Bobby Kennedy Jr. (Environmental Event II)

Bobby Kennedy Jr.’s lecture can easily be described as inspirational. Prior to taking this class, I never realized that there were discourses that argued the economic importance of protecting resources. The lecture was reassuring in that it showed that there are people in positions of power that know how to communicate environmental issues in a way that I think resonates with a majority of the population. His discussion on the impact of coal mining mentioned the challenge to the integrity of the environment it poses, but stressed the health and economic implications as well. While I whole heartedly believe that the environment holds intrinsic value, I also believe that this is not the best reason to protect it. Economic welfare and quality of human life obviously come first on Kennedy’s list of priorities, something which I think has been lacking in many of the environmentalist opinions I have heard. In the true spirit of being a politician, Kennedy did not hesitate to spout impressive statistics without necessarily backing them up. While this is obviously not something I agree with, it shows that we can’t just rely on scientists to reach people on environmental issues. We need people like Kennedy to reach out to demographics that are not ready to read the IPCC cover to cover, who would respond more to a charming man whose top priority is their livelihood within the context of preserving natural resources.

Farmers' Market (Environmental Event I)

Several weeks ago I visited one of the farmers' markets that are periodically set up near the alumni house. I first spoke to a woman selling organic cheeses. She explained to me that she collected fertilizer from her goats and gave them it to other local farmers, but then seemed dismayed that I couldn’t afford a 10 dollar piece of goat cheese. Afterwards, I spoke with a woman selling salsa, next to which was a sign stating “all local, non-certified organic”. I asked her what she meant by that and she explained that she and many other farmers felt that the government standard for organic was too lax and hypocritical. She said that according to that standard, only 20% of a product needs to be organic in order for it to qualify as organic. Also, that farms need to be of a certain size before they can be certified, pressuring farmers to use inorganic means of production such as synthetic nitrogen and pesticides. She described her own methods of production as “old school” organic, relating it to the methods used prior to the creation of the government standard. She warned me that most produce labeled “organic” was most likely treated with different kinds of chemicals that delay and initiate the appearance of ripeness, but do nothing to delay the natural process of nutrients being broken down. In light of our class’ discussion on the labeling of products as organic, I found this conversation to be very insightful as to the various opinions on the subject.

Response 8

Continuing the section on biodiversity and ecosystem services, one of this previous week’s readings was the MEA 2005 Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis. Like the section we had read at the beginning of the semester, the Biodiversity Synthesis made many points geared towards convincing readers that environmental action was economically and politically important. However, with that previous section I felt like I had already had some prior knowledge to the arguments made. Prior to reading the Biodiversity Synthesis, I had little to base any of my own arguments for protecting biodiversity than it’s intrinsic and spiritual importance. I think one of the most crucial points made in the synthesis was the importance of biodiversity to the poorer people of the world.

The idea that the mass production of select, cheap food species as being detrimental to the poor I feel is counter intuitive at first. However, in The Omnivore’s Dilemma, the author shows that its effects are not only felt abroad. The farmers of cheap corn in the Mid-West are constantly fighting an uphill battle against (what the author describes as) seemingly perverted economic policies and patterns. If what could be considered the backbone of the American food industry is suffering, then imagine the livelihoods of those who are only paid to till the ground by the literal fruits of their labors (i.e. hunter gatherers who rely on forests for food, only to have their land succumb to illegal logging or slash and burn clearing for farming).

The plight of the two communities in the film “Milking the Rhino” echoed this problem. Both communities herded cattle (typically considered a controlled agrarian activity), their welfare depending directly upon the quality of the land much. The loss of local species was blamed upon colonization, leading to the degradation of quality of life described in the Biodiversity Synthesis. After watching the film, I cannot decide if the direct nature of the communities’ efforts at conservation were meant to be portrayed as a potential, grass roots solution to biodiversity loss, or to demonstrate the sheer scale of the problem by insinuating that the issue was too great for them to solve. After all, the ruinous length of the dry season could be blamed on global warming, a situation these people have little power in affecting but which placed heavy stress on their goal to conserve local wildlife.

response 7

The previous week’s readings consisted mostly of the IPCC, but also of a collection of excerpts on biodiversity and conservation. The topics in the IPCC were on probable climate changes by region, possible adaptation and mitigation in order to deal with climate change, long-term perspectives, and uncertainties.

