LCENVS

Farm Together Now in its most elemental form is a book about American farmers in the 21st century. In particular, this book addresses the other side of American agriculture: innovations moving towards sustainable farming practices. This is achieved through 20 interviews with farmers and activists across the nation along with 60 beautiful photos of their lives.  Although honing all 20 of the interviews down into one specific argument is difficult, the purpose of this book is to see the unity in all of their individual and sometimes philosophically contradictory approaches to sustainable agriculture. The authors argue that a shift in the dominant agricultural paradigm will not occur unless farmers and citizens are united in resisting it and are invested in working together to forge a more sustainable agricultural system.  What this book lacks is a deeper discussion of conflicting views in sustainable agriculture. The three issues that Franceschini and Tucker identified are provocative and would make a very interesting follow-up book.  Despite the author's insistence that we "Farm together now", they do not explore how sustainable farmers can reconcile their differences to do just that.  Although it's likely that urban, educated people are the main consumers of this book, I feel that it has value outside of those exclusive communities and would be beneficial for farmers, artists, and anyone looking for solutions to local problems. Personally, I would recommend this book to anyone because I feel that the authors made a sometimes-scary topic more approachable through this intimate portrayal of farmers. 

The film itself is interesting, but not surprising in its general concept - instead of apocalyptic imagery and fear, embrace a more positive, benefits centered climate change thing. What I thought was more interesting was how they intentionally draw from a whole range of cultural perspectives, which I think is most significant when read as an implicit statement that issues of relating to other cultural mindsets and attitudes, rather than just having solid science and good ideas, may make the difference in solving environmental issues. Perhaps its an obvious statement, but it is worth remembering as we sit on a campus fairly lacking in cultural or ideological diversity. Other people see the world in certain ways, and sometimes we have to convince them through those ways rather than via the logic of our own worldview. But do we sacrifice our cause by trying to achieve our goals via means/arguments we don't neccesarily agree with?

I just watched the trailer, but I think I still got the point. Why not encourage consumption of cleaner, more-efficient renewable energy as opposed to trying to change the values of a whole culture and come off as a proselytizing environmental-elitist? It would sure be a lot less stressful way to try to enact change. I'd have to see the film in its entirety but it seems that they are taking something of a "let markets fix the problem" approach, but in a way that I can agree with. We have to come to terms with the fact that Americans aren't going to magically start consuming less just because us conservationists think it's the right way to live. I love the line where one guy says not to [support renewable efficient energy] because you care about the environment, do it cause you're a greedy bastard and want cheap power. People aren't going to change exactly how we want them, so let's just work with them.

So, where exactly do we draw the line on what we can morally eat if all life strives to live?  The author raises good questions regarding our tidy categories.

Understandably, at first glance one would be skeptical because this article seems to have greenwashing written all over it. Still, it is an important step in the right direction, and as the Super Bowl isn't going anywhere we might as well applaud efforts to be aware of it's footprint.

One provocative article on the Japan nuclear scare, arguing that its impacts on the global nuclear industry will be minimal.

Check out this conference, titled "Resilience, Innovation, and Sustainability: Navigating the Complexities of Global Change," for some interesting interdisciplinary work.

Most forecasts have presumed that animal farming is stuck on a treadmill that will only have to move faster and faster to keep up with a growing population and greater demand for meat. Animals must become more confined and concentrated--there's no turning back! The authors in this collection, however, while recognizing the severity of the problems with our current animal farming practices, take a more optimistic outlook, arguing that a renewal of the agrarian contract is more than just philosophically compelling. It is also in the interests of business and consumer welfare. I would especially recommend this book to retailers, farmers, and producers because their reading it would be a great first step towards the communication and collaboration that is necessary to solve the slough of problems around animal farming.

More of a fun story than a striking one, but also a good example of how changing the little things can do a lot - especially when its a lot of little things.

This article suggests that once people are aware of the amount of energy they actually consume, they are more likely to reduce their usage by up to 30%. It goes on to suggest an energy tracker as an app on a smart phone or something of the like. It's a cool idea trying to use technology to promote awareness. I'm not sure if this is promoting Sony technology or if this is a genuine proposal. hmm

yeah! i like that idea.

Screens would be really amazing! I feel like it would have an impact on energy use.

