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.