LCENVS

An interesting article from NYTimes Magazine about the communities that are built around alternative movements and the ways these communities shape the movements themselves.

The author, who grew up in Kibera, a large slum in Nairobi we feature in our treatment of the East Africa research site, argues that "Slum tourism turns poverty into entertainment, something that can be momentarily experienced and then escaped from."  I did this myself in a quick tour of Kibera in 2007.  The author concludes, "Slums will not go away because a few dozen Americans or Europeans spent a morning walking around them. There are solutions to our problems - but they won't come about through tours."  I'm curious what those of you who have visited slums as part of an LC overseas program or on your own think about the author's position?

"[Matthew Kahn's] new book, Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future, argues that while it's too late to avoid the major effects of global warming, that's OK because most people will simply move to places that are effectively adapting to the changes. " An intriguing argument on the side of the climate debate we tend to ignore. Kahn believes that it's too late to stop global climate change or even slow it to a noticeable degree, yet he offers some optimistic opinions about what this could mean for humanity. For those who may not like the idea of giving up the "stop global warming" campaign, this interview offers some insight to the rationale behind this perspective. (I dont feel like my tags capture all the topics here, suggestions?)

Interesting blog post that suggests we'll see an increase in global food insecurity and a like "uptick of government enforcement in the area of agricultural commodities." 

Okay, everyone, out go the earplugs when you're in the Great Outdoors!  Has anyone seen similar cases of park visitors being tuned out?

Slate tries to puncture a hole in the Times' analysis here: http://www.slate.com/id/2264778/?from=rss

It's always easy to see how people subscribing to ideas we don't like succumb to groupthink, but we are capable of the same -- here, the topic concerns the anti-Islamicist trend in this country but it could equally concern any environmentalist/anti-environmentalist bandwagons out there. Dowd quotes a Scottish historian: "[People], it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."

Overpopulation was one of the major issues of the early 1970s environmental movement, then became such a divisive issue that it was hard for anyone to discuss. This article considers opportunities and challenges in slowing population growth for India; would be interested if others find it to be reasonable. 

The animal rights movement is making headway on chicken farmers and others who raise livestock.  It's easy to see the economic interests of chicken farmers being affected by these new regulations, but can we appreciate that they genuinely find nothing to be wrong with current cage regulations, as suggested in quotes from this article?

So, our worst fears about GMOs have come true.  But should we still be afraid?  This article starts by saying "This might not even be a problem at all," then describes how genetically engineered canola is sprouting up all along roadsides in North Dakota.  As it turns out, "These genetically engineered canola plants have been found growing along roads in Canada, where canola is widely grown, and in Japan, which imports the crop."  Doesn't this mean lots of other crops will soon follow suit?  One scientist offers in conclusion that plants like corn and soybeans, also preponderantly GMO-based, are "super-domesticated and they just don't really like to go wild." So maybe we'll get used to only certain GMOs alongside our roads?

Military scientists and entomologists collaborated and made some significant breakthroughs in the big bee die-off mystery. The researchers have concluded that a combination of fungal and viral infection is the most likely culprit. It is still uncertain how (or if) the bees can be saved, but now researchers at least have some starting ground. One suggestion at the end of the article is that the fungal part of the infection could potentially be curbed with fungicides to prevent bee deaths. This makes me nervous though. It sounds reasonable enough if the goal is to save bees, but deep down it sounds too much like the way western medicine works -- antibiotics to treat the diseases once they take hold, instead of addressing the root of the problem.

This makes me nervous: http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/08/news/honey_bees_ny_times.fortune/index.htm "What a scientist didn't tell the New York Times about his study on bee deaths" Speaks for itself.

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

Finally, after Regan took off the panels Jimmy Carter put up, they will be putting solar panel on the First Family's living quarters!

From their site: "We believe in listening to the needs the poor tell us about, not assuming we know best. We believe in products and services designed for specific cultural contexts, not just Western hand-me-downs. And we believe that careful attention to design can create innovative-and extremely affordable-solutions to the problems of the other 90%."

As one consultant says, "It's kind of a wild west, anybody can claim themselves to be green."  Of particular interest in this article is the emphasis on third-party certification, but given the motley array of third-party certifiers out there (this is a growth market, after all), even they cannot necessarily be trusted.  I'm also reminded of our AESS conference theme last summer, "Many Shades of Green": perhaps the whole "green" label is problematic?

