Degredation and Marginalization

A lot of the bigger picture issues raised in this chapter, and a lot of political ecology in general, is very related to a phenomenology course I took last spring. This was one of the most interesting classes I have taken at Goucher, partially because of the name, but predominantly because of the subject matter. Phenomenology, and specifically Husserl, argues that you should not examine the conclusion which you have reached, but rather the suppositions and intentionality which allowed you to reach that conclusion.

A concrete example of this could be the examination of an abnormal behavior. A social scientist would most likely examine the behavior and come up with an explanation that involves the social circumstances and relationships of the individual. A biologist or geneticist, on the other hand, can examine the exact same behavior but explain it according to biological functions. This happens because each individual approaches the problem from their specific perspective; thus they find an answer according to how they approached the problem. Both conclusion can be equally legitimate, but what is important to recognize is that both conclusions were only able to happen because of how the researchers approached the question.

Similarly, as Robbins has illustrated in Political Ecology, our intentionality and what we brings towards nature effectively determines what kind of answers we receive. Especially with these concepts of degradation and marginalization, we see this phenomenological influence. How we view the land, its purposes, its uses, its natural state, etc. determine what we deem to be degradation. Depending on how we see this concept of degradation, we will have a different understanding of how to apply the degradation and marginalization thesis.

As this chapter showed, the thesis is not one thing which perfectly applies to a variety of different situations. Each unique problem will incorporate parts of the thesis, but there will almost always be different levels of both degradation and marginalization and even a changing relationship between the two. The phenomenological influence is present here as well, for in each case we must examine both the issue itself, and always what we are bringing to the table in our examination and how this influences our results.

Who decides what nature is?

Chapter 5 reflected upon a very significant problem, which is how to determine what is natural. As humans we have been interacting with the environment for thousands of years now; there is little to no land that has no been somehow impacted of affected by this human use. This isn’t even necessarily a bad thing. It only raises the question of when we preserve land, what are we preserving and why.
This relates directly to two separate conversations I’ve had with friends recently. The first was about a paper a friend was writing in which she was exploring essentially what being natural means. Her argument was essentially that even places like cities, which are not traditionally thought of as natural, actually are. For buildings, cement, cars, etc are all derived from materials which exist in the world or are given their existence by humans. Either way, humans are a part of nature, and thus anything we create must be a part of nature as well.
While this particular argument may be a bit of a stretch and not directly related, it still hinges upon that question of what makes something natural? As this chapter and this argument have illustrated, it is almost impossible to define the natural state of an area.
Another related argument I had with a friend this summer was about how to justify protecting the environment. This argument basically called upon this is/ought problem. Just because the world is a certain way, there is no reason to assume that is the way it ought to be. Thus the argument that humans ought to preserve nature and keep it how it is has much less credibility, for there is no valid reason for assuming that just because that is how nature was, that is how it ought to be. This is especially significant given the questions raised in chapter 5. What state of nature are we preserving? Nature has and continues to constantly change in unpredictable ways.
The fascinating questions political ecology raises are: who makes the decisions about what we are preserving? Who benefits from these decisions? Who loses? Why are these decisions made? Etc. The answers to all these questions in many cases will refer back to the discussion above, about what nature is or ought to be and why or how we ought to protect what parts of it.

Having read and learned more about political ecology since my last posting, I still agree with my own conclusion that political ecology is awesome. I think the reason I find it so appealing is on the page 42, the 3rd full paragraph. After explaining the failure of a rather idiotic environmental project in Orissa, India, Robbins says, "But the larger questions still loom," and proceeds to rattle off a host of questions about why this program was started in the first place, who was responsible for it, who benefited and who suffered from it, etc. etc. It seems like so much more could be accomplished if more fields incorporated this holistic approach and, instead of trying to specialize and narrow our focus, we had a larger focus and could see all of the problems and/or issues that arise within a specific instance.

