LCENVS

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?

Italy is trying to stop people from buying bottled water by outcompeting companies. An interesting idea, though U.S. attitudes to that sort of thing would likely make it hard to apply here. Still, one has to wonder.

"Forests in the Interior West could soon flip from carbon sink to carbon source, forest experts say. The region's forests once absorbed and stored more carbon from the atmosphere than they released. But huge conflagrations -- like the 138,000-acre Hayman Fire in Colorado in 2002 and the Yellowstone fires of 1988, which scorched 1.2 million acres -- combined with a series of severe bark beetle infestations and disease outbreaks, have left large swaths of dead, decomposing trees in almost every major Western forest. Those dead trees are releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide, turning the region into a net emitter of carbon rather than a CO2 sponge."

This NY TImes article features the ongoing discussion of global warming. More specifically, this article discusses sea-level rise, with a predicted potential level of 3-6 feet by year 2100, a rise that would potentially ruin millions of homes.

This site features major scientists and humanists discussing points of creative overlap, with plenty of interesting ideas and models we could learn from as we attempt to do the same in environmental studies.

The trailer for the new documentary from everyone's favorite environmental bete-noire, Bjorn Lomborg. What do you think?

Social science tells us we're addicted to having children (I imagine evolutionary thought would concur). For the many, many people who go to population as the reason we have so many of our problems, this is probably a pretty dark article to read.

Economics and Politics. "In essence, endless growth puts us on the horns of a seemingly intractable dilemma. Without it, we spiral into poverty. With it, we deplete the planet. Either way, we lose. Unless, of course, there's a third way. Could we have a healthy economy that doesn't grow? Could we stave off ecological collapse by reining in the world economy? Could we do it without starving?" An old idea revisited with a slightly lengthy (but easily read) background on limits to growth and it's place in economic history, plus a new perspective on how a limit to growth might actually work, and what that might look like. I find the concept of ' "uneconomic" growth-growth that actually drives living standards downward' (to improve happiness, nonetheless), and the argument behind it, intriguing. This is on page 4. After page 5 it starts to look like an idealistic no-grow-utopia. But then this is addressed in the conclusion, as well as some theories about the psychological changes that would have to happen. Then they bring it on back home to politics, and last but not least a reminder of our biological-ecological pending doom. Oh, all the environmental interdisciplinary-ness! "When it comes to determining the shape of our economy, the planet may possess the most powerful invisible hand of all."

Obviously, I don't know or care too much about economics. I dont know how my conversations keep ending up here. But. "Growth was meant to make people happy by making their lives better - and it has." Really? Who, to you, qualifies as "people"? And how do you define better? Soaring rates of depression, chemical dependency, and obesity? Or maybe it's these lives that are better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL0U_xmRem4)?

Perhaps because it relates so much to the various issues we have declared to be running rampant in the world today? It is very much connected to any environmental issue. Among a range of other issues. Anyways, I wrote a pretty lengthy response to your questions. I'll post the primary response to your questions here. A lot of it is based on the differences between economics, politics, industrialism, capitalism, and consumerism. In the tradition of Diigo debates, I have crafted a google site. https://sites.google.com/site/economicresponse/home The main page directly answers the question. The other page sets up some distinctions I see, personally, beteen various economic systems. I do not cite academic sources there, and I'm sure it would not take long to find economists who disagree with me, for what it is worth. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to flesh it out with other's ideas, and I apologize for that.

One of environmentalism's favorite past times: ragging on other environmentalist movements for not being as green as the other guy (forgive my cynicism). For what its worth, that may help direct action in the right direction. Or it may stall action due to debate. I find its often a fine line to tread, and calls heavily into realms of psychology and the other social sciences (also a favorite victim of another line of thought in environmentalism) regarding people's various reactions to environmental initiatives or ecologically sound decisions. A lot of folks that I know who are into environmental things have started off trying to bring about ecological change, gotten frustrated, and joined the off-the-gridders. They're very happy people now - but are they doing as much environmental good? It is a worthy question. A lot of great environmental minds have been lost to the off-the-grid, live-in-the-woods mentality. And a lot of great environmental minds have come out of it. Wish they had a little more in terms of research they're citing, since they both make a lot of claims about consumption but don't cite any sources beyond their own experience. That said, its a good intra-movement debate, one I've had with others on this campus, and continue to have with myself.

