LCENVS

What would wilderness look like if it were in an urban area?  Maybe this article has the answer.

Map-based interface comparing human quality of life (primarily related to health, education, and income, but including other measures as well) in different parts of the US. Turns out, surprise surprise, that there are some huge differences from place to place, suggesting the necessity of situated research to explain these differences.

Interesting list of topics the NYT includes in their theme series: marriage, money, food (twice), and technology, all with iconic images depicting some sort of cycle.  What's fresh and what's missing in this overall picture?

"Houston-based Noble Energy today confirmed that its Leviathan gas find under the water off the shore of Israel is easily the largest exploration discovery in its history, with an estimated 16 trillion cubic feet of natural gas" I'm not quite sure what to make of this discovery. This article certainly gives it a declensionist spin, and I'm not quite sure that I can come up with any alternate positive side. On another note, the term "natural resource" really bugs me.

For those interested in the gulf oil spill: "Yesterday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made public a new website, the NOAA Deepwater Horizon Library. The site contains a treasure trove of information relating to the oil disaster in the gulf oil disaster. This includes reports on the incident itself, scientific reports on the wildlife affected, and a detailed history of the response and cleanup efforts undertaken by governments, private companies, and individuals. It also describes ongoing efforts to rebuild the coast and the Gulf ecosystem."

A perspective on the environmental movement that most likely everyone in LCENVS (and beyond) should keep in mind. "She learned the same thing about growing fruits and vegetables: Anyone can grow shit themselves. Anyone. Broke-Ass was sick of reading about kids who just graduated from art or architecture school manning their self-righteous food-coops with heirloom everything; looking down on everyone who wasn't raising bees on their rooftops in Brooklyn. To Broke-Ass, it all smacked of Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess with her ladies at the Petit Hameau at Versailles. You don't need to have white-kid dreadlocks, a degree from Bennington, or any more than a passing interest in limiting your carbon footprint to raise your own crap. You just need to be hungry." Moral of the story is (in my opinion), maybe environmentalism isnt limited to the privileged middle/upper classes and we're doing ourselves a disservice by assuming so or treating it that way. Can we extrapolate this from agriculture and apply it to the greater environmental movement? Maybe our priority shouldnt be ecological modernization -- maybe we should focus on taking advantage of sustainability where it already exists and has potential to exist, instead of sending the message that it can only be achieved through college degrees, high tech appliances, and hybrid cars. Maybe... these are all maybes. But nonetheless I think they're maybes worth considering.

Classic environmental experiment, complete with social drama, business plots, and accusations of meddling by cultish groups. The video touches more on the idea of whether or not an alternative biosphere is possible. Interesting to note that this one relied heavily on fossil fuels - it was not entirely a closer system then, as far as my limited research tells me. Still a very intriguing experiment, for better or for worse.

"...researchers have found a way to do something vaguely similar to what plants do every day: harness the energy of sunlight to convert carbon and water into a liquid fuel."

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.

The Oregon Sustainability Center, to be housed on PSU campus, embodies the utopia of high-tech self-sufficiency unlike no other contemporary structure around, and may possibly be unique in the U.S. today. But at what cost? And, is this the utopia we want to pursue??

This is the topic of an article that I posted to the Symposium2011 diigo group. (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/07/07/07greenwire-bold-public-private-venture-aims-to-make-ore-c-32109.html?pagewanted=all) Originally I posted it due to it's relevance to the "future of cities" topic. Portland often comes up in discussions about progressive cities, and this is merely one more reason for it to do so. The questions you bring up here about cost and utopian attitude I think are particularly relevant to the broader question of cities and would be really interesting for us to explore further. In my discussion with Micah earlier today, for example, we talked about Portland in general being a sort of utopia. Specifically we were discussing the tendency of highly motivated and concerned people to move to Portland away from other places that might actually be in greater need of their work. I asked "what's more important: investing in a model of the ideal to generate enthusiasm and prove it can be done, or spreading efforts out to places less conducive to the changes?"

I'll say it publicly, with the hopes of getting some debate on this: I don't think you've proven it can be done if it is in the model of the ideal (operating under the assumption that most places are specifically not the ideal, and are not neccesarily conducive to the changes). Just because something can be done in an ideal place does not mean it can be spread out. I see it as more likely that when something is done succesfully in a place that is antagonistic to it, something is really right with whatever that something may be. While answers are naturally specific to the issue or solution in question (so I apologize for the vague language), I'm of the mind that a lot of the things Portland has done to make things "work" may not be easily replicated outside of Portland, as much because of structure as because of culture. This is a debate where it is particularly difficult to make broad assumptions, of course, and there will be exceptions to either and any side, but I lean towards making changes where the changes are not conducive. I welcome opposition though, I'm curious what others think coming from other regions and from Portland itself.

Interesting to those of us that use toilet paper. I think this is a great idea cause it's not something that people are gonna stop using as long as it's available. Next step the plastic wrap around it! What do you guys think?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.)

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.