Given the historical nature of the chapter, there were not many contentious issues or points of disagreement that I had with Robbins. I actually found most of his arguments to be very well presented and explained, which had it rather nice to read. For example, his discussion of the common property theory was very logically put together. In explaining from an individuals point of view the consequences of the different actions in regards to common land, it makes sense (sadly) that people will try and let others do the work and reap the benefits, for that provides the most desirable consequences. Thus, as Robbins explains, this logic prevents common land from being available without any oversight or regulation, for it will most likely become abused in one way or another. I found this conceptually fascinating and somewhat depressing. However, it makes a lot of sense, especially in Robbins's presentation of the material.

Political Ecology is awesome. I should probably wait to make this claim until I have learned a little more about the field, but so far it just makes so much sense. It really hits on almost all the issues that arose with Kraft and the strictly political approach to the environment. One concern I had with the Kraftian analytic approach to environmental policy which I felt like was never fully addressed was that this policy creation does not happen in a vacuum. There are so many external sources and other influences effecting the formation of policy, research into issues, framing of issues, etc. It felt like often times our discussions in class ignored this fact, attempting to talk about environmental policy as an entity unto itself, separate from other governmental policy.

Political ecology, however, seems to focus itself on the idea that there is no singular cause which needs to be investigated or understood; its emphasis on the multi-faceted or interdisciplinary approach to environmental problems just seems like the right approach, and certainly more informative and productive then the approaches discussed in Kraft.

One issue I have with Political Ecology came up in the beginning of the first chapter, on page 5 of Robbins’s book. He writes “any tug of the global strands of the global web of human-environment linkages reverberates throughout the system as a whole.” While I love this approach, I feel like practically it can become problematic. It emphasizes the idea that we are often unaware of the consequences of our actions. Thus even well calculated, researched decisions may and probably do have unpredictable consequences, which makes justifying any action difficult. I understand that this isn’t the intention of this claim, but I believe it logically follows from it.

Despite this, I still am incredibly optimistic and excited to learn more about Political Ecology. It just seems to have the right approach towards understanding the world and the importance and influence of our actions in it.

I found Speth’s article gave a wonderful overview of the nature of the environmental movement. I think it is important to take a step back, as Speth has done, and review the movement as a whole to attempt to determine what has or has not worked and why. I was a little frustrated, however, at the lack of suggestions for improvement in the article. I am sure, or would really hope, that those came later in the book. An analysis of the movement like Speth has done would really not be effective without suggestions of how to fix the issues which he highlighted so well.

There were two specific things which jumped out at me from this article. One was the issue we discussed after Jen’s visit to class, about grassroots vs. legislative support. Speth spoke to the fact that organizations that were created to lobby and influence policy (such as the Maryland League of Conservation Voters) are not necessarily the most fit to create grassroots support. However, Speth also discussed the “absence of a huge, complementary investment of time and energy in other approaches to change…” Here, Speth says that organizations such as the MLCV are to blame, for not recognizing or investing in alternative approaches. I think I agree with this analysis, that all components are necessary, but if groups have had a specific focus for years now, it is time to branch out and recognize the necessity of a multi-faceted approach.

Another issues present in this and almost all of our readings has been the environment vs. economy debate. Almost all the readings frame these two ends as incompatible with one another. If it is good for the environment, then it is bad for the economy, and visa versa. Especially in light of Speth’s article about the need to change the nature of the environmental movement, I think this is one of, if not the most important shift necessary. There have to be ways for these two forces to be more compatible with each other, and not in a way that requires compromises from the environment. Even if it is just an issue framing question, but something needs to change to prevent the environment and economy from coming to a head on every issue, because the economy has won almost every time and will most likely continue to do so.

Two of my biggest pet peeves are doing things at the very last minute and sharing unnecessary personal anecdotes. Since I am already in the process of breaking one of my own pet peeves, I figure I might as well go for broke.

I am from a small suburban town just outside of Hartford. Most of the town is white, rich, and conservative. The town itself is pretty green, in the fact that there are still a good number of trees and grassy fields and what not. However, as my parents can attest to better then I, though at this point I can attest to it as well, the last 10 years has seen unprecedented development in the town. Every time I come home I find that construction on a new Best Buy has begun, or a new housing development somewhere, or something along those lines.

