HUMANURE? Almost. And its happening right here in Tigard OR. "...converts waste into small round pellets rich in phosphorus, magnesium, and nitrogen. The prills, as they are called, are a slow release fertilizer that keep most of the nutrients in the soil much longer than liquid or powder fertilizers because they take from three to nine months in the ground to fully dissolve..." "Producing the fertilizer locally also reduces carbon emissions as phosphorus is usually shipped to the Northwest from Florida, where it is mined."

Looks like the poles arent the only places rapidly loosing important ecosystems. This isnt an ecosystem I ever think too much about, but it sounds like they are pretty crucial. Just another one to put on your radar.

We live in the age of data and here's another great application of our ever developing analysis tools. Very relevant to our ENVS 220 GIS unit.

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?

Pro-Urbanism "...developers and county leaders in Fairfax County are close to finalizing a radical multibillion-dollar plan to "desprawl" Tysons Corner, VA. The proposal, aimed at attracting a total of 100,000 with the texture and energy of city life, involves tearing up large swaths of the existing town and constructing a series of urban villages, with buildings up to 25 stories high."

For those who attended the recent presentation at LC by the beehive collective, or for those who weren't able to make it, here's some followup information on their coal mural. Check out the "Narrative Book" link at the bottom of the page for an in-depth description of the stories in the picture. Here's more about the group in general: http://www.beehivecollective.org/english/aboutus.htm

Energy policy doesnt need to take environmental concerns into account because God will decide when the world will end. He cites these biblical excerpts as the infallible, perfect word of God. Yet let me also note that in his excerpts, God also declares that all inclinations of man's heart is evil from birth. Hmmm.... what, then, must this say about his motives? Obviously, I'm kidding, but I just wanted to share and highlight some of the absurdity I see. Yes, we can write this off as absurd and clearly not logical, so why prod so much at things that are clearly not worth our time? It's an important reality check to remember that this is happening in the world outside of LC's progressive bubble though, and despite how obviously absurd this seems, somehow it's still here, has power, and it is being taken seriously... by someone at least.

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)?

Light pollution? As in real pollution? Interestingly, this article was sent in a weekly email from the Environmental Protection Agency, which means they actually take this as a legitimate environmental concern.

A different way of looking at biodiversity conservation. Could this possibly deter other efforts though?

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.

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.)

If there's one reason I would have agreed with Julie Guthman about consumer choices not being the solution, it's because of this: Greenwashing. I'm just gonna go ahead and put this out there. I hate advertisers so much.

If this counts as ecological modernization, then I'm all for it.

I know what you mean about the catch... but if you think about this, it makes a lot of sense. Poop is compact energy sources that we just throw away (or better yet, use to pollute our water resources). It's energy just waiting to be used and if we can think of a way to get a little more use out of that material, then we should. This is exactly the kind of creative thinking we're gonna have to start doing. We've gotta realize that we dont have an energy crisis in the sense that we're running our of energy sources: we have an energy crisis in that we think we have to use external energy. We let so much that already exists in our local systems just pass us by! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure

"A global coalition of about 200 companies said yesterday (26 October) that it was ready to support the introduction of a price tag on ecosystem services, in the hope that a global biodiversity panel will lay the foundations for an offset mechanism to encourage trading of nature services." This group is called the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The members are listed here: http://www.wbcsd.org/web/about/members.html

more on this topic here: http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/What-the-Earth-Is-Worth.aspx?utm_content=10.27.10+Spirituality&utm_campaign=Emerging+Ideas-Every+Day&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

A plea for more initiative on both sides of the political fence to start talking about climate change honestly and openly. With the current political mess around this though, I again question whether or not politics really is the place for environmental action.

Well I cant delete it now that "someone else has commented on it" haha. Here's the link: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-08-telling-the-truth-about-climate-change-is-good-politics

This article highlights a new solution that's "already being spear-headed by farmers on the ground." It preserves biodiversity, alleviates hunger, addresses malnutrition, protects against drought, and produces sustainable yields... a miracle GMO? No... traditional vegetables? Who knew? "Many indigenous vegetables use less water than hybrid varieties and some are resistant to pests and disease without the use of chemical inputs, which are expensive both financially and environmentally." Does is seem surprising, odd, and even a bit backwards that the idea of using traditional crops and biodynamic farming is presented as a new and innovative idea? "While what we eat is important, what may be even more essential over the long term is preserving knowledge about how to plant, grow, and cook what we eat." It MAY be more essential...?

I like this article. It solidifies a vague discomfort I've had with the climate emphasis lately. It doesnt say that environmentalists and PCCCCE are mutually exclusive titles, but they should be different. "For one thing, not all environmentalists are primarily PCCCCE (people who care about climate change and clean energy) -- there are still some, believe it or not, who focus on things like land preservation or biodiversity."

Using market forces to force change on an environmental problem. Some background on the problem: http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/Resources/Fact-sheets/Threats-Water-pollution/ http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/Resources/Fact-sheets/threats-health/

Also known as Mountain Top Removal, this is an emerging environmental concern out there. According to http://www.ilovemountains.org/science/ this scientific study 'confirms what coalfield residents have been saying for years: mountaintop removal's impacts are "pervasive and irreversible," "attempts to regulate [mountaintop removal] practices are inadequate," and that "regulators should no longer ignore rigorous science." '