LCENVS

HUMANURE? Almost. And its happening right here in Tigard OR. "...converts waste into small round pellets rich in phosphorus, magnesium, and nitrogen. The prills, as they are called, are a slow release fertilizer that keep most of the nutrients in the soil much longer than liquid or powder fertilizers because they take from three to nine months in the ground to fully dissolve..." "Producing the fertilizer locally also reduces carbon emissions as phosphorus is usually shipped to the Northwest from Florida, where it is mined."

Looks like the poles arent the only places rapidly loosing important ecosystems. This isnt an ecosystem I ever think too much about, but it sounds like they are pretty crucial. Just another one to put on your radar.

We live in the age of data and here's another great application of our ever developing analysis tools. Very relevant to our ENVS 220 GIS unit.

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.

A follow up to the post I made earlier in the semester about the food safety bill. As far as I can tell, it has been passed. This article highlights an important variation to the bill (from the October version) though; exemptions for small farms and those who sell directly at farmers markets. My original posting was in response to scare propaganda claiming that the food safety bill would outlaw small farming and farmers markets, so this new variation definitely changes things. The other side of the issue is covered here as well though, which questions if this will be the most effective solution, or just an opportunity for loopholes. Come on PoliSci majors, a little insight here?

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.

Pro-Urbanism "...developers and county leaders in Fairfax County are close to finalizing a radical multibillion-dollar plan to "desprawl" Tysons Corner, VA. The proposal, aimed at attracting a total of 100,000 with the texture and energy of city life, involves tearing up large swaths of the existing town and constructing a series of urban villages, with buildings up to 25 stories high."

The Oregon Sustainability Center, to be housed on PSU campus, embodies the utopia of high-tech self-sufficiency unlike no other contemporary structure around, and may possibly be unique in the U.S. today. But at what cost? And, is this the utopia we want to pursue??

This is the topic of an article that I posted to the Symposium2011 diigo group. (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/07/07greenwire-bold-public-private-venture-aims-to-make-ore-c-32109.html?pagewanted=all) Originally I posted it due to it's relevance to the "future of cities" topic. Portland often comes up in discussions about progressive cities, and this is merely one more reason for it to do so. The questions you bring up here about cost and utopian attitude I think are particularly relevant to the broader question of cities and would be really interesting for us to explore further. In my discussion with Micah earlier today, for example, we talked about Portland in general being a sort of utopia. Specifically we were discussing the tendency of highly motivated and concerned people to move to Portland away from other places that might actually be in greater need of their work. I asked "what's more important: investing in a model of the ideal to generate enthusiasm and prove it can be done, or spreading efforts out to places less conducive to the changes?"

I'll say it publicly, with the hopes of getting some debate on this: I don't think you've proven it can be done if it is in the model of the ideal (operating under the assumption that most places are specifically not the ideal, and are not neccesarily conducive to the changes). Just because something can be done in an ideal place does not mean it can be spread out. I see it as more likely that when something is done succesfully in a place that is antagonistic to it, something is really right with whatever that something may be. While answers are naturally specific to the issue or solution in question (so I apologize for the vague language), I'm of the mind that a lot of the things Portland has done to make things "work" may not be easily replicated outside of Portland, as much because of structure as because of culture. This is a debate where it is particularly difficult to make broad assumptions, of course, and there will be exceptions to either and any side, but I lean towards making changes where the changes are not conducive. I welcome opposition though, I'm curious what others think coming from other regions and from Portland itself.

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/

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.

Energy policy doesnt need to take environmental concerns into account because God will decide when the world will end. He cites these biblical excerpts as the infallible, perfect word of God. Yet let me also note that in his excerpts, God also declares that all inclinations of man's heart is evil from birth. Hmmm.... what, then, must this say about his motives? Obviously, I'm kidding, but I just wanted to share and highlight some of the absurdity I see. Yes, we can write this off as absurd and clearly not logical, so why prod so much at things that are clearly not worth our time? It's an important reality check to remember that this is happening in the world outside of LC's progressive bubble though, and despite how obviously absurd this seems, somehow it's still here, has power, and it is being taken seriously... by someone at least.

