LCENVS

Puzzling headline, no? But truly, this was an important study involving golden shiners (a common minnow), and the conclusions the researchers reached concerned how "uninformed agents can promote democratic outcomes in collective decision problems," or in less technical jargon, how "ignorance can promote democracy." Certainly intriguing in terms of boundary-crossing between the natural and the human sciences! But not without dispute over its relevance to the world of human politics, as noted at the bottom of the article. Relevance to ENVS is clear: we welcome ideas that cross the natural/social sciences, but we subject them to scrutiny too. (And, we worry about ignorance as much as anyone else does.)

[A repost...didn't work first time...] For those of you considering ENVS-ish winter break reading, here's an informative interview of Naomi Klein, whose November article "Capitalism vs. the Climate" in The Nation (by no means some right-wing rag) argues that "passionate corporate and conservative foes of curbs on greenhouse gases are *right* [my emphasis] in asserting that a meaningful response to global warming would be a fatal blow to free markets and capitalism." Revkin's helpful interview links to a number of recent sources in the climate policy debate.

At face value it appears China is trying to improve its clean energy reputation. By becoming the World's leader in wind turbine and solar panel exporters, it looks as though the country is paying attention to the environmental crisis at last. Though it may appear like this industry is doing good for the world, however, it is wrecking havoc in the political and economic spheres. Therefore this article, juxtaposed to Maniates' "Individualization" raises interesting questions regarding the limitations of "good intentions" in helping the environment. Sometimes doing good in one sense can be detrimental in another. "China Takes Lead" also illuminates the complexities regarding clean energy technologies due to their economic ramifications and political biases. 

Car batteries sent for recycling are increasingly being sent to Mexico where their lead is often extracted by crude methods that are illegal in America, exposing plant workers and local residents to the toxic metal. Just goes to show another imperfection in the recycling system.

"At the National Science Foundation, Paul Edmiston is handed a refreshment-a bright orange bottle of motor oil. Undaunted, the chemical engineer from the College of Wooster proceeds to make himself a drink. Here's how Edmiston cheats death-and what it could mean for oil-spill cleanup technology."

The title phrase is a well-known book title as well, from Robert Heilbroner's Worldly Philosophers of 1953. Both this article and Heilbroner's book, however, are talking about economics. These authors argue that economics has, over the last several decades, approached problems much like dentists, "modest people who look at a small part of the body but remove a lot of pain." For all its virtues, this approach provides no nuance nor guidance when everyone plainly realizes that our economic system is a mess, and we need informed people to ask big questions about it. They see the Occupy movement as asking these questions, and call on economists to offer answers. This recommendation rings at the heart of a liberal arts education, and is why in ENVS 220 we collectively struggle to connect the data and methods we work with to larger theories and frameworks, larger philosophical stances that remind us there are choices to be made in how to understand and fix this world.

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.

The above article is the Break Through Institute's semi-recent report on the Jevons' Paradox, which I posted additional links to here and debated in class. For the record, the report is favorable. Also for the record, I have not read it completely, and am not laying down final judgment. However: I promised Jim I would respond to this at some point. I still hope to. In the meantime, this is worth musing over (if the link doesn't work, I have the PDF). https://files.me.com/jgkoomey/0aqqfm I really appreciate Break Through and the dismantling of environmentalism's sacred cows, but I'm concerned about this one. Many of their other critiques and analysis seem to have the empirical evidence, but I have yet to be convinced by what I've seen here. Obviously it is a long report, and I have not gotten to read through it entirely, but so far I remain unconvinced. I think they're thinking about the problem in the right way (the economy is a complex social, political, and economic system, it does defy basic models and equations, and if the emergence idea continues to hold up it is a right environment for them) and I really enjoy reading their analysis, but I remain unconvinced by the numbers. Our economy is not composed in such a way that energy is a primary limiting factor to production, which would surely deaden the effect, among other theoretical threats to the idea on both a micro and macro scale. Politically, efficiency measures will continue to allow solar energy and other alternative competitors to carry more weight than they do now, allowing us to free ourselves from the need for energy intense liquids or solids like coal, gas, and oil in favor of less "compact" energy sources. Break Through Institute offers some excellent political analysis, and their efforts at getting outside and away from the usual political roadblocks and antics are appreciated. But I wonder if they

Obviously, its not my expertise either, and I'm woefully ignorant in all this ultimately. But their credentials don't seem to be in deep energy analysis and research, and one academic report where I do find Jesse Jenkins (of BTI, who helped write that report and is an energy expert) still encouraged energy efficiency measures (http://www.brookings-tsinghua.cn/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/0209_energy_innovation_muro/0209_energy_innovation_muro_full.pdf). I'm not bold enough to lay down final judgment, but I'm going to need a lot more convincing. BTI makes a lot of convincing arguments that I really like - so far, this hasn't been one of them. But like I said, I'm still reading. And trying to get a handle on what Shellenberger, Nordhaus, and Jenkins have under their belts in terms of economic, versus political (when the two are even seperable), analysis. If there is other stuff worth reading in that regard, I'd love to get my hands on it.

A misleading title, I admit, given that bees have had thousands of years to develop this ability and computers are so versatile, but it is another nice reminder of why the natural world matters, and how impressive it is. Surprising? Perhaps not. Impressive? I think so.

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.

Another interesting food topic. Sign the petition to say "I support the Food Revolution. America's kids need better food at school and better health prospects. We need to keep cooking skills alive." Jamie hopes to bring this to the White House and show Michelle Obama how much support is behind the Food Revolution.

This is an enormous issue in the county I'm from. The Water District wants to put in a desalinization plant in the San Francisco Bay for drinking water. This problem began about 3 years and is on the ballot this election. It could have statewide impacts because many water districts in California are considering desal plants. I really hope they consider all other options before turning to desal.

I don't know if I like this, but if you're into the food thing this is a very real, very under reported force in the sustainable food movement, and there are a lot of big names in it. Its a long article, but worth the read. I guess the question is, if it solves the environmental issues (or if it can, another question worthy of skepticism) is it worth losing on some of the other values the local/sustainable movement has embraced? I'm skeptical on a lot of levels, but its an interesting thought.

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?