Mine, all mine!

So, I have my blog back, as my professor put it. Am I going to use it? I don't know yet. However, there are some other things that I do know:

I know that I have a week and a half left in this semester before I return to Boston. I'll be living with my brother Michael again at his place in Medford and interning at EnerNOC where I worked last year.

I know that by nightfall on June 19th, I will have a sister-in-law, as the aforementioned brother Michael marries his fiancee of three years. I know I'm looking forward to that weekend.

I know that later in the summer (though I do not know exactly when yet), Michael will move to the west coast to get ready to attend grad school at Berkeley in the field of sustainable energy. This means me being happy for him, and it also means a slight change in my living arrangements from that point in the summer onward.

I know that this fall, I will be taking courses that I'm very excited for. All of my classes follow a "I liked it the first time, so I'll probably like more of it too" pattern:

• Seminar in Human Motivation: Intrinsic Motivation. I took the 200-level version of this course last year and loved it; now I'm back for more with the same professor and a similar topic at the 300-level.
• Topics in Peace Studies: Conflict Resolution Skills. There's been a lot of discussion in the Peace Studies department lately about how students feel like we talk a lot about building consensus and using mediation techniques, but we never actually learn these skills. Some of these discussions later turned into informal skills workshops run by faculty and students, which have been great. Perhaps part of that discussion lead to one of the professors offering this course next semester.
• U.S. Environmental Policy. My current enviro class has been great (the one that I've done these posts for) so I'm taking another enviro course with the same professor.
• Internship with United Workers. Working with that particular non-profit has been incredibly educational for me, especially this past semester, and I believe by spending more hours a week with them, I'll be able to learn more about community organizing and running or being part of a campaign.
• African Drum and Dance. I'm coming back for round 3. I still don't even really think of this as a class; it's just a fun thing to do that they happen to give me credit for.

I know that this fall, on October 10th (10/10/10) there will be a massive global work party organized by 350.org. Baltimore will be the site of just one of the thousands of events happening worldwide that day. As it stands right now, we're trying to get as many local groups involved as we can. We're still early in the planning stage, but I know it's going to be awesome.

Of course, I use "know" loosely. I say "know," but I really mean, "These are my current plans, but all things are still possible." I don't know where the universe is going to lead me, but I'm excited about it. Yay life!

Response #8: Nature vs. Nature

I appreciate Berry's willingness to break down the typical environmental discourses. Basically, he points out that we see nature either as a pool of natural resources from which we can and rightfully should take everything we can, or we see it as a beautiful thing to be protected because we are really just part of nature and when we hurt nature we are only hurting ourselves. These have natural parallels in Dryzek, namely Promethian and Survivalist, though the survivalist parallel is more tenuous. Then he points out that, although the survivalist mentality is closer to accurate, viewing ourselves as "part of the natural world" doesn't really tell the whole story.

Berry states very well a point that I've tried to make before, though never done as him. Our definition of "progress" is leading to our own destruction, and that's no progress at all. Once again, it's not about saving polar bears because they're cute, and it's not about planting flowers because they smell nice (although Berry isn't inherently against those things). It's about a recognition that helping nature thrive helps us thrive, as the survivalists say, with the caveat that it only works if we know exactly what we're doing. We don't need to leave nature alone, as some would say. We can help nature. But we also need to be aware of the difference between helping nature and spraying nitrates which double crop production. There are short-term and long-term effects, and the long-term has been ignored.

Last, and most importantly, I'm going to restate the point I made two posts ago, because Berry says the exact same thing. Nature conservation areas were a good idea to get us started on the environmentalist path, but really, it's an illusion. Everywhere needs to be a conservation area, in a sense. Farms, forests, cities, etc. Of course, they'll look different than what we think of as a "conservation area" today, but they will all be operated under the same principles.