In high school I did a research project on development in the town, which involved talking to the Town Planner and learning about the different zoning regulations which were briefly discussed in Press and Nakagawa. It was fascinating to learn about how much land had been taken up by housing or commerce in my town, and when this shift had occurred.

As the last bit of the personal anecdote, my father works as an attorney for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and also serves on the Natural Resources Committee in our town. I talked to him over the summer about the NRC and he was immensely frustrated at the politics that were involved and the inability to protect the land that still needed protection.

Coming from this background, I could not help but think of my hometown as I read all about the increased development happening through out the country and often times the inability of local boards to be able to make change. I apologize for this being such a late and relatively weak response, but as any of my friends will attest to I am very passionate about my boring little town of Avon, and this article seemed so relevant to much of what is happening there.

9/28 - Research Response

While I had heard how large the Waxman-Markey bill is, it didn’t really resonate until I opened up the document and attempted to look at it. Just from looking at the table of contents, which was more then 10 pages, it was evident how detailed this bill is. I did not get too far into the bill, because I am not well versed in the legislative lingo used and it was a very daunting and overwhelming task to try and make sense of even some of the bill. It is kind of scary to actually see the bill and know that is what our congressmen are looking at, and wondering how much of that bill is actually read by anyone who votes.
I did have better luck researching the COP15 conference coming up this December. I found it interesting that it was difficult to determine from the COP15 website what exactly was going to be discussed at the conference, or what the purpose of the conference was. The “About COP15” link on the website provides you with information about who can participate and how, but not about what will be discussed at the conference. I’m not sure why that is, fortunately other site had that information available.
From what I understand, one of the main issues at the conference is going to be the follow up of the Kyoto Protocol. That act, which expires in 2012, was an international agreement for developed countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. With the expiration coming quickly, there needs to be some new plan which will hopefully be even stricter then the Kyoto Protocol.
What I find fascinating is the approach to legislating the particulars that will be discussed at the conference. For example, how do you determine what percentage of greenhouse gases must be cut by what time period? It is all of these numbers that need to be decided upon, but there seems to be very little guiding principles for which to make these decisions. Clearly science is telling us that we need to vastly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, carbon footprint, etc. But science can’t tell us how exactly how much must be reduced by what date. Thus it falls to the politicians to negotiate between the science and essentially the business interests, which represent the other perspective.
This task seems similar to the one discussed in our last class, of deciding how much pollution is too much and attempting to evaluate health risks and those many other factors. However in this case, the problems and consequences are all magnified because it is on an international level, thus effecting the entire world.

I really appreciated both chapters of the Mazmanian and Kraft reading this week. My problems from the earlier reading we had from this book was that the third epoch solution seemed too idealistic and not practical. However both of these chapters demonstrated practical applications of the thinking of the third epoch. That being said, the articles did highlight the difficulty in transitioning to this new epoch, a process which is still underway.

One of the strengths of this new approach, as highlighted in these chapters, is the localization of solutions to problems. The first epochs attempts at national regulation is really too difficult to employ and not as effective as action taken by more localized groups. However, the case studies presented in these readings are both very liberal places. I worry that if we depend on local solutions to problems, progressive states such as California and Wisconsin will take action while less progressive and less environmentally friendly states will lag behind in their policy changes.

Another qualm with the third epoch is one mentioned by Mazmanian and Kraft in chapter 5. They write, “Collaboration may work best in the early stages of the policy process-in the identification of problems, the consideration of alternative policy approaches, and the selection of tools to be used. Such cooperative approaches may be less suitable, however, for implementation of the chosen policies-when specific action steps must be taken” (124). As this quote explains, collaboration is certainly useful, but when push comes to shove may end up becoming more detrimental then helpful.

