LCENVS

Everyone's favorite players and the battle over cities that probably won't happen. Interesting article on the politics of cities, and how environmentalists have indeed been killing some forms of condensed living in favor of "viewsheds" and suburban dwellings for exurbanites. Draws into a lot of topics discussed this week in ENVS.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

As we are currently pursuing a LEED platinum certification for our new dorm building, this might be a good time to ask ourselves if following the status quo "green fads" is really the best way to be a "leader in sustainability"... especially if those fads could be falling out of popularity and assumed legitimacy

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.

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.

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.

At face value, this doesn't look terribly environmental. And the explicit content really isn't (unless you count carbon emissions from burning tires in the streets and such), though no doubt there will be impacts on resource decisions, etc... if we dig for it. I bring it up more because of the implications it has for our ability to predict developments in the future. In ENVS 160, this applies pretty directly to the Limits to Growth model we've been discussing (as readily as it applies to optimistic predictions of world growth - predictions either way). It brings us to that ever present thorn in the side of decision makers: we don't know what the future holds, or what will make it get there. Where someone parked their car impacted the course of a nation, and the international focus on Egypt today can show how that has widespread impacts as well. If we're cautious and uncomfortable with the mystery of the future, resilience may be a way to hedge our bets, relating to another issue in the class. Otherwise, it largely seems to be a gamble. Even the broad trends can jump. How much will we ever be able to model, when it comes to systems this complex? A recognition of the limits of prediction, not a statement to their being invaluable (no one predicted the car, and it mattered in the outcome. But people could have predicted social unrest resulting in many people in the streets, and that was needed to take advantage of what the car provided)

"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."

Jim Litts, who founded KWERI (Klamath Wetland Education and Research Institute), has a good informational website on the topic, including this page with links to background documents.  As you may know, the Klamath Basin in south-central Oregon has been the focus of dispute over water use for some time, and there are a variety of local, state, and federal players in the game at this point; a very good situated case!

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?

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.