At face value, this doesn't look terribly environmental. And the explicit content really isn't (unless you count carbon emissions from burning tires in the streets and such), though no doubt there will be impacts on resource decisions, etc... if we dig for it. I bring it up more because of the implications it has for our ability to predict developments in the future. In ENVS 160, this applies pretty directly to the Limits to Growth model we've been discussing (as readily as it applies to optimistic predictions of world growth - predictions either way). It brings us to that ever present thorn in the side of decision makers: we don't know what the future holds, or what will make it get there. Where someone parked their car impacted the course of a nation, and the international focus on Egypt today can show how that has widespread impacts as well. If we're cautious and uncomfortable with the mystery of the future, resilience may be a way to hedge our bets, relating to another issue in the class. Otherwise, it largely seems to be a gamble. Even the broad trends can jump. How much will we ever be able to model, when it comes to systems this complex? A recognition of the limits of prediction, not a statement to their being invaluable (no one predicted the car, and it mattered in the outcome. But people could have predicted social unrest resulting in many people in the streets, and that was needed to take advantage of what the car provided)

Some researches are claiming that a lot of methane disappeared very quickly after the oil spill. Their hypothesis? Bacteria did it. While clearly controversial, it is an impressive testement to ecosystems ability to respond to surprises (though hardly a reliable one). Could it also lend some new ideas to efforts to figure out how to deal with the next big oil spill? While I don't pretend to know whether or not its a good idea, one critic mentioned that other limiting factors may have inhibited population growth of presumably beneficial bacteria. Could intentional actions towards removing those limiting factors in other spills allow bacteria to consume methane more rapidly? And if we pluck that strand, what would we find it connected to? Of course, that all depends on the accuracy of the study.

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.

Its important to remember how much scientific knowledge is affected by cultural context in how it is both accepted and understood. Science cannot escape the pressures placed upon it by the cultural and societal ways of human beings, at least so far. Speaking as someone who has covered scientific research for a public audience via the PioLog and in other projects, its not fun playing the translator between the technical experts and "the common man", as it were. A lot gets lost - and its hard to know whats valuable, and what isn't. Or what wasn't even understood in the first place (I'm far from the best person to be writing about research relating to the structure of Gecko hair follicles - a problem that can be found throughout journalism. Journalists do not always understand what they're writing about, and can cast it in ways that are often far off the mark. Its an odd business). So here we have an example of science trying to use other means of communication to get across that translation. But do scientists have the time, and should they have the responsibility, of having to expend resources not only on their studies, but on communicating them - and their implications - to the public? By getting away from journalism, do we risk facing a more significant or intentional sort of bias? I don't know what the right way to share science, its process, and its results with the public is, but I do think creating alternatives to the primary model is a useful thing. The current journalistic model has its strengths, but it has its weaknesses as well. Perhaps creating multiple ways of doing this will be useful.

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.

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.

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.

Rare enough, but it seems emissions actually dropped this year - in part due to natural patterns. Academic studies of the environment are often depressing in a number of ways, so its nice to have some good news by traditional environmental standards. Hard to know what the source of it is, but it seems like at least some efforts are working out. Deforestation efforts get particular credit.

Bad news on the economy: Article touches on the same news, but gives a lot more credit (probably fairly) to a faltering world economy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298983/ns/world_news-world_environment/

This has all the points of a common environmental confrontation in America - development focused governments and coorporations trying to cut down a forest that activists try to defend. But this is not in America, and while the forest is being defended, its not any sort of environmental group doing it. While primarily a political drama, I found this really interesting given that it is a group of citizens who don't seem to have any environmental concerns pitting themselves against violent political action simply because they value a local piece of forest. It seems so far outside the realm of our traditional American conception of environmentalism in action, lacking all the usual discussions (and players), but is still very real work on behalf of the environment. While this evidence is anecdotal, it is interesting how once natural areas start to get very scarce somewhere, people really start fighting for it. Evidence of an inherent value we place on natural environments? Cultural in origin? Both? I lean towards both, and after reading Richard Louv's "Last Child In the Woods" would really argue for an inherent psychological value of natural areas.

