Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

deBuys, William. 2011. A Great Aridness: Climate Change and the Future of the American Southwest. New York: Oxford University Press deBuys goes into the political, ecological, ecological and climactic science behind what drives the current and future problems in the American Southwest. He summarizes the science behind climate change, Hadley cells and the problems behind urban planning in big cities like Phoenix. Aside from giving a stirring overview of the natural beauty the region boasts, deBuys says more than once that the book is a thorough history of a region that will drastically be affected by climate change within our grasp that we should not ignore. The problems, while numerous and quite difficult to sort through, should be easier to solve with our resources in the region. I agree with the need for cooperation to swash through the web of problems, but despite the issues of drought and water quality mutual to regions around the world, they are simply not the same. I fear it would be much harder to transpose a solution from the Southwest to the Mediterranean or Western China.

From everybody's favorite National Review, a case for global warming - not only existing, but being really, really awesome. And this claim is even claimed to be based on science. Pretty interesting way of thinking. Especially once you accept that change is going to happen, there is something to be said for the logic of we-should-strive-to-maximize-primary-productivity-in-ecosystems (arguably). Really curious what people think, particularly the more ecologically and biologically minded among us.

Shellenberger and Nordhaus' first big essay The Death of Environmentalism stated that in order for us to take more productive action on the ecological issues of today and tomorrow we must move past environmentalism to post-environmentalism. In their book The Breakthrough: from the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility they argue that the environmentalism that got us this far, is now failing to address the major ecological issues of our time including climate change, and that we must move past this "politics of limits" (what they claim traditional environmentalism is) and move forward to the what they call the "politics of possibility." This is the idea of harnessing all of our human innovation, technology, creative ideas, and passion and pushing for a new modernization, one in which there is more prosperity for all. This they claim will allow us to properly address and take action on the major ecological issues of our time, like climate change. It's a compelling argument but one that seems to have some holes in it. If we are to push for a new modernization, and increase everyone's prosperity, how exactly do we go about doing that? Modernization had terrible effects on the people who didn't have the resources to fight it, would this be round two of that history? How do we make that transition in a more manageable and civil way? Regardless, this book is a must read for environmental studies/science/policy students and teachers, as well as people who consider themselves environmentalists and those who do not. Shellenberger and Nordhaus are clearly trying to reach across the divide, meeting the political left, center and right, and have already influenced some politicians and big names in our society. Could this be the direction we head in? The Politics of possibility?

Rambunctious Garden by Emma Marris is about a new conservation ethic. Marris argues that pristine nature as glorified and portrayed by the "wilderness cult" of the 19th century does not exist in modern day, and that it is futile for conservationists to try and attempt to rewind the clock of ecosystems back to some arbitrary baseline like "before humans arrived." In place of classic conservation, Marris argues for radical rewilding, assisted migration, novel ecosystems, and designer ecosystems. The book is geared towards a popular audience, and as such, it might be a bit elementary for environmental studies majors. That said, for the most part the argument Marris makes is still compelling, although perhaps not novel.

I plug this one a lot, and the Monitor has great coverage on it, but I'll put it out there again. First, because the news that the Supreme Court is not hearing a case on the issue is pertinent both to this issue, and to the chance to have established some sense of precedent for similar environmental cases in the future, as that becomes a bigger and bulkier part of society (and therefore the law). Second, because it really highlights the destructive capabilities of things causing environmental change, even in real time. I think one of the most interesting parts comes in here: "If the Asian carp does take hold in the Great Lakes, the ecosystem will no doubt do what ecosystems do best: adapt. After all the term "invasive species" is, by definition, relative, often marking a transitional phase as a species establishes itself in a new ecosystem. ...Whether the economy adapts to the Asian carp, however, remains to be seen." That highlights the real reason there is so much concern. These lakes are damned important to the well-being of the states around them. And its not just the Great Lakes, once in place Asian Carp readily move into wetlands, river ways, and even other lakes. Minnesota calls itself the land of 10,000 lakes, Wisconsin has more in its "Lakes District", and Michigan follows suit. The economies built around them have covered most of my summer pay over the past few years, so this is a very personal issue as well.

The environmental movement have been hampered by a series of "though traps": we live in a world a limits, people are self-centered and hate following rules, we've lost our connection to nature, and even if we wanted to change it's just too late. Lappe argues that if we look at the world with a more ecological mind, a mind that recognizes that everything is connected and we can change the world if we change how we see it. As Anais Nin said, "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are". So we just need to see the world not in terms of quantities but qualities, not limits but alignments, and so on. I would recommend this book for someone who doesn't believe that we can see our way out of this crisis, that needs a glimmer of hope on the horizon. I wouldn't recommend it for an environmental studies student, but perhaps for their disgruntled uncle.

