LCENVS

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.

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

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

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.

A final argument for efficiency, regardless of Jevons, and for more than just environmental reasons. Could efficiency measures - and the companies that bring them about - restore our faltering economy? Energy efficiency in the United States is, according to a few numbers I've seen, hovering around 10-13%. Even if the numbers are way off, that is a lot of room to grow - we could do a lot more, with a lot less energy (which may take some wind out of the sails of catatrophist peak oil theory, though it says nothing about peak oil in general). I am cautious about the "innovation will save the day" argument because even the best ideas get caught up in other forces, and may never surface, but this is a testimony to the fact that "innovation could save some aspect of the day, if we play our cards right." I don't want it to seem like I'm advocating for "the solution" here, but after seeing so much concern about Jevons on moodle, I wanted to step in and give conservation and efficiency measures their time in the sun. Like many of the proposed solutions, they have a place - and unlike many proposed solutions, they are palatable to citizens, governments, markets, businesses, and the political sphere alike. A penny (or kilowatt hour) saved is a penny earned. If the various critiques of Jevons that are floating around are any guide, it certainly won't do any harm.

This is a fairly direct critique of the Owen's piece from the New Yorker by the same fellow as my last article, the Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center. Its a harsh one. In the comments he also addresses issues of population being the real problem with increasing energy use, for any interested in a little bit of that debate.

From the Chief Economist at the Clean Economy Development Center. Also a Grist article (clearly the first Jevons they ran got readership), one of three (I'll post a link to the next one as well), this is a fairly lengthy article on Jevons' that basically comes down to this: "So you'll have to pardon my incredulity when I hear people like Owen claim that Jevons effects are everywhere, because everywhere I look, I can't find them." He then argues that contrary to Jevonian logic "All that's really clear is that for significant periods, energy efficiency has not increased fast enough to cause energy use to go down." Another case for persuing more energy efficiency, not less. One fair critique is that both this fellow and Lovins have vested interests in efficiency efforts. But they do the math right before your eyes, so I'm fairly comfortable with what they're saying. Beyond the math, there are a bunch of theoretical arguments that also force Jevons to take a far humbler stance in environmental and economic theory.

This is for the ENVS 160 discussion we had today. And for the New Yorker reading on Jevons' Paradox we're doing. Jevon's is one of those economic ideas that seems to get necromanced by some combination of economists and the media every once in a while. I run the risk of sounding like I give it no credit with my critiques, but I truly think it needs to stay back in pre-industrial/industrial England where it belongs. Yes, its real. But no, it is not the end of efficiency measures, and especially not conservation. This Grist article was a response to the New Yorker article. But be careful - the article isn't stunning, but the comments are pretty impressive. The article more or less sides with Jevons, using case studies that are convincing to various degrees. But the comments draw some big names in economics and environmental thought, among them Amory Lovins, head of the acclaimed Rocky Mountain Institute. He gets into the numbers, and gives his own insight to the Jevons Paradox. If you're concerned about Jevons, this article/comments combo - and one other article I'll post - is a must read.

Interesting dilemma: should we shoot barred owls to protect the northern spotted owl?  The article features various opinions on whether this would even work, but it does foreground the reality that we have already intervened into nature, and so further intervention may not be as off-limits as typical green thinking would allow.

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.

Relates to next year's symposium on cities: here are some of the popular (and impressive, though unsurprising) approaches cities are taking to becoming more environmentally friendly. Many are rooted in energy concerns and transport, among a few other social equity issues. However almost all commonly share large-scale government investment approaches to creating spatially isolated things (exceptions include bike shares and Curitiba's bus system). Look to Masdar City for one that is fully designed as an environmentalist's paradise (cars are banned). But I would point out that such cities are incredibly expensive to build, and in this case, they're almost guaranteed to be built on the sale of oil. While I don't like to play a game of blood money blame, there is some irony. I'd like to see some cost-benefit analysis that address whether the costs, both monetary and external from the use of oil, really make these projects "better", or if they are more of a show than a practical reality. Curitiba in Brazil is one worth researching as well, if you're interested in cities. Also a design-centric city, Curitiba also tries to build off popular demand, and alongside their environmental wins they have a good list of social records to lay claim to as well. Unlike Portland's own MAX, they have a decent percentage of citizens who actually pay to ride the public transit (despite the fact that it also is run via a system where fare checkers are few and far between), and analysts have credited it to the civic pride generated by the aesthetic value and efficiency of the system. The demand there is a little more organic and if I remember right, the bus system actually uses a few private businesses who compete to provide optimal service. Government steps in to keep things relatively well organized - an interesting economic approach as well. Interesting government programs that combine solutions to poverty, waste, and education in one as well.

Cleveland has an interesting thing as well - low-income, private efforts to address problems locally and at a smaller scale. Theoretically, their approach could be used in a whole range of places, and addresses social concerns in Cleveland far better than something like a new green stadium would. It just requires people willing to set up systems like the one in the article (and funding - the systems they have were funded by another organization, not reliable in terms of expanding the scale of the project or keeping it going into the long term It is also a fairly fancy system - and costlier too. But the idea can be done cheaply). As we prepare to enter discussions on the symposium (meeting on the 10th! A week from today) I'm curious which approach people find more appealing.

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.

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.

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

Connecting immigration sentiments to the anti-invasive fervor of environmentalists (a stylistic, more than a substantive trick, I think) this writer questions the war against non-native species, citing the dynamic and evershifting nature of, well, "nature." I appreciate the sentiment and the focus more on the function of ecological systems, rather than its ever-shifting make up (species lists being as much a burden to ecological thought as a blessing), but its a hard line to tread when you start picking which non-natives and which natives to battle. Zebra mussels, for example, were cited in the piece as lake-cleaning food sources for many small fish and in turn birds. This is true, most research shows that the zebra mussel is becoming a major food source around the great lakes. But is it an improvement? It is a difference, certainly. From a human perspective, its much worse: even beyond the obvious decimation of fishing industries (note the author says it increases populations of SMALL fish), try walking barefoot on a beach cluttered with the remains of zebra mussels. No fun. Lots of blood. Whole generations forced to wear water shoes where bare feet once sufficed. So, if we're forced into acknowledging that we can't rely on the essences of stable-state ecosystems as our guide to how ecological systems should be, what do we use? And can we (should we?) get past anthropocentrism (maybe I should sacrifice my feet, the fishing industry, and the various non-human populations of organisms getting hit by zebra mussels for the zebra mussels, small fish, and birds) in doing so? This is a big question, and I definitely don't have any great answers. But its worth pondering.

This article discusses how hundreds of Japanese residents sought refuge in a nuclear power plant after the tsunami hit. 240 people remain, all of whom are supposedly enjoying a relatively luxurious life compared to their fellow citizens.

This article discusses the possibility that food additives and chemicals have played a leading role in the increase of ADHD in children ages four to 17 in the United States. It cites several studies that indicate diet in a large role of ADHD development. "One study found that the depletion of zinc and copper in children was more prevalent in children with ADHD. Another study found that one particular dye acts as a 'central excitatory agent able to induce hyperkinetic behavior.'"

A Massachusetts biotechnology company claims it has found the means to produce fuel with a type of cyanobacteria that secretes diesel. They state that they can produce "15,000 gallons of diesel full per acre annually, over four times more than the most efficient algal process for making fuel. And they say they can do it at $30 a barrel." Do you think this is feasible? Could this be a step back from moving away from high emission fuels?

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?

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.)