LCENVS

In this book, the authors discuss the use of protected areas for conservation and their ties to capitalism. The authors discuss the dualism in which many environmentalists view conservation and the preservation of protected areas as a means to halt the impacts of capitalism; however, they argue that capitalism permeates conservation practices. The authors argue that the forces of capitalism and conservation both "re-categoriz[e]" the environment. The boundaries between conservation and capitalism are not easily defined. I would recommend this book to someone who is familiar with the conservation and environmental movements. In addition, I would also recommend it to those who are familiar with the conservation movement and oppose it. I think they would gain some helpful insights about conservation that they may have not considered before.

Could Mt. Everest be the Panda of movements attempting to address issues of global warming? It isn't exactly charismatic megafauna, but maybe for climactic problems a bit of "charismatic geology" could do the trick?

From the NYT opinions blog. It may be old news now, but its always good to remember that the way we think about things - cognitively or not - does impact the things we do about them. Here we see how fear influences environmental policy and our own health in potentially deleterious ways. Strikingly similar to much of Barry Glassner's research as well, I believe.

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.

Check out this interesting debate, with lots of money already invested!, over the possibility of a high-tech fix to global warming by scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, once rejected out of hand but now seriously considered given our failure to enact policies to limit GHG emissions...amazing how the discussion changes in a matter of a few short years!...

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??

Most forecasts have presumed that animal farming is stuck on a treadmill that will only have to move faster and faster to keep up with a growing population and greater demand for meat. Animals must become more confined and concentrated--there's no turning back! The authors in this collection, however, while recognizing the severity of the problems with our current animal farming practices, take a more optimistic outlook, arguing that a renewal of the agrarian contract is more than just philosophically compelling. It is also in the interests of business and consumer welfare. I would especially recommend this book to retailers, farmers, and producers because their reading it would be a great first step towards the communication and collaboration that is necessary to solve the slough of problems around animal farming.

Farm Together Now in its most elemental form is a book about American farmers in the 21st century. In particular, this book addresses the other side of American agriculture: innovations moving towards sustainable farming practices. This is achieved through 20 interviews with farmers and activists across the nation along with 60 beautiful photos of their lives.  Although honing all 20 of the interviews down into one specific argument is difficult, the purpose of this book is to see the unity in all of their individual and sometimes philosophically contradictory approaches to sustainable agriculture. The authors argue that a shift in the dominant agricultural paradigm will not occur unless farmers and citizens are united in resisting it and are invested in working together to forge a more sustainable agricultural system.  What this book lacks is a deeper discussion of conflicting views in sustainable agriculture. The three issues that Franceschini and Tucker identified are provocative and would make a very interesting follow-up book.  Despite the author's insistence that we "Farm together now", they do not explore how sustainable farmers can reconcile their differences to do just that.  Although it's likely that urban, educated people are the main consumers of this book, I feel that it has value outside of those exclusive communities and would be beneficial for farmers, artists, and anyone looking for solutions to local problems. Personally, I would recommend this book to anyone because I feel that the authors made a sometimes-scary topic more approachable through this intimate portrayal of farmers. 

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.

Perhaps alternative energy technology's most promising industry, wind, is finding itself to be far more controversial as it becomes far more common and popular. Partially, this is just a good old example of showing us how nothing is perfect. But it does beg the question of large scale energy industry period - are those who see no place for that, in any form, on to something?

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?

Not only are our political leaders talking less about doing something about climate change; the American public seem to be a lot less worried about it too. This article discusses why, and links to a recent Pew survey that chronicles the decline in public interest. This big change in political and popular discourse around climate change offers a good opportunity to rethink environmental studies and environmentalism as we move forward in these changed times.

Interesting thoughts on environmentalism taking place in Orion magazine these days...see essay, online comments, and audio discussion.

I read this the other week. I don't know if I liked it or not though. I remember that he critiqued environmentalism for putting up wind farms instead of coal plants, though they are still destroying natural beauty. And he almost fetishized "the good old days" when people (read: hippies) used to get together and occupy a place with songs and community. I understand why one could be frustrated, but I think it's also important to realize that it will be a gradual change toward environmentalism, we can't all just run to the hills with our guitars to sit around the campfire to protest a six lane motorway. But y'know, we're ENVS majors, so let's just find a way for both narratives to coexist and play off of each other, perhaps they're both integral parts of checks and balances within the environmentalist movement.

This article, which I've now read for two different philosophy classes, isn't directly related to Environmental Studies. However, it discusses the development of philosophical movements and the importance of collaboration for innovation, which reminded me of our unit on the relationship between the Sciences and Humanities. Many famous thinkers were driven by the interests of their friends and peers, which weren't necessarily related to their academic interests at all.

An example of GIS in real life! Danielson Castillo is using geographic information system (GIS) mapping to layer several sets of data on a computerized map. The depth and breadth of the mapping project, completed last month, is unheard of on a community level in Minnesota. The project was funded with a $20,000 grant from the McKnight Foundation, but Danielson Castillo and Matson believe it's a tool that will become increasingly common and affordable for community organizations. Danielson Castillo already has given demonstrations of his GIS map to a number of community organizers.

Mainstream environmentalism is trying to modify both its image and its approach - some focuses included radicalizing actions, localizing focuses, and antagonizing political and corporate opponents. It also focuses on how information is conveyed, focusing more on quick, easy to interpret, pretty imagery and less on pessimistic facts and figures. Bill McKibben is cited as one of the acclaimed leaders of this approach, particularly given the Keystone XL Pipeline issue (discussed earlier in the year in 220). Notably, another headline sharing the papers this week is on that very pipeline - a recent payroll tax move passed by the senate requires a final decision on the project within 90 days. Given that the success was for the decision to be postponed until after the elections, that has been largely undone. It will be interesting to see how that success plays out, and if that reflects on the themes of this article. It bears the question: if you were the political adviser to the environmental movement, what advice would you give?

Just heard this podcast, and it's a really great example of situated research, in this case on fracking in Pennsylvania. The story is divided into two acts: the first concerns the role of scientists in the controversy, and the second concerns the politics of small towns caught up in gas exploration. I'd strongly recommend it, if only to suggest to your families over the winter break what situated research can look like!

Columnist Charles Blow begins by comparing the haves and have nots to climate change: "Is income inequality becoming the new global warming? In other words, is this another case where the facts of an existential threat lose traction among a weary American public as deniers attempt to reduce them to partisan opinions?" I suspect you can guess how he answers that question: as he gloomily concludes, "If denial is a river, it runs through doomed societies." Maybe it's time to better understand denial in all its forms, not just denial of anthropogenic environmental change, if we want to understand why such serious threats receive so little action.