LCENVS

Many of you have read my historian colleague Bill Cronon's work on wilderness, narrative, and other topics in environmental studies; now he's the target of political demands given his public stance on the labor situation in Wisconsin.  What does this suggest as to the appropriate bounds of engagement among scholars in political disputes, and when do we cross the line in serving our citizen role as advocates? (I don't think it's as simple as whether or not we use our work emails in doing so, as his assailants chillingly demand.)

What sounds like an alarmist heading on nuclear power post-Japan scare is actually a rather nuanced discussion of how nuclear power could be safer.

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

An interesting article on the development side of "sustainable development." Perhaps economic measures are indeed overrated?

So, is the era of freeway utopias finally over?  Well, not everywhere, but in some cases indeed they are coming down in a number of US cities. So, what seems to be the pattern connecting these once-icons of freedom that are now (or soon to be) gone, vs. those that are remaining (or expanding)?

Here you go: a battle between House Demos and Republicans over something that really matters!

The EPA has unveiled new, more stringent standards for coal-burning power plants. Their main argument for the regulations is for health purposes, not to penalize the industry. However, manufacturers argue that "stringent, unrealistic regulations such as these will curb the recent economic growth we have seen," and create job loss and plant closures.

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.