romanticizing movements

We like things that move us. We like stories that make us think that there is hope, that people are doing this that could change bad situations, and that people are powerful. Often, stories are romanticized to please an audience. I did not realize, however, until reading this chapter, the degree to which stories can be altered by people who have something that they want to see, or a specific audience to please.
For example, in the Chipko movement, it was women primarily involved, but not a feminist movement. There are other factors that could lead to the women being the ones protesting. Maybe the men were at work? Sometimes a situation looks differently than it actually is, and the motivations are miscalculated by people looking in on the story, and then reporting.
As is a theme throughout this whole book, the point of view of the people involved really matters. People living on a land understand the consequences of their actions, because they have lived with them. It seems as if it’s almost never a good idea to have an outside authority coming in and dictating a situation. Similarly, when reporting on a story and details get confused, and the motivation of the participants is misread, all that is necessary is for the voice of those people to be heard. They know what they’re doing! That’s why they’re doing it!

Chapter 8

There is a very strong connection between this chapter and the movie, Milk the Rhino. All of the concepts explained, directly relate to the examples provided in the movie. Discussion of the benefits of these conservations vs. the harm that it does to the culture of tribes and communities. A thought that came up for me in discussion in class, as well as in the reading about the image of wild Africa was how to measure the value of publicity through programs such as Planet Earth or Discovery Channel. There are many factors:
1) It brings in a lot of tourism
2)it's not an accurate image of the relationship between wildlife and people
3)it can create an appreciation for wildlife that may otherwise be forgotten
4)programs can make it look as if there are huge portions of the world that are untouched, which can relieve a lot of people's guilt about the environment.

How can these thoughts be balanced, and reconciled? They are so conflicting. Is it right to create the "myth of wild Africa" as a business endeavor, when it can compromise the real life habits/culture/survival of African communities. As much as it is preservation, isn't it also exploitation?

constructivism

Oh wow. We have constructed ways of thinking of things. These ways of thinking of things have sometimes (often, in fact) created a confusion between cause and effect in environmental phenomena. Things that we conceptualize, like forests, and see being destroyed, are not necessarily dependent only on factors within that physical area. There can be more factors related to human behavior, ecosystems that extend beyond the forest, transfer of pollutants from other sources, etc. which contribute to the health of the forest. It is a human way of thinking to define an area as forest or plain, based on the ratio of grass to tree. It creates a divide between areas, in addition to political divisions, which make it all the more difficult to conceptualize the earth as one system. Examining the historical context in which any concept came to be can help with understanding the complex interactions that our species has had with nature over the millennia.
These thoughts are, hopefully, somehow related to the concept of constructivism. That the very environment that we try to save is simply a constructed idea of humanity. The ideals that we seek are theoretical and may, in fact, have very little to do with how the earth actually functioned.
Constructivism is scary, because how it is described, in some ways seems to discount science as a social phenomenon as well. If that is so, ohhh dear… is there any knowledge to be trusted? The scientific method is so central to our understanding of everything and has already had to go up against religion. In many ways, it is still discounted in certain areas, due to religious beliefs which trump the scientific method. To say that our science is constructed, and based on social and historical values is a very important consideration to take into account, but also a very dangerous one.

critical tools

Not entirely sure how to respond to this chapter. It’s more informational, laying the groundwork for the field of political ecology. It includes peasant studies, feminist studies, and other areas of inquiry that you wouldn’t necessarily think to associate with ecology, but which really, in that way underlines the basic purpose of political ecology: to look at how people are behaving, and what they are reacting to which causes these behaviors when looking at interactions with the environment.

Chapter 2 outlined the ways that our thought has developed from evaluating nature based on human needs to evaluating the needs of nature, in order to sustain human life. The back and forth/give and take between humanity and nature has been continually developing, but it is a fairly modern realization that sustainability is key, and that our historical/political actions have been shaping our interactions with the environment.

Although I don’t entirely understand it now, I can tell that the common property theory will be integral in understanding how we deal with resources in groups, whether it be a community, a state, a country or as a species.

