LCENVS

"...researchers have found a way to do something vaguely similar to what plants do every day: harness the energy of sunlight to convert carbon and water into a liquid fuel."

Saving endangered species throws off entire ecosystems. As much as I support science's role in the environmental movement, this article is a pretty good reminder that a "science-can-and-will-fix-all" attitude can be dangerous. It's also a good reminder of just how little we know and understand about ecosystems. We should definitely make sue that fundamentalist beliefs about environmentalism (save all endangered species first and foremost, for example) dont get in our way of actually doing something progressive.

Global Dimming: Global Warming's counterpart. Unfortunately, it's not a counteracting counterpart.

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.

So, we can (and should) address domestic poster-child questions such as "what is nature?", but let's not get complacent about the bigger questions: this article talks about the fact that the reality in which we're trying to sustain our existence may not even exist. What to do?

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.

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.