"There is a theological debate that this is a carbon starved planet." Like many, I'm tempted to simply poke fun at this guy and laugh at his obscenely ridiculous propositions (I'd wager to say that not too many priests or pastors would agree with the quote from Rep. Shimkus above), and to dismiss him as uneducated and spewing the same sort of tired "job-losing" rhetoric that seems to be the platform of conservatives in America these days. Yet -- he was elected. Maybe this is a flaw of our electoral process. Or maybe it truly does underscore how conflicted our country is ideologically. Somehow though, I don't buy the reliance on the Bible silliness that these guys spew out. It's really just another sentimental framework to hide their utmost faith in the actual religion of the 20th century -- the citadels of free-markets. An important reality check for sure.

Lengthy thoughts from me again, apologies: https://sites.google.com/site/economicresponse/a-thought-experiment

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.

This is an interesting little piece of news -- three concerned scientists have launched a new website where anyone interesting in asking a question about climate change can submit one through their forum, and they will respond to you by your requested date. One of the scientists believes in particular that it is time for scientists to take an active role in shifting US sentiment back towards the fact of climate change. It is being launched not necessarily in reaction to the new Congress elected, but regardless -- it is timely that some well regarded climate scientists are taking the problem of public education on. We've had lots of discussions on whether or not scientists should do such things like advocate for policy change, and unfortunately I'm more concerned by how this move to create this website will be analyzed rather than effectively used.

So, we can (and should) address domestic poster-child coal issues such as mountaintop removal, but let's not get complacent about the larger coal market: this article talks about the role China will play as a huge source of consumption.  What to do?

I'm not going to lie, I didn't see this coming. I'm sure many analysts did -- the U.S. makes tighter coal related regulations, but there is still tons of coal under the ground to be mined. Consequently, it should only make sense to the king of market economy countries that we would export the resource we can't use to a country that can. For all members of groups that have been working against coal domestically, this represents one of the biggest losses they can imagine. After making strides on regulation, one person quoted in this article said that it was one step forward (at home), but ten back (for the world). I've at least operated under the idea that if we can make coal unpalatable enough, we would stop burning it. We're working towards that, as is Europe. But the fact remains that there are "jobs" to be had mining, money to be made exporting, and so the story goes. And even if the U.S. were to regulate coal exports (which is something the free trade maniacs of the new Congress will never, ever let happen), China would turn to Australia, or Canada, or Brazil. This dilemma is crying out for a comprehensive strategy of global cooperation on climate change. But, as is most likely the case, Cancun will slide by, no new agreements will come out of it, and this new coal challenge will become just another part of the mired story of the inability of the world to stop burning all that it is burning. One of those rare and terrifying articles that asks serious questions about how we are to subvert a framework that encourages coal burning and other major externalities.

We celebrate interdisciplinarity in environmental studies, while at the same time the various subfields of the classicly interdisciplinary discipline of anthropology are on the verge of divorce.  If we truly want to mingle the sciences and the humanities in making fresh sense of environmental issues, what can we learn from this sad story?

For those who attended the recent presentation at LC by the beehive collective, or for those who weren't able to make it, here's some followup information on their coal mural. Check out the "Narrative Book" link at the bottom of the page for an in-depth description of the stories in the picture. Here's more about the group in general: http://www.beehivecollective.org/english/aboutus.htm

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...

The chemical DDT was banned in the 1970's, therefore there is no way it is still effecting plants and animals today, right? Well this NY Times article on California condors, a species battling against extinction, discusses a possible link between thing-shelled condor eggs and DDT. Condor's diets often include sea-creatures, such as California sea lions, which have high levels of DDT in their blubber. Could eating sea lions cause condor eggs to be abnormally thin?