Despite these concerns, I think Mazmanian and Kraft did a good job of showing what the third epoch will actually look like. These readings actually relate very well to a question I did not get to ask Jen Brock on Thursday. It seemed that her job was to encourage and influence environmental change based on regulation and laws. My question for her would have been if she believed that was the best way to actually create change, given the difficulty of passing effective regulation and the “too little too late” warning many scientists have already declared. I think the Mazmanian and Kraft reading shows that legislation from Congress may no longer be the most effective way to deal with these problems.

9/14 Response - Lipschutz

I was very intrigued by many of the issues raised in Lipschutz’s article. While there are many things in the article I would like to discuss, there were three particular points I found most interesting. First, in the preface, Lipschutz writes “…one that is ethically based and rooted in ‘right’ relationships between humans and nature…” (Lipschutz xi). This is an issue that came up in one of our discussions in class last week, where we were discussing how it might be easier or better to have a dictatorship where someone who knows what is good for the environment could enforce rules, rather then the current democratic system. The problem I have with the point Lipschutz raises and the class discussion is how do we determine the ‘right relationship between humans and nature?’
Even in our class, where we are all extremely like-minded especially in terms of the environment, I don’t think we would be able to come up with a ‘right relationship between humans and nature.’ Even if we could, coming up with laws to enforce that relationship would be even more difficult. Moving beyond our classroom and into the world where people have more diverse opinions then in our class, it becomes even more difficult to come up with this right relationship and policy to go with it.
Something which I did appreciate from Lipschutz’s article was the historical materialism perspective he presented. While we have discussed the historical perspective of the environmental movement, we haven’t talked about the history of the issues themselves all that often. As he discussed, understanding where our current problems derive from is essential to creating solutions for them. Additionally, looking far back into the colonization of countries to explain the current problems with global industries is a really fascinating and logical concept.
Finally, I found Lipschutz’s discussion of the institutions of the earth to be a somewhat scary wake-up call to our solutions of environmental problems. The example he provides, of a river that is cleaned up because it’s entirety is possessed by one entity versus a river that is not because it is possessed by two separate entities was striking. It is rather disturbing that often times when it is clear what the right action should be it is impossible to achieve it due to political or other situations.

9/7 Response

I really enjoyed the two different perspectives that were provided by the two readings for this Tuesday. The Environmental Policy and Politics reading, while very dry and number heavy, presented an important science driven point of view. This was complimented by the Toward Sustainable Communities reading which described a more over arching history and projection of the environmental movement. Personally, I found the latter to be much more interesting.
Kraft’s second chapter provides an essential grounding for the environmental movement in an impressive array of research and statistics. I found some of these statistics absolutely amazing. For example, “thousands of tiny releases of oil from cars, lawn mowers, and other dispersed sources on land equal an Exxon Valdez spill (10.9 million gallons) every eight months.” Overall, however, I found the impressive amount of research almost overwhelming.
On the other hand, the Toward Sustainable Communities readings reminded me almost immediately of a reading I had done for a class last year, entitled Blessed Earth by Paul Hawken. The book outlines Hawken’s vision of an enormous paradigm shift which is already underway; a change from the centralized, top-down approach to fostering change to an autonomous or highly localized, bottom-up approach. In other words, instead of change coming from a few large governmental or non governmental institutions and organizations, change will come from thousands, or even millions of small, local groups. According to Hawken this change is already underway, as evidenced by the existence of thousands of small local groups all fighting for the protection of social justice, the environment, and indigenous peoples rights.
The parallel between this Hawken reading and Towards Sustainable Communities comes from what Mazmanian and Kraft refer to as the third epoch, where smaller, sustainable communities will be the future of the environmental movement. I think both visions encounter a similar problem; they require a shift in mass consciousness. This is an incredibly difficult process to initiate, and while both claim the process is underway, it is difficult to support that claim. To me, the sustainable communities and the new global era Hawken described are both idealistic solutions. Additionally, paradigm shifts such as the ones being described are almost always slow moving processes, and I hope that the new epoch won’t be too little too late, especially given the often depressing statistics from the Environmental Policy and Politics reading.