This article suggests that once people are aware of the amount of energy they actually consume, they are more likely to reduce their usage by up to 30%. It goes on to suggest an energy tracker as an app on a smart phone or something of the like. It's a cool idea trying to use technology to promote awareness. I'm not sure if this is promoting Sony technology or if this is a genuine proposal. hmm

yeah! i like that idea.

Screens would be really amazing! I feel like it would have an impact on energy use.

Light pollution? As in real pollution? Interestingly, this article was sent in a weekly email from the Environmental Protection Agency, which means they actually take this as a legitimate environmental concern.

I would consider this a must-read for those into the alternative energy side of things. While the energies it highlights aren't all new and exciting, the numbers game it plays is pretty key. This is no optimistic one-technology-solves-it-all piece, and it issues a key reminded that no alternative energy we have reaches the input/output energy found in oil. By my reading, key to getting into the next energy phase we should expect is energy reduction, and energy efficiency. Our efficiency numbers, both from a physics and an economics perspective, are awful. The guys behind the Rocky Mountain Institute wrote a book called Natural Capitalism, which offers some great insights into energy efficiency as it stands and as it could be, if anyone is interested in that side of things. One of my favorite aspects of increasing energy efficiency is how its good for economies and good for the environment - still, there is the worry that if it makes things too cheap, people will use too much (the book cites fuel efficiency standards that were so good the cost of driving dropped significanly, and so many more people drove than more energy ended up being used). There are tools to avoid that though. I digress, but still, an excellent view of where alternative energy stands as of now.

One such technology that leads to energy efficiency: http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Energy/2009/1231/No-more-power-lines

oh man oh man oh man. huge, invisible, underground networks that transmit electricity? sounds familiar... "I have long proposed that mycelia are the earth's "natural Internet." I've gotten some flak for this, but recently scientists in Great Britain have published papers about the "architecture" of a mycelium - how it's organized. They focused on the nodes of crossing, which are the branchings that allow the mycelium, when there is a breakage or an infection, to choose an alternate route and regrow. There's no one specific point on the network that can shut the whole operation down. These nodes of crossing, those scientists found, conform to the same mathematical optimization curves that computer scientists have developed to optimize the Internet. Or, rather, I should say that the Internet conforms to the same optimization curves as the mycelium, since the mycelium came first." -- Paul Stamets more: http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/07/natures-internet-vast-intelligent.html

Will Allen has become one of the patron saints of the modern alternative food movement, appearing in the White House, championing Michelle Obama's new programs, becoming the father of modern Urban Agriculture, and being named one of People's 100 most influential people (among other awards and achievements). He is really worth checking out. While I have been very excited to see ideas for vertical farms popping up everywhere from Milwaukee to Toronto to Chicago and beyond, my enthusiasm is beginning to lag. While vertical farms offer great potential for feeding people locally, consistently, cheaply (maybe), and in an environmentally friendly way, are these sometimes soil-less, urban high rises really just a factory farm for vegetables? If so, does it matter? I'm still in favor of them, so far, but I can't help but wonder if the food movement of tomorrow will be "ground-grown" or "grown in soil". I'd really appreciate thoughts and a discussion, if anyone is interested. While I see many positives in the economic/ecological realm of things, I'm less sold on the philosophy of the idea. Are "natural systems" methods still natural if they're in something we would not necessarily consider "nature" off-hand?

An alternative to taxing fuel, the user fee would be to driving as a pay-per-item system would be to eating in the Bon. Not as fun as an all-you-can eat buffet, but perhaps more efficient. Is there still value in a gas tax?