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?

Just bumped into this TOE (Theory Of Everything) related to environmental studies...what do you think of it??

This article highlights the efforts to make Asian Carp, the next big threat to the Great Lakes (and the multi-million dollar fishing and tourism industries there) the next big food hit (or at least big enough to get people to fish them out). After all, as one expert says, "there's a worldwide need for cheap protein, and I think it's one of those things that fit the bill." But I have to say, I'm a little concerned. One, I know this is not a new strategy - people tried to turn garlic mustard into the next major salad ingredient, without much luck. But I think it could end up creating even greater threats in the long run. For example, if the idea is to get rid of the fish, it isn't a sustainable model for a business to follow. Why build a plant for a fish we're trying to get rid of? When the plants are built, the question changes: why get rid of the fish? In Darwin's Nightmare we saw how an invasive fish became a boon and blessing to the local economy. The Midwest is different, but some of the same forces are at play. Second, in my eyes the most legitimate argument against invasive, non-native species is that they don't provide ecosystem function. The ecosystem concept is rooted in relationships that help carry out nutrient/energy flow, etc... and these species don't really relate to others. By giving them a functional role as a food source, we give them a little more function to a species we really care about - us. Again, the plan to actually get rid of them may backfire as their benefits appear to outweigh their costs. The question does remain, is that a bad thing?

A silicon solar cell was recently developed at MIT. This "artificial leaf" breaks down water molecules into oxygen and hydrogen gas, which can be used as a fuel source. I just thought it was really cool. And here's a video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEEhxk-CiOQ&feature=player_embedded

After getting some fairly audible gasps in class after questioning Silent Spring today, I wanted to justify myself a little bit lest I be burned at the stake as some sort of heretic. The paper above is a brief and neat explanation of American academia's role in legitimizing ecology as a science, and touches on how Carson (and other's) pushed it back towards being a values-oriented natural history built heavily out of ideas that one could perhaps fit under the framework of "romanticism." Just to back myself up further, here (http://onlineethics.org/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/carsonindex/kroll.aspx) is another article highlighting Carson's work as "subversive silence", i.e. very value/advocacy driven. Also highlights her focus on critiquing a certain type of laboratory science for being controlling - notably, one of romanticism's main tenants is a criticism of the rationalization of nature. Neither of this takes away from the fact that Carson was a) a decent scientist and b) wrote a book that did a lot of good. I'm not trying to dive into the "we could've stopped malaria" arguments she gets a lot, because I think that is a straw man argument. Nor do I think that it is bad to combine knowledge and values - quite the opposite. I simply think that a work that forced scientific depictions of its subject to change in response to public frameworks of thinking should be regarded as a great political work, not a great scientific one. I think it may be time to move beyond Silent Spring, certainly as a work of science, and perhaps even as a work of politics, and place it on the pedestal of history that it rightly deserves.

"Rampant unemployment, rising food prices, a collapsed housing market, ballooning debt -- to Jeremy Rifkin, the American economist and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends , these are not simply symptoms of a temporary economic malaise. Rather, they are signs that the current world order -- long infused with and defined by fossil fuels -- is collapsing around us."

The ramifications for biology and ecology of life on other planets is neat - a science until now fundamentally based in one overarching context finding a whole new one? That's crazy. But the question I always hear from folks concerned about environmental issues when something like this pops into the conversation is "shouldn't we figure out how not to destroy our own planet before we start looking into moving onto others?" And so, technologically unfeasible tasks aside, presuming we could do this, I'm curious as to whether or not others think we should. Should we?

Is imported Western business strategies the best way to ensure the developing world is growing sustainably? There are already green businesses in the developing world, why not have their practices adopted by their peers? The article's last section is key, though. It raises the distinction between being successful because one is green, and going green because one is successful/wealthy enough to invest in those practices.

Thorium, a naturally occurring radioactive metal can be used to generate nuclear power without most of the problems associated with uranium reactors (i.e. high cost, toxic waste, and danger of meltdown.) Lately, it's been heralded as the solution to climate change and energy crisis concerns and some new start-ups are experimenting with reactors in the hope that thorium will be at the forefront of an energy revolution.