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”.