LCENVS

So interesting, isn't it, that they had to add the adjective "desirable" to "sustainable," as if sustainable is not necessarily desirable. Is this the current state of clarity on our thinking about sustainable solutions?? One of the lead instigators of this journal (Bob Costanza), btw, now heads up the sustainability effort at Portland State.

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.

I think it's depressing. Although climate change and energy independence could arguably fall under the committees on natural resources and energy/commerce, the fact that there is no longer a committee that specifically targets these issues means they can more easily be ignored. What types of climate change initiatives was the committee against? I don't agree that it might be worth it to cut a somewhat effective committee that specifically targets climate change when there's no replacement for it. Passing climate policy in this climate will probably be difficult. But it will probably be a lot more difficult now that there isn't a group of people working on it directly. I think it was important in changing the view that climate change is a "Democratic" concern and getting Republican support for climate initiatives. At minimum, I think its presence was important in making sure the debate continues to be about what the largest concerns are/ what we can do to address them rather than whether or not climate change exists or not. Sensenbrenner: "While I was initially skeptical of the select committee's mission, it ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate and an opportunity for House Republicans to share a different view on the pressing energy and environment issues that we currently face."

More on the death of the Select Committee on Energy Independence. Details the reasoning behind eliminating the committee and the "laments" of people who supported the committee. Republicans argue that the committee was a waste of money because it overlapped with the House Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce. The opposing point of view: the committee was worth the money, it was influential in passing the first vehicle efficiency legislation in 30 years as well as other climate change-related legislation, and it was essential for initiating bi-partisan movement on climate change and in educating/persuading legislators that climate change does exist. Daniel Weiss (Center for American Progress Action Fund): "We're one of the only countries of the world where leading government officials deny settled science." Will likely be a major roadblock for future climate change legislation.

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.

"An economy run on slave labour has much in common with one run on fossil fuels, argues Jean-Francois Mouhot. Ending suffering means we all need to become modern-day abolitionists."

Do we buy this upbeat take on localizing not just the service-sector economy but the manufacturing sector as well?  What sorts of goods, and what sorts of consumers, would/would not it encompass?  What sorts of ecological benefits may/may not be obtained?

This trailer for Bjorn Lomborg's movie Cool It takes an alternative look at Global Warming to the opinion expressed by Al Gore in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. He bases his opinions on approaches that aren't reliant on fear tactics.

"Last month the Andhra Pradesh state passed the AP Microfinance Ordinance, "suspending operations of MFIs in the state and for all intents and purposes allowing borrowers to stop repaying their loans. The announcement of the Ordinance stressed the need to protect the poor - but the move might well, in the long term, leave them far worse off."

For the cities symposium, some interesting ways to make urban design a bottom up, but intentional process (distinct from top down intentional or bottom up unintentional - 10 points to whoever comes up with a link showing some top down unintentional, though perhaps we could count side effects of a policy that creates forced moves in design somewhere else in a city). Fun to look at, though I wonder what sort of people find this appealing, and what sort of folks might find this threatining, obtrusive, or messy - our own Portland is one of the examples.

As most of us are aware, the world's population recently passed the 7 billion mark and we're scheduled to hit 9 billion by 2050. This article discusses 7 problems that we'll have to worry about as population continues to rise. We, as ENVS students, are already aware of these issues; water, climate change, and food security to name a few. However, some of the academics interviewed have very interesting ideas about solutions to these challenges (no-growth economy for example). For the feminists among us, Roger Short states that "We need to feminise the world and look first and foremost at the interests of women because they're the ones that are going to decide our future and it is their determination to limit the size of their families which will be the saviour of the world," which I thought was pretty interesting.

With the recent Wall St (and everywhere else) protests going on this article seemed appropriate. A Zurich research team using economic data from Orbis has revealed 147 closely knit corporations that control %40 of the wealth of the entire network studied (about 40,000 corporations in total).

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.

Sure, its a word that can mean a lot of things, but it sure looks like the US Army is taking a more situated approach to their tactics in the coming years. They're combining many means of approaching an area or situation (special ops, disaster relief, conventional combat, etc...) and combining teams to focus on regional areas (they'll receive language training, cultural training, and even equipment specific for regions where they can develop expertise). Even their training has the "mixed up" look of situated studies: "The training will focus on what the military calls 'hybrid' scenarios, in which a single battle space may require the entire continuum of military activity from support to civil authorities to training local security forces to counterinsurgency to counterterrorism raids to heavy combat." It isn't exactly academia, but I see some similarities...

Students in ENVS 220 recently learned how to georeference historical air photography in ArcMap; well, here are some other ways to do it with maps for eventual input into GoogleEarth!

This cool infographic shows how poverty in America, long considered an urban problem, has expanded out from cities and into the suburbs.

This LA Times article talks about a newly released study from the economics department at San Francisco State. The study discusses the effect of sea-level rise on tourism in California. While sea-level has been rising globally for the last few decades, the west coast has largely been spared, however, as the study shows, this grace period may not last much longer.

In lieu of ENVS symposium, I'm very interested in how the physical environment shapes the people that live there. This article discusses the role of place in the recent Wall St. protests and other movements around the world.

This article from NPR looks at how the temporary suspension of Environmental regulations in an effort to speed up the post-Irene damages may cause even more environmental damage than Irene originally made.

On Tuesday, our ENVS 490 class (Culture and Environmental Conflict) will be touring Bonneville Dam, site of a major conflict over how to remove federally listed California sea lions, who have found the site a handy spot to dine on the endangered spring Chinook run (and others). The use of lethal force was approved, then court-retracted; what will happen to these pinnipeds come this spring?

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.