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.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, September 14, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, September 7, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)