This half of the IPCC was easier to understand than previous assigned topics. The graph on suggested forms of mitigation in different sectors that will be affected by climate change was accessible enough, although a little generalized and not as informative as the preceding paragraphs. I think describing possible options to cope with climate change is important in documents such as the IPCC. It seems that whenever the argument on climate change is raised, naysayers will often demand a reasonable alternative to systems already in place. For example, progress with Agenda 21 was sluggish because of its lack of direction on how to actually implement sustainable development.

The readings on biodiversity and conservation ranged from explanations on drivers for loss of biodiversity, to the creation of the earth depicted in Genesis. I found the grouping of these readings to be very revealing. For example, in Genesis, man is portrayed as the ruler of the plants and animals bestowed upon the earth by God. In “With Mouth Wide Open”, the cod is described in the context of a commodity, and it isn’t until the very last sentence that it is revealed that the author is aware of this unfortunate designation (describing its human hunters as even more greedy than the wide mouthed fish itself). This seemed to reveal the prevalence of the idea that earth is prime for man’s taking and nothing more than a resource to harvest. In the excerpt “Biodiversity Reaches the Peak”, the “dynastic succession” of global ecosystems seems to suggest that we mistakenly assume that the status quo is static despite histories of mass extinction that will probably wipe us out as well. My favorite excerpt was “The View from Walden”, where common views on biodiversity and man’s place within it are deconstructed. While I admit to being guilty of assuming things like the concept of a climax wilderness untouched by human hands, it agree with the author’s idea on how biodiversity is not static, and we are very much apart of it, no matter which way we affect it.

No, it's really not that cool (response #6)

Week six we were presented with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, juxtaposed to the short film “It’s All Cool”. The IPCC is a seemingly endless conglomeration of scientific statements of how climate change is very likely, and “It’s All Cool” is an accessible look at how many of these statements have been rejected by Joe Public and the government. Neither seemed to postulate a positive outlook on the situation of how environmental policy should be approached. I had difficulty retaining the information presented in the IPCC beyond the general theme that the scientists involved are highly certain of not only the existence of climate change, but also of carbon dioxide’s role in climate change and the rate at which it will happen. The limited accessibility of the graphs quells some (but not much) of my disbelief at how many policy makers are stubborn to acknowledge global warming and its ilk. However, like with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, I find myself frustrated that it’s contents are not taken more seriously. In “It’s All Cool”, the government’s reluctance to create effective environmental policy is revealed. I was particularly amazed at the placement of lobbyists in organizations such as the White House Council on Environmental Quality. It seemed like a worst-case scenario out of Dryzek’s chapter on administrative rationalism. It amazes me that there are not laws to prevent such things, but then again, I do not know enough about American politics to know if such a law would be unconstitutional in some way. While I found “It’s All Cool” to be very insightful to the obstacles environmental scientists face when trying to have their work adopted into policy, the conclusion to the film was far too simplistic and, as far as I can tell, mostly untrue. The aftermath of Katrina was presented to the viewer as a catalyst for a major change in policy and public opinion of environmentalism. I personally heard much less about environmentalism than I did about the inefficiency of the government after the storm. Obviously, environmental scientists still face major hurdles when it comes to having their work accepted by policy makers seeing as the United States still does not adhere to agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, nor has it implemented any major changes to its policy.

Pessimism (Response #5)

The previous readings focused mainly on the attempts governments have made at controlling environmental change, and the reasons why many of these have not worked. The passages from Red Sky at Morning outline Speth’s argument that many of societies’ systems contribute to seemingly unstoppable positive feedback loops that may even be perpetuated by our attempts to limit them. Dryzek’s chapter on sustainable development offers a less biased view on the attempts governments have made to effect climate change in relation to economic development. Speth, as always, seems very pessimistic on humanity’s ability or willingness to prevent environmental catastrophe. He explains that the fervor of the environmental movement in the 70s was fueled by the experiences of individuals; environmental disasters had immediate and obvious effects on every day people, compared to the seemingly distant consequences of global climate change. According to Speth, the inherent complexity of the responses required to affect the global climate for the better severely clash with existing systems of governance and economics. While I agree with this general notion, I feel that Speth’s pessimism (while understandable) does not give credit where credit is due. Dryzek’s explanation of how the discourse of sustainable development slowly worked its way into international politics is a more balanced opinion. Dryzek does not hesitate to describe when and why policies fail, but offers this more as an example of how large scale change can happen gradually when it comes to politics instead of how governments are incapable of effective environmental policy. While Dryzek certainly tends to be less artistic with his writing, these sets of readings made me realize how much I enjoy studying political theory over studying more opinion based political writings. These readings make me yearn to learn more positive outlooks on environmental politics. When asked what I think should be done in order to solve environmental problems, I can only think of the failed examples I have learned about and all of the reasons why our way of life contributes to environmental disaster. I would really like to learn about current ideas that haven’t been proven to be useless or faulted yet.

