LCENVS

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.

And, just to further ensure my rightful position, erm I mean further encourage academic discussion... I have a series of articles and websites with useful information about waste to share with you all. The first of several, this UNEP report is a fantastic overview of and introduction to the idea of "waste." You all may or may not have already covered many of these ideas in 160, but if not, do take a look. Though much of it is basic, I did find myself learning a surprising number of things (e.g. I never considered just how many definitions of waste there are and how that can affect effective measurement of the human waste stream). It's worth taking the time to flip through the pages of this report as it touches on some of the questions I posed in my previous posting. For example, in the "Municipal Waste" section they report claims that, "Although our garbage bins represent only a small part of the total waste generated, it is an important part: the one in which everyone can take action. The part where we can take responsibility by deciding to reduce waste - by recycling and avoiding the purchase of over-packaged goods." Do you agree?

Living Through the End of Nature by Paul Wapner presents a new way forward for environmentalism after the end of nature. Wapner argues that humans have altered the physical environment to such an extent that it can no longer be viewed separately from humans. Additionally, many argue that nature is just a social construction and never existed in the first place. Since popular environmentalism focuses on how humans can reduce their impact on nature, the end of nature presents a problem for the movement. However, Wapner argues that the end of nature will actually make the environmental movement stronger and more politically effective by making political debate less contentious and by focusing on the connections between people, landscapes, species, and narratives. Moving beyond nature will also soften the boundaries that currently exist, and protect the well-being of humans and the nonhuman world by focusing on opportunities that involve both, such as urban sustainability, social justice, poverty alleviation, and the rights of indigenous people. Overall Wapner's book is well argued and well supported by concrete examples. However, he continually presents wildness and wilderness in terms of otherness which leads the reader to question if he actually believes his own argument about the end of nature. Wapner provides good historical background of the environmental movement which makes this book useful for readers that are beginning to be interested in environmentalism, or potentially beginning students who would like to learn about different perspectives on the topic. I would recommend this book to almost anyone, though the academic style to Wapner's writing makes this book more appropriate for a classroom setting than for a popular audience.

What sounds like an alarmist heading on nuclear power post-Japan scare is actually a rather nuanced discussion of how nuclear power could be safer.

One provocative article on the Japan nuclear scare, arguing that its impacts on the global nuclear industry will be minimal.

Everyone's favorite players and the battle over cities that probably won't happen. Interesting article on the politics of cities, and how environmentalists have indeed been killing some forms of condensed living in favor of "viewsheds" and suburban dwellings for exurbanites. Draws into a lot of topics discussed this week in ENVS.

So, where exactly do we draw the line on what we can morally eat if all life strives to live?  The author raises good questions regarding our tidy categories.

Check out this conference, titled "Resilience, Innovation, and Sustainability: Navigating the Complexities of Global Change," for some interesting interdisciplinary work.

The film itself is interesting, but not surprising in its general concept - instead of apocalyptic imagery and fear, embrace a more positive, benefits centered climate change thing. What I thought was more interesting was how they intentionally draw from a whole range of cultural perspectives, which I think is most significant when read as an implicit statement that issues of relating to other cultural mindsets and attitudes, rather than just having solid science and good ideas, may make the difference in solving environmental issues. Perhaps its an obvious statement, but it is worth remembering as we sit on a campus fairly lacking in cultural or ideological diversity. Other people see the world in certain ways, and sometimes we have to convince them through those ways rather than via the logic of our own worldview. But do we sacrifice our cause by trying to achieve our goals via means/arguments we don't neccesarily agree with?

I just watched the trailer, but I think I still got the point. Why not encourage consumption of cleaner, more-efficient renewable energy as opposed to trying to change the values of a whole culture and come off as a proselytizing environmental-elitist? It would sure be a lot less stressful way to try to enact change. I'd have to see the film in its entirety but it seems that they are taking something of a "let markets fix the problem" approach, but in a way that I can agree with. We have to come to terms with the fact that Americans aren't going to magically start consuming less just because us conservationists think it's the right way to live. I love the line where one guy says not to [support renewable efficient energy] because you care about the environment, do it cause you're a greedy bastard and want cheap power. People aren't going to change exactly how we want them, so let's just work with them.

Rice is responsible for feeding half the world, or more than 3.5 billion people. And along its path from paddy to plate, it influences (and is influenced by) a ton of things. This reminds me of other studies we've read that follow one particular item from a diverse range of perspectives. Fun read for an international food perspective very much rooted in the East - perhaps something to chew on for next years symposium?

Jim Litts, who founded KWERI (Klamath Wetland Education and Research Institute), has a good informational website on the topic, including this page with links to background documents.  As you may know, the Klamath Basin in south-central Oregon has been the focus of dispute over water use for some time, and there are a variety of local, state, and federal players in the game at this point; a very good situated case!

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.

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

oh man oh man oh man. huge, invisible, underground networks that transmit electricity? sounds familiar... "I have long proposed that mycelia are the earth's "natural Internet." I've gotten some flak for this, but recently scientists in Great Britain have published papers about the "architecture" of a mycelium - how it's organized. They focused on the nodes of crossing, which are the branchings that allow the mycelium, when there is a breakage or an infection, to choose an alternate route and regrow. There's no one specific point on the network that can shut the whole operation down. These nodes of crossing, those scientists found, conform to the same mathematical optimization curves that computer scientists have developed to optimize the Internet. Or, rather, I should say that the Internet conforms to the same optimization curves as the mycelium, since the mycelium came first." -- Paul Stamets more: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/07/natures-internet-vast-intelligent.html

This article suggests that once people are aware of the amount of energy they actually consume, they are more likely to reduce their usage by up to 30%. It goes on to suggest an energy tracker as an app on a smart phone or something of the like. It's a cool idea trying to use technology to promote awareness. I'm not sure if this is promoting Sony technology or if this is a genuine proposal. hmm

yeah! i like that idea.

Screens would be really amazing! I feel like it would have an impact on energy use.

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.

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.

The trailer for the new documentary from everyone's favorite environmental bete-noire, Bjorn Lomborg. What do you think?

This site features major scientists and humanists discussing points of creative overlap, with plenty of interesting ideas and models we could learn from as we attempt to do the same in environmental studies.

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.