LCENVS

The above article is the Break Through Institute's semi-recent report on the Jevons' Paradox, which I posted additional links to here and debated in class. For the record, the report is favorable. Also for the record, I have not read it completely, and am not laying down final judgment. However: I promised Jim I would respond to this at some point. I still hope to. In the meantime, this is worth musing over (if the link doesn't work, I have the PDF). https://files.me.com/jgkoomey/0aqqfm I really appreciate Break Through and the dismantling of environmentalism's sacred cows, but I'm concerned about this one. Many of their other critiques and analysis seem to have the empirical evidence, but I have yet to be convinced by what I've seen here. Obviously it is a long report, and I have not gotten to read through it entirely, but so far I remain unconvinced. I think they're thinking about the problem in the right way (the economy is a complex social, political, and economic system, it does defy basic models and equations, and if the emergence idea continues to hold up it is a right environment for them) and I really enjoy reading their analysis, but I remain unconvinced by the numbers. Our economy is not composed in such a way that energy is a primary limiting factor to production, which would surely deaden the effect, among other theoretical threats to the idea on both a micro and macro scale. Politically, efficiency measures will continue to allow solar energy and other alternative competitors to carry more weight than they do now, allowing us to free ourselves from the need for energy intense liquids or solids like coal, gas, and oil in favor of less "compact" energy sources. Break Through Institute offers some excellent political analysis, and their efforts at getting outside and away from the usual political roadblocks and antics are appreciated. But I wonder if they

Obviously, its not my expertise either, and I'm woefully ignorant in all this ultimately. But their credentials don't seem to be in deep energy analysis and research, and one academic report where I do find Jesse Jenkins (of BTI, who helped write that report and is an energy expert) still encouraged energy efficiency measures (http://www.brookings-tsinghua.cn/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/0209_energy_innovation_muro/0209_energy_innovation_muro_full.pdf). I'm not bold enough to lay down final judgment, but I'm going to need a lot more convincing. BTI makes a lot of convincing arguments that I really like - so far, this hasn't been one of them. But like I said, I'm still reading. And trying to get a handle on what Shellenberger, Nordhaus, and Jenkins have under their belts in terms of economic, versus political (when the two are even seperable), analysis. If there is other stuff worth reading in that regard, I'd love to get my hands on it.

Another reminder that anything like a global fisheries assessment is a complex matter, based on all sorts of assumptions and models.  The upshot: either things are terrible, or they're just not great (e.g., 70 vs. 33 percent of all stocks estimated to be declining). One of the challenges: how extrapolate known longitudinal data on fish stocks to the many others that are less well monitored?

Portland: where sustainability = green = white?

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.

This article discusses the government's recently launched research on how anaerobic digestion, "a renewable energy technology that generates heat and electricity from waste organic matter," could possibly replace manufactured nitrogen fertilizer. They hope this will save money for the farmers and increase yield.

This is a neat setup and visual displaying environmental movements in conjunction with presidencies. Lots of cool facts included.

The article expands on the issue of moss and homeowners. Along with the high rate of growth for moss this year, there is an economic growth surrounding it. People are paying more for landscapers to remove moss off roofs and gardens. However, some practices of preventative chemical spraying are controversial, as always. It's an interesting look at moss, something this region is so familiar with.

Grasshopper, anyone? This article expands upon a notion I have heard about several times before, but haven't considered its possibilities on large-scale. Many countries, such as Japan and Mexico, are already comfortable with bug consumption. It has proven to be extremely nutritious in amino acids and protein. It is also very efficient space-wise, as discovered in Japan. No matter the practicality of bugs in curbing global warming, the consumers must be willing to eat them. In American culture, bugs are perceived as dirty and disease-ridden. What would it take to reshape citizens' attitude around bugs to allow this expansion?

This misleading title does not represent the argument of the author, who explores the possibility that 2011's record snowfalls and the water conditions caused by the oil spill have caused significant die off of baby dolphins in the Gulf.

Ninety five percent of the corn gene has been successfully mapped out. Scientists claim that with this genetic information, they will be able to "develop new maize varieties that withstand prolonged heat and drought, use nutrients such a nitrogen more efficiently, or pack more nutrition per kernel."

I, like most of us (I would guess), am not a fan of consumerism. In general I view it as pretty close to something that is inherently bad. While I see a need and value in consumption, consumerism has failed to impress me. However this art exhibit in Germany takes a deeper look, and digs into some things that need to be considered. Particularly interesting is the role shopping plays in one's perception of independence, freedom, or one's role as a lover or caretaker. It points out that in many countries shopping is one of the rare opportunities in which it is acceptable for women to have some degree of agency, or to even leave the house. And it points out the power of shopping and market places as cultural and social areas (though in many parts of the U.S., I would question how true that is. Still, I know of one grocery store where I'm from where people often go and spend time socializing with people from around the area, and the southern side of my family has recounted tales of getting dressed up to go to the local grocery store, so I can see it). What I really liked about what this exhibit does is that it seems to critique consumerism merely by calling attention to it, but it does not attack an essentialized straw man. Rather it sounds as though it attempts to dig deeper into what consumerism is, both positive and negative, and judge it on those grounds rather than merely give it the more general abuse it usually recieves.

Apparently windmills cause climate change too, both macro and micro. Not much to say depth wise, I just thought it was interesting. Does pose potential challenges to wind expansion in the future, perhaps.

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.

From Anti-Matter to floating wind farms, these are some practical and not-practical-yet energy alternatives. Many are well known, others are not, and some are new twists on older ideas. The question I still have is speed - can we implement these fast enough?

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.

In accordance to our recent 160 readings, the Rocky Mountain Wolf has been removed from the endangered species list. This is the first time Congress has gotten directly involved in the Endangered Species Act. What are your thoughts on government and political control "rather than a science-based federal agency, remove endangered species protections?"

An NYT article highlighting Vaclav Smil's outlook on energy. We have read a few Smil articles in ENVS 160 about population and peak oil, in which he expresses the same ideas in this article. Smil does not oppose new energy alternatives, however he believes oil and coal are still necessary; we just need to be more efficient.

Although it has been almost a year since the Horizon/ BP oil spill began, this article offers hope and summary of the effects on the Gulf ecosystem.

This article talks about KiOR's plans to use "non-food biomass" and convert it into gasoline and diesel through biocrude technology. KiOR plans to use both wood chips and crude oil to create gasoline. This procedure, KiOR claims, will reduce "direct lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions by over 80% compared to the petroleum-based fuels they displace."

Impressive show by a nation, I wouldn't have expected this from anywhere.