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...

Italy is trying to stop people from buying bottled water by outcompeting companies. An interesting idea, though U.S. attitudes to that sort of thing would likely make it hard to apply here. Still, one has to wonder.

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.

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.

Will Allen has become one of the patron saints of the modern alternative food movement, appearing in the White House, championing Michelle Obama's new programs, becoming the father of modern Urban Agriculture, and being named one of People's 100 most influential people (among other awards and achievements). He is really worth checking out. While I have been very excited to see ideas for vertical farms popping up everywhere from Milwaukee to Toronto to Chicago and beyond, my enthusiasm is beginning to lag. While vertical farms offer great potential for feeding people locally, consistently, cheaply (maybe), and in an environmentally friendly way, are these sometimes soil-less, urban high rises really just a factory farm for vegetables? If so, does it matter? I'm still in favor of them, so far, but I can't help but wonder if the food movement of tomorrow will be "ground-grown" or "grown in soil". I'd really appreciate thoughts and a discussion, if anyone is interested. While I see many positives in the economic/ecological realm of things, I'm less sold on the philosophy of the idea. Are "natural systems" methods still natural if they're in something we would not necessarily consider "nature" off-hand?

I would consider this a must-read for those into the alternative energy side of things. While the energies it highlights aren't all new and exciting, the numbers game it plays is pretty key. This is no optimistic one-technology-solves-it-all piece, and it issues a key reminded that no alternative energy we have reaches the input/output energy found in oil. By my reading, key to getting into the next energy phase we should expect is energy reduction, and energy efficiency. Our efficiency numbers, both from a physics and an economics perspective, are awful. The guys behind the Rocky Mountain Institute wrote a book called Natural Capitalism, which offers some great insights into energy efficiency as it stands and as it could be, if anyone is interested in that side of things. One of my favorite aspects of increasing energy efficiency is how its good for economies and good for the environment - still, there is the worry that if it makes things too cheap, people will use too much (the book cites fuel efficiency standards that were so good the cost of driving dropped significanly, and so many more people drove than more energy ended up being used). There are tools to avoid that though. I digress, but still, an excellent view of where alternative energy stands as of now.

One such technology that leads to energy efficiency: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2009/1231/No-more-power-lines

An alternative to taxing fuel, the user fee would be to driving as a pay-per-item system would be to eating in the Bon. Not as fun as an all-you-can eat buffet, but perhaps more efficient. Is there still value in a gas tax?

More of a fun story than a striking one, but also a good example of how changing the little things can do a lot - especially when its a lot of little things.

There has been plenty of debate about the role of businesses and coorporations in environmental causes, and how pure their motives may be. Here is a new twist on an older debate: coorporations as rescue agencies. In Indonesia, cigarette companies are sponsoring entire rescue camps, complete with their colors and logos emblazoned on rescue vehicles. They advertise throughout, but they are helping. Perhaps they realize that if many people in a country where 2/3 of adult mean are addicted to smoking (from the article) they'll lose a huge market. Are we putting a market value on people's lives?

A counter to my article on the Amazon, this is a really cool video on Agroforestry as a means of preserving rainforest. Interestingly, Mr. Smits has been meeting with people defending rainforests in other parts of the world, I would imagine to help spread his methods in a way appropriate to the local context. This is one example of very old agricultural ideas being used as very new solutions to modern problems, empasizing the importance of locality and context in environmentalism, and showing how economics and the environment are not neccessarily pitted against eachother.

One of those that speaks entirely for itself. Bill Mckibben, of the 350 climate campaign and the international day of action back in October, argues that due to climate change we are in a very different world, ecologically, than we were a century or more ago - not about to be in it, are in it. This makes me think he may be right.