LCENVS

More of a fun story than a striking one, but also a good example of how changing the little things can do a lot - especially when its a lot of little things.

A different way of looking at biodiversity conservation. Could this possibly deter other efforts though?

There has been plenty of debate about the role of businesses and coorporations in environmental causes, and how pure their motives may be. Here is a new twist on an older debate: coorporations as rescue agencies. In Indonesia, cigarette companies are sponsoring entire rescue camps, complete with their colors and logos emblazoned on rescue vehicles. They advertise throughout, but they are helping. Perhaps they realize that if many people in a country where 2/3 of adult mean are addicted to smoking (from the article) they'll lose a huge market. Are we putting a market value on people's lives?

"Last month the Andhra Pradesh state passed the AP Microfinance Ordinance, "suspending operations of MFIs in the state and for all intents and purposes allowing borrowers to stop repaying their loans. The announcement of the Ordinance stressed the need to protect the poor - but the move might well, in the long term, leave them far worse off."

A counter to my article on the Amazon, this is a really cool video on Agroforestry as a means of preserving rainforest. Interestingly, Mr. Smits has been meeting with people defending rainforests in other parts of the world, I would imagine to help spread his methods in a way appropriate to the local context. This is one example of very old agricultural ideas being used as very new solutions to modern problems, empasizing the importance of locality and context in environmentalism, and showing how economics and the environment are not neccessarily pitted against eachother.

One of those that speaks entirely for itself. Bill Mckibben, of the 350 climate campaign and the international day of action back in October, argues that due to climate change we are in a very different world, ecologically, than we were a century or more ago - not about to be in it, are in it. This makes me think he may be right.

I think it would be great to start a campaign for our campus to go conflict free. This would spread awareness about the funding of war in DRCongo through large electronic compainies' purchasing of conflict minerals. The purchasing of tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold is funding this. These minerals can all be found elsewhere.

Progress in the DOT leads to more biking and public transportation = more livable communities. This is an interview with Ray LaHood about the recent advances and obstacles in improving our public and alternative transportation systems. Portland is mentioned a few times for being great.

I think that progress in this area is crucial if we are ever going to solve our long term consumption problems. So much of they way we act is caused by how our communities are built. Urban compactness contributes to a more minimalist lifestyle because you don't need a car, and because you have access to so many different public services, you don't need to buy private ones for yourself. The whole reason we have an absurd overconsumption problem is because we have people living in the cheap, crappy sprawl we've built, all driving cars everywhere to the box stores and restaurant chains that sell them a whole bunch of shit that is poorly made and terrible for them and the environment. City dwellers aren't all models for how to live or how much to consume, but you make it easy for people to lead better lives when there are options for them to bike or take public transit to work as well as to secondhand clothing stores and good, healthy, bulk food markets. James Howard Kunstler's book The Geography of Nowhere is a great read on this topic, and his TED talk on the subject is great as well.

Last of my posting on the political situation, just wanted to provide some variety. This is a more moderate view. It points out the fact that all things considered, the Obama administration has not been a huge help with environmental issues in so far, so the change will be tough on the environment, but not neccessarily dramatic. And it also has a touch of optimism at the end, that bills supporting certain aspects of energy issues may pass via compromise. But all told, its a lot of the old bad news, and more. Funding cuts seem to be a big worry - if you can't get rid of a committee, department, or what have you, its not as hard to make sure it has no money. I'd be interested in seeing how the elections at the state level might play out as well. The state parks system in my home state is under threat now, and I imagine the same might be true in other places. Anyone from other states know anything personally about whats going on at that scale?

"National environmental organizations have traditionally drawn their membership from the white and affluent, and have faced criticism for focusing more on protecting resources than protecting people. But with a black president committed to environmental issues in the White House and a need to achieve broader public support for initiatives like federal legislation to address global warming, many environmentalists say they feel pressure to diversify the movement further, both in membership and at higher levels of leadership."

Lisa Jackson has been going around the nations meeting with local environmental organizations for a range of reasons lately, and she has definitely been pushing - perhaps subtly - this agenda. When she came to Milwaukee, where I live, she had her meeting in an urban nature center in the very heart of the inner city, a generally impoverished, overwhelmingly African-American area of town. Not the usual place for high-level government officials to have meetings, so I feel like she means what she says in this article. Anecdotal evidence, but I was still impressed. Makes me nervous given than the new plan for Lisa Jackson is summed up this way: "I think she'll be very much in demand on the Hill, at times not of her choosing," said a former staffer on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "It will diminish her free time, shall we say." I hope the environmental movement really addresses this seriously, if its going to expand to the scale many seem to think it needs to for serious, rapid change. Really interesting article, thanks!

