LCENVS

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.

"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."

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.

Here's a recommended read from Michael Shellenberger.  I'm thinking of all the Focus the Nation climate activism on campus a few years ago, for which one of the concrete policy goals was federal cap and trade legislation.  I wonder if Bryan Walsh's recommendation that we "invest in breakthrough innovation" would garner the same fervor on college campuses, given it's as much an economic and technological solution as a political solution?

St. Regis Princeville Resort settles endangered bird species law suit. They take steps towards maintaining laws.

Another article discussing the "Jeevon Paradox" of energy efficiency, consumption and possible dangers that arise from the two.

Many of you have read my historian colleague Bill Cronon's work on wilderness, narrative, and other topics in environmental studies; now he's the target of political demands given his public stance on the labor situation in Wisconsin.  What does this suggest as to the appropriate bounds of engagement among scholars in political disputes, and when do we cross the line in serving our citizen role as advocates? (I don't think it's as simple as whether or not we use our work emails in doing so, as his assailants chillingly demand.)

Also known as Mountain Top Removal, this is an emerging environmental concern out there. According to http://www.ilovemountains.org/science/ this scientific study 'confirms what coalfield residents have been saying for years: mountaintop removal's impacts are "pervasive and irreversible," "attempts to regulate [mountaintop removal] practices are inadequate," and that "regulators should no longer ignore rigorous science." '

Using market forces to force change on an environmental problem. Some background on the problem: http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/Resources/Fact-sheets/Threats-Water-pollution/ http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/tarsands/Resources/Fact-sheets/threats-health/

An interesting article on the development side of "sustainable development." Perhaps economic measures are indeed overrated?

So, is the era of freeway utopias finally over?  Well, not everywhere, but in some cases indeed they are coming down in a number of US cities. So, what seems to be the pattern connecting these once-icons of freedom that are now (or soon to be) gone, vs. those that are remaining (or expanding)?

Here you go: a battle between House Demos and Republicans over something that really matters!

The EPA has unveiled new, more stringent standards for coal-burning power plants. Their main argument for the regulations is for health purposes, not to penalize the industry. However, manufacturers argue that "stringent, unrealistic regulations such as these will curb the recent economic growth we have seen," and create job loss and plant closures.

I like this article. It solidifies a vague discomfort I've had with the climate emphasis lately. It doesnt say that environmentalists and PCCCCE are mutually exclusive titles, but they should be different. "For one thing, not all environmentalists are primarily PCCCCE (people who care about climate change and clean energy) -- there are still some, believe it or not, who focus on things like land preservation or biodiversity."

Shellenberger and Nordhaus update their classic tirade, now over six years following its original release.

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??

A national park plans to be converted into agricultural land, yet this poses a great threat for wildlife migrations.

Fungi grow on coffee ground "waste," produce large edible mushrooms, and leave behind rich fertile soil for your gardens. Sound too good to be true? Incorporating and working within pre-existing energy cycles, and keeping the whole system in mind when addressing issues of "waste" and "resources" can result in some surprisingly beneficial and efficient solutions! The even more exciting news? We're doing this too! There's a large bin in the basement of Juniper, full of the Bon's coffee grounds, now sprouting several pounds of oyster mushrooms. Take home message behind inspirational change? Follow the ideas that excite you, and bring them to life in your framework of time and place.