LCENVS

This Halloween, instead of giving free burritos to those dressed as a burrito, Chipotle is selling $2 burritos to those dressed as a "horrifying processed food" such as the models on the website as chicken nuggets and dipping sauce. This is interesting because a large corporation like Chipotle is speaking out against processed food.

If there's one reason I would have agreed with Julie Guthman about consumer choices not being the solution, it's because of this: Greenwashing. I'm just gonna go ahead and put this out there. I hate advertisers so much.

If this counts as ecological modernization, then I'm all for it.

I feel like with great ideas like this one, I am always waiting for the catch, because this solution seems too good to be true. That being said, I am in complete support and I think that more thought could be put into the whole concept of human waste. Especially on campus I think there are opportunities for experiments with other methods of dealing with waste than flush toilets. I know that at other schools there are composting contraptions, point being the way we deal with waste now is not necessarily the best way.

I know what you mean about the catch... but if you think about this, it makes a lot of sense. Poop is compact energy sources that we just throw away (or better yet, use to pollute our water resources). It's energy just waiting to be used and if we can think of a way to get a little more use out of that material, then we should. This is exactly the kind of creative thinking we're gonna have to start doing. We've gotta realize that we dont have an energy crisis in the sense that we're running our of energy sources: we have an energy crisis in that we think we have to use external energy. We let so much that already exists in our local systems just pass us by! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure

"A global coalition of about 200 companies said yesterday (26 October) that it was ready to support the introduction of a price tag on ecosystem services, in the hope that a global biodiversity panel will lay the foundations for an offset mechanism to encourage trading of nature services." This group is called the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The members are listed here: http://www.wbcsd.org/web/about/members.html

more on this topic here: http://www.utne.com/Wild-Green/What-the-Earth-Is-Worth.aspx?utm_content=10.27.10+Spirituality&utm_campaign=Emerging+Ideas-Every+Day&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

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?

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.

An interesting new academic journal, related to a lot of the issues brought up in the symposium this year. Looks to be pretty pro-agrarian. Peer reviewed, legitimate sources with a cause. Could have interesting stuff in the future. "Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development! JAFSCD is an international, online, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on agriculture and food systems and bridges the interests of development professionals (including activist farmers and businesspeople), educators, consultants, and the academic community. While kindred journals focus on critical sustainable food production practices, community food security, and the sociology and political economy of food and agriculture, there has not been a journal supporting the community of practice that is rapidly integrating and evolving around these issues. We look forward to fostering an applied research literature where these interests meet - and may sometimes collide - and the nascent field of agriculture and food systems as a whole advances."

Discussion of the money networks surrounding The Tea Party.  This paper tries to argue that the support that large companies have towards the Tea Party also have interests in polluting.

A plea for more initiative on both sides of the political fence to start talking about climate change honestly and openly. With the current political mess around this though, I again question whether or not politics really is the place for environmental action.

(I think you pasted the wrong link... unless you want us to go to our gmail pages...)

Well I cant delete it now that "someone else has commented on it" haha. Here's the link: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-08-telling-the-truth-about-climate-change-is-good-politics

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.

This article highlights a new solution that's "already being spear-headed by farmers on the ground." It preserves biodiversity, alleviates hunger, addresses malnutrition, protects against drought, and produces sustainable yields... a miracle GMO? No... traditional vegetables? Who knew? "Many indigenous vegetables use less water than hybrid varieties and some are resistant to pests and disease without the use of chemical inputs, which are expensive both financially and environmentally." Does is seem surprising, odd, and even a bit backwards that the idea of using traditional crops and biodynamic farming is presented as a new and innovative idea? "While what we eat is important, what may be even more essential over the long term is preserving knowledge about how to plant, grow, and cook what we eat." It MAY be more essential...?

An example of how alternative economic models (or even longstanding ones, applied to a new product) can make things like clean energy more feasible for people, even if the initial costs of installation, production, or what not remain the same. Important to remember that how you move things of value around matters, perhaps just as much as what the values are in the first place? If nothing else, the importance of looking at things in a new way, allowing for more options.

For the record, if I understood Richard Bettega of facilities correctly, a lease-based program similar to this is what is behind our current solar panels on Pamplin. If a wealthy enough investor can be found, we'll be starting up another program here on South Campus or above the swimming pool. I'm not sure on the details, but they're along the lines of this.

