LCENVS

Shellenberger and Nordhaus' first big essay The Death of Environmentalism stated that in order for us to take more productive action on the ecological issues of today and tomorrow we must move past environmentalism to post-environmentalism. In their book The Breakthrough: from the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility they argue that the environmentalism that got us this far, is now failing to address the major ecological issues of our time including climate change, and that we must move past this "politics of limits" (what they claim traditional environmentalism is) and move forward to the what they call the "politics of possibility." This is the idea of harnessing all of our human innovation, technology, creative ideas, and passion and pushing for a new modernization, one in which there is more prosperity for all. This they claim will allow us to properly address and take action on the major ecological issues of our time, like climate change. It's a compelling argument but one that seems to have some holes in it. If we are to push for a new modernization, and increase everyone's prosperity, how exactly do we go about doing that? Modernization had terrible effects on the people who didn't have the resources to fight it, would this be round two of that history? How do we make that transition in a more manageable and civil way? Regardless, this book is a must read for environmental studies/science/policy students and teachers, as well as people who consider themselves environmentalists and those who do not. Shellenberger and Nordhaus are clearly trying to reach across the divide, meeting the political left, center and right, and have already influenced some politicians and big names in our society. Could this be the direction we head in? The Politics of possibility?

You've probably all heard about, and/or seen, KONY 2012; here's an NYT article about it, and see http://audelhi.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/kony2012/ for a critical commentary suggesting that, well, viewers should get situated, both in the context of Uganda and as Americans.

So, for those of us who would like to find ways for people to have ready alternatives to car transportation, the good news is that Oregonians, and to some extent Americans are driving less. What's interesting, as this article points out, is we don't really know why, and it doesn't seem to relate to gas prices. It may just be an aging demography. Do you think it's a sign that people are going green(er)?

What do you think of this decision by the OR legislature not to fund the Oregon Sustainability Center? Though certain key figures downplay the decision, this could be the end of that dream -- which some say was not a worthwhile dream anyway.

I plug this one a lot, and the Monitor has great coverage on it, but I'll put it out there again. First, because the news that the Supreme Court is not hearing a case on the issue is pertinent both to this issue, and to the chance to have established some sense of precedent for similar environmental cases in the future, as that becomes a bigger and bulkier part of society (and therefore the law). Second, because it really highlights the destructive capabilities of things causing environmental change, even in real time. I think one of the most interesting parts comes in here: "If the Asian carp does take hold in the Great Lakes, the ecosystem will no doubt do what ecosystems do best: adapt. After all the term "invasive species" is, by definition, relative, often marking a transitional phase as a species establishes itself in a new ecosystem. ...Whether the economy adapts to the Asian carp, however, remains to be seen." That highlights the real reason there is so much concern. These lakes are damned important to the well-being of the states around them. And its not just the Great Lakes, once in place Asian Carp readily move into wetlands, river ways, and even other lakes. Minnesota calls itself the land of 10,000 lakes, Wisconsin has more in its "Lakes District", and Michigan follows suit. The economies built around them have covered most of my summer pay over the past few years, so this is a very personal issue as well.

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/

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?

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?

One of the cornerstones of the early modern environmental movement, the Clean Air Act is now forty years old.  This brief article reviews events around the 40th anniversary and discusses controversial extensions to control carbon dioxide emissions.

This bill just recently came to my attention. I havent had much time to research it further, but it sounds rather frightening. This YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOups0dfdwM&feature=channel) captures the fear based objections to the bill, and though it is propaganda, these are definitely issues we ought to be worried about! The "official summary" of the bill on this posted web site is long but seems to line up with the YouTube clip. Yikes! I propose more research.

No, this not a Mac vs. PC rant. According to Jobs' biographer, he lacked the sheer brainpower of a Bill Gates, but had something far greater in many ways: genius, or at least ingenuity. And this knack is described in ways that resonate with our ENVS Program learning goals, including a creative blending of the humanities and sciences and attention to visual modes of thinking. So if you are still worried about your physics friends getting jobs and you getting nowhere, this Jobs may have a lesson for you.