That, in fact, seems to be a fairly huge factor in itself: how we are subdivided into various groups, and allegiances, and who in the end has the authority to conserve resources that, in some cases, provide the livelihood of a large country or region?

Discovering Political Ecology

Until reading this chapter, I had not even stopped to consider the meaning of “political ecology” as the term was casually dropped in discussions in class, or elsewhere. I simply assumed that I would figure out what it meant. But it wasn’t until comparing it to apolitical ecology, that I really grasped the importance of this field.

In my intro to American Politics class, I remember defining “politics” as who gets what, when and how, or the debate on resources. To me it is essentially impossible to talk about the environment without talking about use of resources, and this means distribution of resources which must be political. So of COURSE there is a field called political ecology, dealing with resources, ecological systems and everything that that entails.

The breadth of this field is something that is a bit hard to imagine, but in later chapters, backbones of the field have been laid out, showing how different branches can easily be related through common histories. As demonstrated on page 6, there have been a wide variety of “definitions” of political ecology. The goals have evolved from documentation and description to finding explanation behind phenomena that occur between societies and nature.

I’m shocked at how much unknown this field was to me, and yet how deeply connected it is to things that I consider on a daily basis. People are a huge factor in the environment, and we have ways of governing ourselves and our uses of resources.

Speth Chapter 3

The Limits of Today’s Environmentalism

At first reading this chapter I was a little concerned. “Today’s Environmentalism” that Speth described seemed very much based on the past, and therefore stuck in some of the methods that have not been working. Especially with the discussion of the state of the lakes and rivers, despite the dramatic improvement due to the Clean Air and Water Acts. There has been improvement, but it has been happening gradually over 35 years. The problem with this kind of evaluation of Environmental action on the part of the U.S. is that it sets a very low precedent. Granted, this is all that we have to compare to, but it doesn’t mean that something much more drastic and helpful could happen.
This links into a concept that Speth discusses, which is that today’s environmentalism will “take what it can get.” Compromise must be an option, as economic stability cannot be abandoned. The question is, how much of a compromise? Does that mean continuing to make changes that will only happen over the next 35 years, even when evidence clearly states that there are NOT 35 years to spare?
In the end, Speth brings things back to the present however, no longer dwelling on the past, stating that “These patterns could change.” This is a very important message. It is important to understand the history of what has happened, so that we can understand why it is NOT enough, and why, although effective over a long period of time, and it is nice to congratulate ourselves o n progress, in comparison to what needs to be done now, it is not enough.

Growth Machines

“Growth Machines.”
The problem with a capitalist country dealing with the environment is that it is a capitalist country dealing with the environment. For an issue where a solution is so dependent on individual sacrifice to be solved in a culture where one of the core values is individual gain is quite a catch... The discussion of “growth machines” is at the heart of this issue.
Harvey Molotch used the term “growth machines” to describe the land stretching outside of urban areas that developers often have their sights set on. This land is appealing to developers for obvious reasons. Aside from making changes within the city, it is the next closest region that can be made a part of the city. Suburban housing has always had its appeal, being close to the city, and yet having space to spread out and let your children run around. Business owners can set up shop, and serve the rich white populations that surround cities. The land surrounding cities is at highest risk of being developed.
It is a cycle that can go either way. As noted in the reading, there is sometimes a cycle, or as Kraft says, a “growth spiral” that communities can get caught up in. They are convinced to develop land in order to create more financial support for schools and such, but there cannot be more residential areas without more schools…so the cycle continues. The good news is, that as much as these suburban households are coveted by many, established suburbs already exist around most cities, and those citizens tend to be, as Kraft notes, educated and environmentally aware, and are more likely to vote to make efforts protecting the land. So while a “growth spiral” can occur, it can also be battled because, conveniently the ones causing the problem tend to vote to stop the problem.