I found this discussion very applicable to Environmental studies symposium.  It discusses not only why Americans do not eat healthy as well as how much energy americans waste by throwing away foods.  Annually America throws away as much energy in food as Switzerland uses for all energy purposes.

This story provided a helpful context around genetically modified foods. Ira, from Science Friday, interviewed people in the academic, private (monsanto), scientific, social, and charitable (Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) participants in the discussion surrounding genetically modified foods. I am someone who intrinsically thinks genetically modified foods are a good idea, though I do take issue with what are rumored to be the current regulatory practices. This story discusses the realities of the problems facing genetically modified foods and some of the research trying to deduce appropriate solutions.

In this Mother Jones piece, we learn about how consumers angry about Frito Lay's noisy new SunChip bag -- which, as the company touts on their website, is 100% compostable, and which you can actually watch it happen over the course of 14 weeks in your backyard compost pile -- have somehow applied enough of their angst against the company, and have gotten them to drop the noisy bag. Most likely because they couldn't hear the television over it. The author also has some interesting discussion of aesthetic concerns in our consumer choices from fluorescent lights to plant fiber bags, and how sometimes, at the root, it appears we value softer light and quieter bags more than we do environmental impact.

If its going to be used anyway, it might as well be sustainable use? I think that is the general argument in favor of this plan. Just an interesting idea to ponder, and it gives us something other than food and climate to talk about.

Not totally environmental, but it definitely relates to the symposium. I feel like we talked about ethics and economics a lot more than safety, but here is a compelling look at another issue in today's food system. Complete with photo gallery: http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/In-Pictures/From-Field-to-Fork-The-foreign-and-domestic-food-chain

Wait a second, I just looked at the entire quiz and the whole thing is about climate change. And more than a few questions were a bit vague.  Hmmm..."environmental knowledge"..."how green you are"...

The survey is legitimate (sort of... a bunch of the questions could use reworking, and the way they are asked is really misleading), but the title that the Oregonian chose is awful. I'm not sure how much it adds to the correlation of people associating climate change only with environmentalism (I think this was just a really poorly chosen headline, done by someone who is unfamiliar with issues), but I do think it is very interesting regarding the article from Grist that Julia posted recently on what to call people who care about climate change. And... this wasn't even close to a "quiz", as the Oregonian decided to call it. It's most certainly a survey (given the abundance of the likert scale in the questions), and it definitely doesn't test "environmental knowledge". The survey appears to be prodding for uncertainty, and controversy even. I think they will get polarized results, and I also think that these results will be that way because of how incredibly thoroughly climate change has been politicized.

I like these readers' comments: portlandiowa October 22, 2010 at 8:04AM "The researchers gave more than half of those who answered their quiz a grade of "F."" Probably those that didn't answer with the same personal opinions as the researchers on the cause of global warming. An engaged citizen October 22, 2010 at 10:07AM There's the problem right there, portlandiowa - those who are confused about the difference between theology (a system of beliefs) and science. Or even worse, those who think SCIENTISTS are confused between the two. I dunno.... I might agree with portlandiowa. And I'm a Bio/Chem Major??

Interesting facts and information about the mainstream perceptions of biotech produced foods, GMO, and the like. On one side, they've got a huge percentage of the market cornered (86% I think), which likely strikes fear into the heart of many anti-biotech folk. On the other hand, you have a lot of scientists saying that GMO crops are no more likely to produce more than conventional - why then, are we doing it? To stop weeds, that are already coming back with greater resistance? However you analyze it, an interesting article (and a recommended source - people often write off the Christian Science Monitor because of the first word in its name, but its not a religious news source, it is very high quality, and they have people reporting from all over the world. They do very good analysis of global energy issues, and I would highly reccomend their coverage of China's growing green economy. They've done a lot of work on that)

"What Monsanto's fall from grace reveals about the GMO seed industry" http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-12-what-monsantos-fall-from-grace-reveals-abo-the-gmo-seed-industry

As the elections in Hawai'i approach, candidates are jumping on the "green" bandwagon to pioneer alternative sources of energy. Will they follow through on it? Will the consequences weigh out the benefits. In Hawai'i, we've been having lots of problems w/ clean energy because it disrupts native ecosystems, in turn reducing biodiversity. How are we able to balance the needs of humans and still keeping in mind the intrinsic value other living systems?