LCENVS

The article talks about the new technologies used in planning of a Sherbourne Common in Toronto. The main improvement of this park is its water treatment infrastructure. It also raises topics of urban planning and how nature is integrated into cirties ("New nature is what we culticate in our cities"). 

Not only are our political leaders talking less about doing something about climate change; the American public seem to be a lot less worried about it too. This article discusses why, and links to a recent Pew survey that chronicles the decline in public interest. This big change in political and popular discourse around climate change offers a good opportunity to rethink environmental studies and environmentalism as we move forward in these changed times.

For the cities symposium, some interesting ways to make urban design a bottom up, but intentional process (distinct from top down intentional or bottom up unintentional - 10 points to whoever comes up with a link showing some top down unintentional, though perhaps we could count side effects of a policy that creates forced moves in design somewhere else in a city). Fun to look at, though I wonder what sort of people find this appealing, and what sort of folks might find this threatining, obtrusive, or messy - our own Portland is one of the examples.

This article, which I've now read for two different philosophy classes, isn't directly related to Environmental Studies. However, it discusses the development of philosophical movements and the importance of collaboration for innovation, which reminded me of our unit on the relationship between the Sciences and Humanities. Many famous thinkers were driven by the interests of their friends and peers, which weren't necessarily related to their academic interests at all.

Do we all think of the Earth as a victim to human negligence and greed? Is it unsalvageable and defenseless? Klare believes the Earth is a "powerful actor in its own right and as an avenger, rather than simply victim." Perhaps we should change our perception of Earth to a more robust depiction.

Although ideas in the article are unoriginal, it presents an interesting argument that I am not entirely sure is the best method to go about oil dependency. The author is convinced that adding a fee to any greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a new and clean energy system. "This is what motivates changes in behavior and technological investments." Will this monetary burden be enough to change people's habits and lifestyle, or will we become creative in other ways to dance around this dependence? One major critique I have of this proposal is how slow this conversion process will be. It also seems as if we are simply designing a new way to herd the sheep of society without taking a moment to look up and recognize the bigger implications and options.

Questions our assumption that there's a healthy or natural diet that humanity needs to return to. Another example of where we may be creating false divides between nature and culture.

This is an example of the kind of food advice I feel good about listening to. These guys have taken the time to look at the big picture, crunch the numbers, and take more into account than their initial assumptions. It's just a preliminary study for the New York area, but it's a good example of the kind of research we need for informed decision making.

Just heard this podcast, and it's a really great example of situated research, in this case on fracking in Pennsylvania. The story is divided into two acts: the first concerns the role of scientists in the controversy, and the second concerns the politics of small towns caught up in gas exploration. I'd strongly recommend it, if only to suggest to your families over the winter break what situated research can look like!

While this is old news, the issue is still very current in Hungary. While I spent time living in Budapest I found that despite the Hungarian company MAL's lack of safety regulations, the Hungarian government ended up paying the brunt of reparations to the victims of the red sludge disaster in October 2010. The issue is very pertinent after Hungary's EU Presidency in January-June 2011, and in fact it has caused the EU to tighten regulations on what constitutes "toxic" red mud throughout Europe.

Rice is responsible for feeding half the world, or more than 3.5 billion people. And along its path from paddy to plate, it influences (and is influenced by) a ton of things. This reminds me of other studies we've read that follow one particular item from a diverse range of perspectives. Fun read for an international food perspective very much rooted in the East - perhaps something to chew on for next years symposium?

As most of us are aware, the world's population recently passed the 7 billion mark and we're scheduled to hit 9 billion by 2050. This article discusses 7 problems that we'll have to worry about as population continues to rise. We, as ENVS students, are already aware of these issues; water, climate change, and food security to name a few. However, some of the academics interviewed have very interesting ideas about solutions to these challenges (no-growth economy for example). For the feminists among us, Roger Short states that "We need to feminise the world and look first and foremost at the interests of women because they're the ones that are going to decide our future and it is their determination to limit the size of their families which will be the saviour of the world," which I thought was pretty interesting.

With the recent Wall St (and everywhere else) protests going on this article seemed appropriate. A Zurich research team using economic data from Orbis has revealed 147 closely knit corporations that control %40 of the wealth of the entire network studied (about 40,000 corporations in total).

An interesting piece that highlights the need for sustainable fisheries. This article discusses the damage deep-sea fisheries have done to ocean life; sea life at the bottom of the ocean is significantly slower than other forms of fisheries.

In SOAN249 today we briefly touched upon genetically altered Salmon, I looked into it more tonight--here's what I read. It seems like a crazy idea, like we talked about in class the Salmon are eating and being treated not so much as fish but another species. Fish live in the ocean, and Salmon are carnivorious, the fact that we are feeding them corn and other plant based materials, furthers the absurdity of the idea. Its taking an animal and reconstructing not only the biological make up but reconfiguring the behavioral patterns and 'lifestyle'.

Just here in time for fall semester: new theories on how to study effectively…and some vindication of techniques you may already be following.

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 article addresses the dangers of industries growing too quickly without adopting practices to accommodate mass production. It also presents a scary picture of the holes in FDA standards and regulations.

Here's an interesting quote from BPA: "In the interest of getting as much wind on the system as we can, it's important to find other resources.''  This article clarifies how the upturn in wind production is driving an upturn in other (often conventional) sources of energy, and how, ironically, wind energy will be more stable once much larger energy systems (read: lots of powerlines) are built.  Wind, the icon of energy self-sufficiency, actually may depend on mega-networks and conventional sources to achieve its rightful place.

A short editorial on the well-financed mounting opposition against AB 32 in California, a law passed in 2006 aiming to reduce greenhouse gas levels. The opposition is lead by energy companies fearful of the cutback in gasoline consumption and by critics of global warming (due to man-made emissions), who are pouring in a lot of money to kill the law. Needless to say, not the most uplifting article.