More Discourses

Continuing with Dryzek’s descriptions of political discourses, this week was focused primarily on administrative rationalism and democratic pragmatism. I think that the best way to differentiate between the two is conveniently provided by the chapter titles “Leave it to the Experts” and “Leave it to the People”. The first discourse dictates that government appointed experts in the field should delegate environmental policy. The second, that governments and corporations should democratically respond to public opinion.

In discussing the drawbacks to the two discourses, I realized how I have observed their effects in every day life, particularly of democratic pragmatism. One of its drawbacks is a somewhat deceptive response of corporations in order to placate public demands called “green washing”. With the demand for “green” products on the rise, corporations may mislead consumers by claiming a product is environmentally friendly when other aspects of it may not be at all. For example, the label on a box of green tea I bought the other day assured me that each tea bag was biodegradable. When I got home and opened the box I realized that each biodegradable tea bag was individually wrapped in (obviously non-biodegradable) cellophane. In the case of administrative rationalism, agencies developed to develop environmental policy may be ineffective when the “experts” manning them benefit from the very industries they are supposed to keep in check, or when agencies do not communicate and counteract each other’s actions.

It may be that the only way to effectively over come these two discourses’ shortcomings is to combine them. Allowing for transparency of the policies created by the agencies installed by administrative rationalism will create more accountability for failed policies and agencies. Using administrative rationalism to ensure that the public has an informed opinion would prevent a “tyranny of the majority”.

Food Party!

This past week we have been studying the main discourses of environmental politics. In Politics of the Earth, Dryzek describes four discourses, breaking each of them down to its main elements: problem solving, survivalism, sustainability, and green radicalism. At first, I had some difficulty understanding Dryzek’s method of categorizing the discourses but after further reading I am slowly grasping their nuances. I also received some unexpected and yet highly entertaining inspiration from the new 3D animated film “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs”.

The film tells the tale of a tiny island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean called Swallow Falls. A young, socially awkward inventor by the name of Flint Lockwood invents a device that converts water to food, making the island a tourist destination and its residence quite over weight. However, the machine malfunctions producing mutant giant food that threatens to destroy not only the town, but also much of the rest of the world. Despite protests from a greedy mayor, Flint must disarm the machine at the expense of the island’s (and his own) fame and fortune.

This seems to be an obvious criticism of the Promethean discourse. Flint’s machine seems to magically convert water into unlimited quantities of food, reflecting the Promethean belief that, with enough energy, any resource can be obtained from another. This literal raining down of resources is automatically received as an undeniable good to the islanders. When food starts to clog the streets, the islander’s launch the munchies onto “Mt. Leftovers” which is supported by a “most likely unbreakable damn”. The mayor insists upon the unchecked conversion of water into food in order to secure the tourist industry, despite warnings from Flint, his meteorologist friend, and common sense. This thinly veiled metaphor for unrelenting economic growth is presented in an extremely comical light, perhaps to demonstrate how obvious of a problem we face today. Flint’s food convertor might also be a metaphor for the Green Revolution of the 20th century. While the islanders are definitely being fed better than they were before, they are so at the expense of the environment and their own safety, similar to the effects of synthetic nitrogen, pesticides, and GMOs.

Like many other “climate disaster movies”, “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” reveals the evils and potential dangers of unchecked industrial growth. However, because of its light and comical nature I feel that this movie may be especially effective at targeting a younger audience.

Statistically, We're Screwed.