COP 15

On the COP15 website, en.cop15.dk, there is information about the conference itself, committees, events that are leading up to the conference, and new information about the state of our environment, as it is found. Several articles on this site caught my attention.
Firstly, there was a list of ten myths about energy, by Michael Von Bulow. Most of these items were, surprisingly, good news. Such as the fact that solar energy is not really as expensive and out of reach as people think. Also, wind energy is a lot more accessible and practical than many admit. Also, marine energy has been successful off the coast of Northern Ireland, and, although the physics still remain difficult, some solutions have been found. Overall, the revealing of these truths is uplifting, and hopefully a nice foreshadowing to the tone that will shape the success of COP15.
Another article stated that the severe effects of Global Warming that were once predicted to hit in approximately 100 years, are now predicted to be present within the next 50 years, by 2060. One of the most fascinating aspects of this issue for me, is the fast approach of “water politics”. Who will it affect? When we start talking about the “right” to water, how will it work? This is going to be not only an interesting dynamic between first and third world countries, but the entire worldwide politics on this issue could be devastating. Will fingers point? Are the countries who have emitted the most greenhouse gases going to be held responsible for the lack of resources available to other countries?

Interest Groups in the policy process

In Kraft's chapter 3, "Making Environmental Policy," there are statements about agenda setting, which are critical to understanding how environmental policy comes to life. On page 57 in the introduction paragraph, Kraft states that "the striking difference between environmental policy decisions of the Clinton administration in the 1990's and the Bush administration in the 2000s makes clear that the views of a president and his top advisers matter a great deal." Where the person in charge and his advisers can make a great deal is in agenda setting.
It is so critical how the president and surrounding officers set priorities in the White House. The American people think about what they are being told to think about, often, and if something does not seem like an issue, they can easily forget about it. Clinton and Gore talked about the environment, and so their voters thought about it. Bush talked about the energy crisis, and the need for energy, so people worried about gas prices, and their personal spending.

What this brings to mind for me is the critical importance of (and I suppose my own belief in) Interest Groups. For most people, simply because you are a part of some organization or group that talks about an issue, your knowledge and passion on this issue can grow, regardless of what is most popular in the media. These groups of people will be the ones to, in a sense battle the masses when their issue is forgotten.
In other words, when the president (in this case George W.) is "setting the agenda" for the uninformed masses, it is critical to have groups who are passionate about something (in this case the effects of energy use on the environment) to bring up alternative options, or ways of thinking about it. As the book says on page 59, Bush talks about "insufficient reply that required more oil and gas drilling rather than conservation to reduce demand." Interest Groups can provide the balance; they can bring to the attention of the American people other needs, solutions, and standpoints.

9/7/09

Response to Speth-My first experience reading about environmental concerns in 2009.

Throughout various biology classes in high school, English classes, and general life, I have had some exposure to talking about environmental issues, but it's always something that I process quickly, and disregard. I am ashamed to say this, as much as I am aware of it. It's a hard topic to stomach, and many spend a lifetime avoiding information.

This semeser, my goal is not only to dive into this material and information about the state of our world, but to digest it, and figure out what can be done by someone in my position (socially, physically, financially, etc).

Speth, as a first reading was certainly a challenge. It is scary. A common response to fear is to run away, but when there is something that we clearly cannot outrun the only solution becomes to face it, head on.

Speth outlines some of the issues that we are now dealing with some 20 years fter the discovery of some of the most presssing environmental issues. The solutions that we found many years ago are not doing enough. The fight to restrain ourselves from overusing resources, energies and damaging fuels is a difficult one.

In the article, Speth outlines some of the most otable sentences from the IPCC's report in 2007. The collective evidence that global warming is happening, and at a rate that we never would have predicted, is enormous. For example, that 11 out of the past 12 years have been record breaking in global surface temperature. To have these consecutive years directly correspond to years that we have had the most output of greenhouse gases, seems to me to be undeniable evidence. Although most governmental bodies have acknowledged this, they, like me, are still in the first steps of starting to make real changes that can help sustain our environment and (eek!) prolong our existence.