One of environmentalism's favorite past times: ragging on other environmentalist movements for not being as green as the other guy (forgive my cynicism). For what its worth, that may help direct action in the right direction. Or it may stall action due to debate. I find its often a fine line to tread, and calls heavily into realms of psychology and the other social sciences (also a favorite victim of another line of thought in environmentalism) regarding people's various reactions to environmental initiatives or ecologically sound decisions. A lot of folks that I know who are into environmental things have started off trying to bring about ecological change, gotten frustrated, and joined the off-the-gridders. They're very happy people now - but are they doing as much environmental good? It is a worthy question. A lot of great environmental minds have been lost to the off-the-grid, live-in-the-woods mentality. And a lot of great environmental minds have come out of it. Wish they had a little more in terms of research they're citing, since they both make a lot of claims about consumption but don't cite any sources beyond their own experience. That said, its a good intra-movement debate, one I've had with others on this campus, and continue to have with myself.

Social science tells us we're addicted to having children (I imagine evolutionary thought would concur). For the many, many people who go to population as the reason we have so many of our problems, this is probably a pretty dark article to read.

The trailer for the new documentary from everyone's favorite environmental bete-noire, Bjorn Lomborg. What do you think?

This site features major scientists and humanists discussing points of creative overlap, with plenty of interesting ideas and models we could learn from as we attempt to do the same in environmental studies.

Italy is trying to stop people from buying bottled water by outcompeting companies. An interesting idea, though U.S. attitudes to that sort of thing would likely make it hard to apply here. Still, one has to wonder.

From everybody's favorite National Review, a case for global warming - not only existing, but being really, really awesome. And this claim is even claimed to be based on science. Pretty interesting way of thinking. Especially once you accept that change is going to happen, there is something to be said for the logic of we-should-strive-to-maximize-primary-productivity-in-ecosystems (arguably). Really curious what people think, particularly the more ecologically and biologically minded among us.

So interesting, isn't it, that they had to add the adjective "desirable" to "sustainable," as if sustainable is not necessarily desirable. Is this the current state of clarity on our thinking about sustainable solutions?? One of the lead instigators of this journal (Bob Costanza), btw, now heads up the sustainability effort at Portland State.

Short, but significant. Jim Sensenbrenner has announced that his committee on energy independence will be shutting down. The Select Committee on Energy Independence was called a waste of money. Calls to mind Julie Guthman's call to turn to policy and work on policy for environmental issues. Granted, that was agriculture, and this is energy, but ultimately I wonder if in this climate that is a waste or resources, or if because of the antagonism efforts to work on policy were never more necessary. I tend to lean toward the former camp, but still. This may not be all bad news, due to Jim Sensenbrenner. I can't help but do a little bashing. He's from my district, and I've never seen a politician get into so many flustered arguments with high school student's - and adult constituents. Commonly he has given the response "its a complicated issue, you wouldn't understand" to those who have question some of his policy decisions. He also made headlines for storming out of a committee meeting, gavel in hand, after members of the committee asked him to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure. I digress, but this committee was never being run in a way that was tremendously supportive of the climate change initiatives environmental groups tend to desire, and would likely have returned to that state. So it may not be such a bad thing that it is out of the way. Still an important foreshadow of where energy policy has fallen in the political landscape - clearly less of a priority than in the past, for both parties.

I think it's depressing. Although climate change and energy independence could arguably fall under the committees on natural resources and energy/commerce, the fact that there is no longer a committee that specifically targets these issues means they can more easily be ignored. What types of climate change initiatives was the committee against? I don't agree that it might be worth it to cut a somewhat effective committee that specifically targets climate change when there's no replacement for it. Passing climate policy in this climate will probably be difficult. But it will probably be a lot more difficult now that there isn't a group of people working on it directly. I think it was important in changing the view that climate change is a "Democratic" concern and getting Republican support for climate initiatives. At minimum, I think its presence was important in making sure the debate continues to be about what the largest concerns are/ what we can do to address them rather than whether or not climate change exists or not. Sensenbrenner: "While I was initially skeptical of the select committee's mission, it ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate and an opportunity for House Republicans to share a different view on the pressing energy and environment issues that we currently face."

More on the death of the Select Committee on Energy Independence. Details the reasoning behind eliminating the committee and the "laments" of people who supported the committee. Republicans argue that the committee was a waste of money because it overlapped with the House Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce. The opposing point of view: the committee was worth the money, it was influential in passing the first vehicle efficiency legislation in 30 years as well as other climate change-related legislation, and it was essential for initiating bi-partisan movement on climate change and in educating/persuading legislators that climate change does exist. Daniel Weiss (Center for American Progress Action Fund): "We're one of the only countries of the world where leading government officials deny settled science." Will likely be a major roadblock for future climate change legislation.

This trailer for Bjorn Lomborg's movie Cool It takes an alternative look at Global Warming to the opinion expressed by Al Gore in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. He bases his opinions on approaches that aren't reliant on fear tactics.

"An economy run on slave labour has much in common with one run on fossil fuels, argues Jean-Francois Mouhot. Ending suffering means we all need to become modern-day abolitionists."