-----

Side note: I've had some experiences with the "so-called nature lover" phenomenon this week worth sharing. A friend posted on his Facebook status how annoyed he gets when people shake cherry blossom trees so that they can get a picture of them swirling around in the wind. I said early on that there is a difference between a pet owner and an animal lover (though they sometimes line up), and similarly, there is a difference between a person who thinks cherry blossoms are pretty and a nature lover (though they sometimes line up). Many people I know aren't willing to make the leap and say that every living thing is worthy of care. Unfortunately (or fortunately, really) we can't just protect the pandas and butterflies; we also have to protect the snakes and algae and spiders.

Response #7: Goucher

To my friends: I know, my blog got all formal 'n' stuff. I apologize to anyone who's disappointed, which means you, Eli Moss, the only person who reads this anymore now that I'm not in Denmark. Hi Eli!

So, what do we do at Goucher, and what don't we do?

Well, I see the school taking some steps towards environmentalism, all of which are admirable. Our dining services do a good job, and we have a very efficient heating and cooling plant. However, we miss the boat on some fairly obvious measures. I somewhat accepted reliance on paper as a fact of life in college until I went to Denmark for a semester. All my classes either encouraged or required that we hand in papers via e-mail, which were returned with comments via "track changes." No paper involved. So, why don't we all do that? Well, professors here have reasons that are understandable, but I'm not sure if they're sufficient. Most of them fall back on "I don't want to stare at a screen all day," or a lack of desire to learn a new piece of technology.

In order to get any kind of environmental initiative pushed through, it has to start with student action on a large scale. The school rarely actively opposes initiatives except on the grounds of funding, and even then they don't push back very hard or for very long if the suggestion is unambiguously the right thing to do. So, in truth, all we have to do is ask. Only a few years ago, SGA made double-sided printing standard on environmental grounds; it's just a question of how much we want it. Of course, the difference between reduced-paper and paperless is significant; nobody really opposed double-sided except for a few professors who were sticklers for proper academic format, and even then they didn't really care that much. Students and professors will oppose a paperless classroom much more.

That said, there are certain things that absolutely should be digital. The course syllabus should always be online, as should reading handouts. Even if a few people decide to print it on their own, we're still saving tons of paper. I'm using very specific examples, but the point is that in nearly all cases, the thing that we could be doing better is raising more of a fuss. The school only very occasionally makes a move on their own without student demand.

Response #6: IPCC

Unsurprisingly, the 2007 IPCC report and its summary were brought up quite frequently at Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen, giving me another opportunity to discuss my visit. (Hey everyone, did I mention that spent last semester in Copenhagen? I thought some people may not have picked up on that yet).

The report took several years to put together from hundreds of pieces of scientific and sociological literature, and by the time COP15 rolled around only two years later, some of the data was said to be out-of-date by climatologists. In fact, further research done in 2007 and 2008 pointed at climate change occurring even more rapidly and dangerously than that predicted by the IPCC. This seems to be a recurring trend. Perhaps due to fossil fuel lobbies, greed, naivete or some other factor, but we seem to think that climate change is not as big of a deal, only to find later that we should have taken action a long time ago.

On page 15 of the report summary, there is a table of how various sectors could improve in the area of environmental sustainability. In almost every category, after a series of specific suggestions, is the idea "incorporate climate change concerns into design and daily practices" or something to that effect. This points at an important goal of environmentalism. A Department of the Environment is important, and many countries have one in some form or another. However, the goal of any environmental bureau should be its own obsolescence (credit to Ailish Hopper-Meisner for teaching me that concept). A government cannot have a Department of Energy build new coal plants and a Department of the Environment create conservation areas and claim to be meeting everyone's needs. Environmental concerns will not be met as long as they are considered separate from other concerns. They must be integrated into every aspect of society. The IPCC does a good job of showing the magnitude of the problem and pointing out that it cannot be solved by disjointed efforts.

Response #5: Multi-faceted

In chapter 6, Speth focuses on the multitude of socioeconomic factors that go into calculating environmental impact. I appreciate his willingness to depart from the "old model" (that is, IPAT) and recognize the many other factors involved.