This week's readings focused primarily on statistics and examples of how various human activities have negatively impacted the world we live in. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment seems to be purposefully overwhelming with its amount of data. Red Sky at Morning, Speth takes on an almost preaching tone while he describes the numerous instances where human development has virtually destroyed many ecosystems once prolific on this planet. I found these readings troubling, at the very least. While I have always had an interest in environmentalism, I have never been exposed to the actual statistics of how dramatic the situation is.

While Speth’s tone may sometimes be too dramatic and condemning, it is effective in that the reader is compelled to read on in hopes of an answer to the crisis he describes. I, for one, am eager to see how he expands on ways to counteract the damage caused. I was most interested in the section in chapter three where he discusses the need for change in public policy in order to facilitate environmental change, particularly in regards to developing states.

The issue of the environmental impact created by developing countries was also touched upon in the film “Endangered Planet”. The people living in these countries are forced to view environmentalism as a luxury reserved for those who can afford to deviate from inexpensive and yet deleterious methods of production. I agree with Speth when he says that “It is doubtful…the developing nations will act on their emissions unless the industrial nations…validate the seriousness of the issue and demonstrate their commitment to action by taking steps first”. Also, Speth links excessive deterioration of natural environments to corrupt governments, citing the example that 80% of timber taken from the Amazon is illegally felled. With this in mind, it is very easy to see why poorer countries ruled by corrupt governments would be difficult to reach without large-scale international pressure. This pressure can only be applied once we ourselves implement reforms on our own systems.

The other day while stumbling around on the internet I read an article that seemed somewhat relevant, or at least symbolic. A soldier in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was eaten by a hippopotamus while illegally fishing (Source: news.yahoo.com). I think we should all take a hint.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090912/wl_africa_afp/drcongomilitaryanimalenvironment_20090912175132

The Tree Contemplates Me

In Red Sky at Morning, author James Gustav Speth laments that “…the only way to save the marvelous world we inherited is to convince people that it is worth more economically alive than dead”. Sources like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment exist in order to convince policy makers of the value of protecting natural resources and other species. The MEA only briefly touches on the intrinsic value that the natural world has, that the other inhabitants share the same ethical right to live that we assign humans. The argument that humans inherently owe the natural world ethical treatment finds difficulty taking hold in the masses possibly due to the argument’s fundamental nature. In confronting nature, a human essentially confronts the ultimate Other. Western society’s historic oppression of the Other shows that improvements will not be made until ethical rights are extended to protect it.

The philosophical notion of the Other is the product of separating one’s self from its surroundings, differentiating between the subject and the object. On a larger scale, the Other may be used to describe minority groups, gender-identities, and paradigms that do not align with the status quo. In the case of the natural world and western society, Mother Nature is a mysterious and dangerous Other that can and must be conquered and commoditized. Like a slave at auction, she is stripped of her intrinsic value and instead marked with a price tag. The ideals of unbridled economic expansion and development clash against the natural cycles that delicately and dutifully regulate our environment. It is speculated that continuing trends will irreversibly destroy much of the Earth’s ecosystems in the foreseeable future.

In the case of race and gender related rights, the Other is no longer (or is less) oppressed when the majority realizes the Other is also a subject. Obviously, this is much harder to do in the case of nature, as it definitively non-human. However, in Martin Buber’s “I Contemplate the Tree”, the author recognizes and confronts his alienation from nature.

He first describes viewing the tree as object, ignorant of its intricacies and uniqueness. He then goes on to describe being “…drawn into a relation, (where) the tree ceases to be an it”. Buber’s tree is no longer just an object to his subjectivity, but a subject all its own. It must “deal” with Buber as he deals with it, that is inevitably the tree is in some way perceiving his presence and objectifying him. The duality of each individual is both an object and subject at the same time demonstrates and interconnectedness and similarity between the individuals, perhaps even that they are one in the same. As Buber puts it: relation is reciprocity.

Historically, oppression of and rejecting the Other is achieved through dehumanization (slavery once again being a prime example). The very word “dehumanize” suggests an alienation from other species. Mistreating a human degrades them to that of what is essentially non-human. Environmentalism struggles to overcome this dilemma, but as Speth points out and the MEA proves, the natural world may only be salvageable by commoditizing it further.

I Blog, You Blog

Testing, testing, one, two, three...