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.