Addresses the big environmental question of where the force to solve environmental problems will come from. This talk argues for coorporations as the major force - and not the small ones either. Cargill as the change we need? He also touches on ideas of economic externalities at the very end, which is one (atleast in my opinion) of the most important economic ideas (and ideas in general) that relates to environmentalism. Not paying attention to the value of environmental resources is bad for the environment, and bad for the economy. The most recent economic meltdown could be argued to be a product of similar misjudgments in value in the housing market. Simply a good philosophy of progress to keep an eye on. Also interesting how businesses are realizing they want to be competitive into the future, and that is the very definition of sustainability

Definitely valuable points made in this talk. Oddly enough though, for the same reason that I was concerned about the fungicides saving bees, the fundamental theory if this talk worries me. There is a "treat the immediate illness/symptom" ideology at play here. This very well may be the only option for avoiding the pending doom, but we can't rely on this as a long term solution to our sustainability crisis. True, it might be impractical to wait for consumers to get their act together, but if we just give up on that effort all together, we're not going to save ourselves for very long. There needs to be a drastic change in consumerism. If consumers are sent the message that sustainability is being taken care of at the higher level of companies and producers (and this is my main concern with this talk) then we remove all incentive for consumers to change their ways. Jim posted an article about a week ago about how energy efficient appliances do not actually result in reduced energy use, and the main reason this happens is because it makes the consumers feel like they can go back to old (pre-responsibility) energy use habits (or even more) once the appliances are labeled "efficient." In the same way, this sustainable companies idea might not work very long. I'm thinking, for example, the point where he mentions palm oil in China. He says we could say to consumers "go ahead and use palm oil because its all 'good,' " when in reality -- granted, this palm oil might be better than other alternatives, but still -- any use of palm oil is something we should be trying to move away from. This might be a valuable short-term method of saving the world, but in my opinion it has to be just that: short-term. I agree with you that the mention of economic externalities was one of the most important parts. Too bad he didnt expand on this. I would love it if someone should give a TED talk on just this idea (my parents wont listen when I try to explain that even the organic foo

Sounds like, in the long run, a call for a shift in the economic system itself. A little further out there, but I found this one a few nights ago: http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_jackson_s_economic_reality_check.html I recall thinking it sounded a little idealistic at the time, but yesterday's idealism can be today's movement and tomorrow's reality, I suppose. A vague plan for the future from him, but a plan of sorts all the same. Still not sure I buy it, but I can't deny liking the sound of it.

One of the icons of the climate movement is, well, giving up…but imagining a new dawn, one that looks a lot like the utopia of traditional societies that many in the environmental movement prefer: "The momentum of the heat, and the momentum of the economy that power it, can't be turned off quickly enough to prevent hideous damage. But we will keep fighting, in the hope that we can limit that damage. And in the process…we'll help build the architecture for the world that comes next, the dispersed and localized societies that can survive the damage we can no longer prevent.…We'll need, chief among all things, to get smaller and less centralized, to focus not on growth but on maintenance, on a controlled decline from the perilous heights to which we have climbed." So, what's wrong with this picture??

No light read, at 39 pages, but a good source for anyone doing research on the value of ecosystems from an economic perspective. My scant review of it indicates that it brings together a lot of different studies on the benefits people get from natural systems, and how much it would cost us to replace those with artificial systems. From the preface: "Applying economic thinking to the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services can help clarify two critical points: why prosperity and poverty reduction depend on maintaining the flow of benefits from ecosystems; and why successful environmental protection needs to be grounded in sound economics, including explicit recognition, efficient allocation, and fair distribution of the costs and benefits of conservation and sustainable use of natural resources." This report has been cited a lot lately in efforts to create some sort of system that would remove externalities from the pricing of all sorts of goods, and account for the costs of natural capital (i.e. the environment) in producing more or less everything. That would be a major environmental achievement, and social achievement in general.

A better read: http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/1116/the-economics-of-ecosystems Summarizes the report well, and also puts out the big question: can we put a price on everything? I personally am frustrated by how often debates turn into a cost-benefit analysis about the "practicality" of an idea - and I say that as a fan of the field of economics. Should we be resorting to that to defend environmental things that we value, or are there larger ideas and principles at play? Do we weaken the strength of a principles-based argument with a practicality/economically based one?

We'll be discussing several issues connected to this in ENVS 160 come spring, not only related to the technical and political drawbacks of pricing ecosystem services, but also the naive notions of "natural" vs. "artificial" that it often presupposes. The whole exercise reveals about the very best mainstream environmental thought can deliver…which is not good enough, in many recent scholars' opinions.

Publisher's summary: "Author E. N. Anderson maintains that the world can escape impending ecological disaster only by embracing a political and ethical transformation that will imbue modern societies with the same shared sense of emotional rationality practiced by traditional cultures." One of humankind's most perennial utopias is the utopia of the good old days, and this one is near and dear to many in the environmental movement.  What's wrong with this picture?

This article addresses Vietnam's recent reforestation efforts. In the past twenty years, forestry policies have successfully increased net forest cover, however old-growth forests are still insufficiently protected. Although Vietnam has decreased logging in Vietnamese forests, these practices have been outsourced to Laos, Cambodia and Indonesia.