Matt brought up a great point in class a few weeks ago about the unfairness of using population as a factor with such prominence. Environmentalists are more or less in agreement that more people leads to a greater environmental impact, but the population factor is not of equal bearing with affluence, technology, or any of the seven other factors Speth lists. To paraphrase Matt's point, one average American child will consume more resources in his lifetime than fifty average children in the developing world. Therefore, limiting population, especially in the developing world, is a band-aid solution at best and a dishonest and unjust non-solution at worst.

The third factor, technology, I feel is also misapplied. Speth does a good job of clearing things up. It is not inherently the development of new technology that is the problem, but our unwillingness to change the definition of "progress." It has been pointed out by many environmental leaders (including many at Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen) that we have all the technology we need to solve nearly every environmental problem we are facing. We can create a sustainable electric grid worldwide, produce the things we need in a nearly waste-free way (see: Cradle to Cradle), and keep CO2 down to safe levels. Our problem is not that we need more technology. Our problem is that we have not committed to the applicaiton of technology. For example, once we have started building the number of wind turbines we really should have in the US, then we can always upgrade or switch to new methods when more efficient wind turbines become available. In the meantime, we ought to get started; the tendency is to say "the technology is not ready yet" when in fact, it has been ready for anywhere from 10-50 years, depending on which aspect of climate change we're talking about.

What does this say about us? Well, to repeat a point I've made at least three times in previous posts, we're always looking for excuses to be passive, when this is a problem that requires us to be active.

Response #four-and-a-half: Charismatic Megafauna

A screenshot which I think aptly illustrates the "charismatic megafauna" effect described in response #1 (click for larger version):

Response #4: More Opportunities to Bash Free Market Economics

Ah, yes. The old "free markets would solve everything if only those stupid governments would stop getting in the way" approach. How I missed thee. Dryzek chapter 6 focuses on the market, and the discourse in which the market can solve all of our problems. While Dryzek does poke holes in this discourse, as he does with all the discourses, I want to add a few that he missed.

On page 124, Dryzek notes that "owners of forests that could not be logged economically would keep them as wilderness areas or invest in wildlife conservation in order to attract hunters or photographers, who would be charged admission to provide income for these conservation investments." While Dryzek later points out that privately owned conservation land often end up being sold to developers, he missed an opportunity to make a broader point: conservation lands need to simply exist. We cannot just save forests that people want to visit, hunt in, or take photographs of. That is not truly a market solution because there are only so many hunters and photographers and only so many people taking vacations at any given time. The entire model relies on the assumption that photographers are a major economic actor. I can think of few wildlife photographers who have the kind of money required to make conservation a good investment. In the end, a forest that is not commercially viable for logging will now (most likely) eventually be commercially viable for logging, or at least for something, and whatever that thing is will probably make the owner a lot more money than conservation. Therefore, by this model, the forest will eventually be cut down. Therefore, we need a system in which forests are allowed to simply exist, regardless of whether we are actively using them for something (because we passively use them for regulating global CO2 levels, among other things).

In my high school economics class, when we were studying Adam Smith's notion of free-market capitalism, my teacher was quick to point out that even the most hardcore, bottom-line, anti-regulation capitalists admit that governments have certain responsibilities. Namely, governments must handle pieces of business that are in the best interest of everyone, but no individual has any reason to take care of. For example, ensuring drinkable water: no individual will clean a whole reservoir, but collectively everyone around needs the water to be clean. Smith lists other examples including education, the prevention of monopolies and maintaining an active military*. So, Dryzek is making a straw man argument in parts of this chapter. I'm not sure there are truly that many free-market capitalists who believe that a healthy environment will happen when every single piece of air, water, and land is owned by an individual or firm. All but the most extreme capitalists tend to back off when it comes to certain issues like drinking water. The government does have its place, and that place is to protect the people when the market does not protect them.

*I find this somewhat questionable, but he was writing in the 1770's, so I'll cut him some slack. Anyway, while I'm staunchly anti-military, I suppose if one has to exist I'd rather it be run publicly, by the government, than by a bunch of rich people each with their own private militias.