What if it's true that the effects of the BP oil spill are far less serious than originally predicted?  It would not mean that nothing bad happened at all, nor that no changes are needed to business as usual , but maybe we need to reconsider the perennial sky-is-falling rhetoric of environmentalism.

This is a book by ecologist and environmentalist Stewart Brand who is previously known for helping create and write the Whole Earth Catalogue. In this book Brand discusses the current state of our environment and specifically focuses on climate change. He then spends the rest of the book discussing radical modern approaches that he believes will help combat climate change. Some of these methods include using nuclear power as our main source of energy and genetically modifying all of our crops to be more resilient to climate change. He also argues that densely populated cities are more efficient and that new technology must be used to help fix the environmental problems that have been caused by previous technologies. This book is well written and offers a perspective on environmental issues that most other current environmental books do not agree with. I would recommend this book to all environmental studies majors.

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?

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.

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.

This article highlights the efforts to make Asian Carp, the next big threat to the Great Lakes (and the multi-million dollar fishing and tourism industries there) the next big food hit (or at least big enough to get people to fish them out). After all, as one expert says, "there's a worldwide need for cheap protein, and I think it's one of those things that fit the bill." But I have to say, I'm a little concerned. One, I know this is not a new strategy - people tried to turn garlic mustard into the next major salad ingredient, without much luck. But I think it could end up creating even greater threats in the long run. For example, if the idea is to get rid of the fish, it isn't a sustainable model for a business to follow. Why build a plant for a fish we're trying to get rid of? When the plants are built, the question changes: why get rid of the fish? In Darwin's Nightmare we saw how an invasive fish became a boon and blessing to the local economy. The Midwest is different, but some of the same forces are at play. Second, in my eyes the most legitimate argument against invasive, non-native species is that they don't provide ecosystem function. The ecosystem concept is rooted in relationships that help carry out nutrient/energy flow, etc... and these species don't really relate to others. By giving them a functional role as a food source, we give them a little more function to a species we really care about - us. Again, the plan to actually get rid of them may backfire as their benefits appear to outweigh their costs. The question does remain, is that a bad thing?

The idea of Ecofeminism is that the domination of women and of nature are intrinsically linked. Focusing on womens lives and roles in cultural society helps identify the ways in which their roles are similar to the environment under the umbrella of patriarchal capitalism. In this article, globalization is defined as an outgrowth of patriarchal capitalism. And the basic biological differences of our genders determines social organization.

Mainstream environmentalism is trying to modify both its image and its approach - some focuses included radicalizing actions, localizing focuses, and antagonizing political and corporate opponents. It also focuses on how information is conveyed, focusing more on quick, easy to interpret, pretty imagery and less on pessimistic facts and figures. Bill McKibben is cited as one of the acclaimed leaders of this approach, particularly given the Keystone XL Pipeline issue (discussed earlier in the year in 220). Notably, another headline sharing the papers this week is on that very pipeline - a recent payroll tax move passed by the senate requires a final decision on the project within 90 days. Given that the success was for the decision to be postponed until after the elections, that has been largely undone. It will be interesting to see how that success plays out, and if that reflects on the themes of this article. It bears the question: if you were the political adviser to the environmental movement, what advice would you give?

Columnist Charles Blow begins by comparing the haves and have nots to climate change: "Is income inequality becoming the new global warming? In other words, is this another case where the facts of an existential threat lose traction among a weary American public as deniers attempt to reduce them to partisan opinions?" I suspect you can guess how he answers that question: as he gloomily concludes, "If denial is a river, it runs through doomed societies." Maybe it's time to better understand denial in all its forms, not just denial of anthropogenic environmental change, if we want to understand why such serious threats receive so little action.