A different look at the impacts the midterm will have on the varying aspects of the environmental movement, with a far more negative outlook than that of the Huffington Post blog. I found this article to be much more nuanced than the last, and it covers a broader range of issues. Even for those who aren't politically inclined, it wouldn't hurt to read just to have a general sense of what we can expect from the federal government in certain issues. I have to ask, is now the time for getting into Guthman's policy-based approach to solving agricultural issues? More broadly, should one always try and engage in policy issues, or is it more productive to apply energies elsewhere until the political climate is favorable to change?

Analysis of why the heavy democractic defeats this week won't neccessarily be a major impediment to progress on clean energy - something at admittedly was not progressing anyhow. Also argues for a private sector approach, turning clean energy into a commodity American's will want to make a part of their regular lives.

"A new report from the Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) in Berkeley projects that development of cost-competitive algae biofuel production will require much more long-term research, development and demonstration. In the meantime, several non-fuel applications of algae could serve to advance the nascent industry."

Shimon is an entomologist who has made significant breakthroughs in "natural" pest control. The bio from the talk explains the idea like this: "Beneficial bugs are replacing the use of chemical sprays in greenhouse vegetables and open field crops, producing pesticide-free food and eliminating hazardous exposure of millions of workers in third world countries. These insects are shipped worldwide, where they go to work protecting thousands of hectares of greenhouses and open fields, in vegetables, field crops, fruit trees, ornamental plants and more." I put natural in quotes above, though, because first and foremost I'm a good for nothin skeptic. Secondly, while I'm all for getting rid of nasty chemicals, this solution just screams invasive species... which we always seem to lump into the "not natural" effects of humanity. Shimon, the speaker, justifies this solution by emphasizing that there's absolutely no genetic modification, and that the effects on the crops are all natural because the insects are natural. "All we do is give them the optimal conditions... in order to let them proliferate, multiply, and reproduce." It just doesnt click in my head. Manipulating conditions for one kind of species and exploiting them was how we got into this agricultural mess in the first place.

Aside from that though, the speaker actually makes some really good points and it's worth familiarizing yourself with the idea of "natural" pest-control, as we'll likely see more of it in the future. (If this speaker has his way at least.)

No light read, at 39 pages, but a good source for anyone doing research on the value of ecosystems from an economic perspective. My scant review of it indicates that it brings together a lot of different studies on the benefits people get from natural systems, and how much it would cost us to replace those with artificial systems. From the preface: "Applying economic thinking to the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services can help clarify two critical points: why prosperity and poverty reduction depend on maintaining the flow of benefits from ecosystems; and why successful environmental protection needs to be grounded in sound economics, including explicit recognition, efficient allocation, and fair distribution of the costs and benefits of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources." This report has been cited a lot lately in efforts to create some sort of system that would remove externalities from the pricing of all sorts of goods, and account for the costs of natural capital (i.e. the environment) in producing more or less everything. That would be a major environmental achievement, and social achievement in general.

A better read: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1116/the-economics-of-ecosystems Summarizes the report well, and also puts out the big question: can we put a price on everything? I personally am frustrated by how often debates turn into a cost-benefit analysis about the "practicality" of an idea - and I say that as a fan of the field of economics. Should we be resorting to that to defend environmental things that we value, or are there larger ideas and principles at play? Do we weaken the strength of a principles-based argument with a practicality/economically based one?

We'll be discussing several issues connected to this in ENVS 160 come spring, not only related to the technical and political drawbacks of pricing ecosystem services, but also the naive notions of "natural" vs. "artificial" that it often presupposes. The whole exercise reveals about the very best mainstream environmental thought can deliver…which is not good enough, in many recent scholars' opinions.

If you read any of the stuff I'm throwing on here, this one should be it. Pacifist Costa Rica is getting police up in arms because of a neighbor's infraction on their environmental systems. Armed defense of the environment sanctioned by a government? With harm to biodiversity being cited as a cause? Thats very interesting, and shows how far environmentalism has become a value in certain parts of the world.

"If a creature has a spine and walks, flies, swims, or crawls, it may be in serious trouble." Perhaps not surprising, but a depressing read all the same. A good article highlighting the idea that we are in a period where biodiversity is in rapid decline, with serious implications in the past. Given that having multiple species of geckos is allowing people like Kellar Autumn here on campus to learn all sorts of useful information that only one or two geckos might not provide (as only one example), the "practical and measurable" importance of biodiversity should never be overstated. Of course, its just a really cool thing to have, and that alone makes me a fan. Also nice to hear that conservation efforts are effective - and, as the last section shows, not just at saving animals.

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.

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.

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.