LCENVS

All throughout Europe, nuclear power is on the rebound, with a number of plants formerly slated for decommissioning now receiving (mixed) political support.  As the chancellor of Germany states, "Nuclear energy is a bridge technology." There is debate in the enviro movement over the use of nuclear as a bridge technology while renewable forms are being developed; what do you think?

Here's an important 40th anniversary in the history of US environmentalism; would you agree with the author of this post, now that we know what we know 40 years later?

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?

A couple of weeks ago, Obama asked that the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards be withdrawn until they are up for scientific review in 2013. This article by the Economist provides a view that weighs the jobs more heavily than the environmental impacts. I know that this article is more politics-minded, but I still wish they provided a projected environmental impact or pollution data. The author instead focuses on what this move means for Obama as we near the 2012 run for presidency.

This article, from WPRI.com (the website affiliated with the Rhode Island news channel), discusses the plans to build a wind turbine in the town of Narragansett. As someone familiar with the area--I grew up in Massachusetts--I am aware of the intense debate revolving around wind power on the New England coast. The case of the Narragansett turbine is notable due to the town's status as a tourist destination. The argument is centered around the fact that, although new forms of energy are universally considered to be important, the region's primary economic facet is tourism. Those opposed to the turbines argue that their presence negatively impacts the aesthetics of the coast, while proponents of the turbines take the position that sacrifices must be made to ensure a bright future. The building of the Narragansett turbine could perhaps be a step towards acceptance of the turbines' presence.

The Hanoi Zoo has admitted to auctioning off tigers to illegal animal traffickers, after reporting the animals had died of natural causes. Many of the tigers are then used in traditional Asian medicine, a very lucrative market.

This article addresses Vietnam's recent reforestation efforts. In the past twenty years, forestry policies have successfully increased net forest cover, however old-growth forests are still insufficiently protected. Although Vietnam has decreased logging in Vietnamese forests, these practices have been outsourced to Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia.

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.

This is a Web-site on India and the Environment. It is a highly useful website that provides, among other things, articles, information, and activism about environment issues in India. Start by looking at the key on the left hand side of the page and start exploring. Enjoy!

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?

Although the article is mostly about the creation of new currency, the idea of the new currency is what I found most relevant--the currency is suppose to encourage "local" support.

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??

At different public meetings in Kansas and Texas, the proposed oil pipeline that would run from Canada to the US received very different responses. The meeting in Texas was met with widespread support, mostly due to the number of jobs it would create as well as helping to decrease the United States' dependence on foreign oil, while the meeting in Kansas was met with harsh criticism, due to the potential for environmental devastation. This article shows an interesting contrast between the priorities of the two states, and how some are willing to look the other way when it comes to creating jobs.

My main focus of what I think will be my concentration is the idea of how environment affects the continuation or elimination/transformation of indigenous culture verses the modern day. This piece begins to comment on that, showing examples of how modern day impacts are changing the natural environment in places like Columbia, which force the indigenous people living there out of their traditional lifestyles. This displacement of culture often results in an abandonment of ones culture--many youths are resettling in urban areas because their traditional way of life cannot adapt to the rapidly changing environment. The article brings up the question of old verses new, and the question of how can they remain in the same world peacefully--if that's even an option?

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Fox News isn't the go-to site for news for most folks reading this. But for the sake of debate, lets not jump right into mockery for their latest claim: the muppets are commies, and their critique of the oil industry is part of a broader leftist media anti-oil campaign that is decades old, and has indoctrinated a new generation of environmentalists. Now, I'm sure there are crazy elements to this. I think using language that implies it is some sort of organized, left-of-center conspiracy is already off the mark. BUT is there some weight to this? The left does have a lot of media dominance in its own circles, and entertainment media has its fair share. And how many movies do feature industrialists, smokestacks, and such as evil? Does the message need to be explicit? I would not be surprised to find that an analysis of many of the films and narratives we are subjected to do have a fairly reliable evil industrialist archetype. I am curious how much that shapes our perception of reality.