LCENVS

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Energy policy doesnt need to take environmental concerns into account because God will decide when the world will end. He cites these biblical excerpts as the infallible, perfect word of God. Yet let me also note that in his excerpts, God also declares that all inclinations of man's heart is evil from birth. Hmmm.... what, then, must this say about his motives? Obviously, I'm kidding, but I just wanted to share and highlight some of the absurdity I see. Yes, we can write this off as absurd and clearly not logical, so why prod so much at things that are clearly not worth our time? It's an important reality check to remember that this is happening in the world outside of LC's progressive bubble though, and despite how obviously absurd this seems, somehow it's still here, has power, and it is being taken seriously... by someone at least.

"There is a theological debate that this is a carbon starved planet." Like many, I'm tempted to simply poke fun at this guy and laugh at his obscenely ridiculous propositions (I'd wager to say that not too many priests or pastors would agree with the quote from Rep. Shimkus above), and to dismiss him as uneducated and spewing the same sort of tired "job-losing" rhetoric that seems to be the platform of conservatives in America these days. Yet -- he was elected. Maybe this is a flaw of our electoral process. Or maybe it truly does underscore how conflicted our country is ideologically. Somehow though, I don't buy the reliance on the Bible silliness that these guys spew out. It's really just another sentimental framework to hide their utmost faith in the actual religion of the 20th century -- the citadels of free-markets. An important reality check for sure.

Lengthy thoughts from me again, apologies: https://sites.google.com/site/economicresponse/a-thought-experiment

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?

"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.

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.

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.

"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."