretty common among many economists.

I've been looking for a good defense against the local food system, though something more in-depth would be interesting. This brief analysis shows the other extreme, a situation in which ALL food was produced as "locally" and "organically" as possible. It seems that the local food movement could expand further to increase local food production (and therefore fresher, better quality) while still gaining economic benefits (since it is indeed better quality) as well as environmental ones. However, an increase in local food also may cause social stratification, as it could increase the gap between people who can and can't afford local, organic, fair trade, etc. I'm duly aware that the majority of the people at the PSU farmers market every weekend are equally well-endowed as I.

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.

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.

If its going to be used anyway, it might as well be sustainable use? I think that is the general argument in favor of this plan. Just an interesting idea to ponder, and it gives us something other than food and climate to talk about.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In this piece, New Yorker writer reports on recent remarks by Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum claiming that Obama's environmental and energy agenda constitute a "theology." When questioned further on his line of reasoning, Santorum said, "Radical environmentalism...[is] this idea that man is here to serve the earth rather than to husband and steward the earth's resources." I mean, to be honest, I don't take Santorum seriously. However, what do we think of his argument here? After having recently read Shellenberger and Nordhaus's argument in their opening to their new book "Love Your Monsters," Santorum's statements here struck me as, well, pretty similar to some of what S&N are saying. S&N say that environmentalism has all the touches of a theology; so does Santorum. (They say the same thing for different reasons, of course.) Has environmentalism become a theology? And by conceptualizing it as a theology, do we presuppose some sort of inherent antagonism between Science and Religion?