Author: Miranda Wilcha (Page 1 of 2)

https://news.vice.com/article/400-people-bury-their-heads-in-the-sand-to-protest-australian-prime-ministers-stance-on-climate-change?utm_source=vicenewstwitter

When your prime minister calls climate change science “crap” and you can’t beat him, you might as well join him… figuratively. Yes, 400 protesters buried their heads in sand this past Thursday on a beach in Sydney, Australia, highlighting the need for their leader to address climate change at the G20 summit held over the weekend in Brisbane.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120292/2014-g20-summit-obama-challenges-abbott-climate-change

If you read this follow up piece, you’ll see how the Summit did end up including climate change in the agenda, even focusing on donating funds to poorer countries dealing with climate change.

A huge climate denier, Prime Minister Abbott has called for heightened coal use, lessened goals for renewable resources, and wants to focus on the economy alone.

It’s time Abbott has taken his head out of the sand.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/10/363023227/solar-bike-path-opens-this-week-in-the-netherlands

Outside of Amsterdam in a town called Krommenie, crystalline silicon solar cells in durable casing will double as a bike path for citizens and solar panels to feed into the national energy grid. I don’t know, guys, northern Europe and Scandinavia sound pretty smart.

With years of testing, the panels have to be skid resistant and strong, yet translucent and dirt repellent to absorb sunlight. The first ever of its kind, the section laid down last week stretches for 230 feet. Although flat surfaces won’t be as efficient as panels on rooftops, the path should produce enough energy to run two or three households for a year.

There might be more like this coming our way! The article mentions a project based in Idaho called “Solar Roadways.”

In terms of recent readings, do you think technology like this has a place in a sustainable vision for the future?

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/5/a_big_win_for_climate_change

In a video clip of Lee Fang and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, last Tuesday’s elections are discussed in regards to what it means for climate change policy. With Republicans winning the Senate, leadership of certain committees will be in the hands of very serious climate change skeptics. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe made a video for the climate denying think tank “The Heartland Institute” about how climate change is just rhetoric for Democrats to get elected; he will be in control of the environment committee. Senator Ron Johnson will control the homeland security and government reform committee, meanwhile Senator Ted Cruz may serve as head of the science sub committee within the commerce committee, which controls federal science research.

By placing climate change skeptics in important positions, there will be a lot of pressure on the EPA to rollback or delay proposed rules on carbon emissions, a push for exporting oil and Keystone XL, and a call for fracking. Although Democrats also accept campaign funding from fossil fuel industries and haven’t eliminated the idea of increased fracking, very conservative Republicans were elected. In other clips that Democracy Now has shown, Ralph Nader has called this era, “the most militaristic, corporatist, cruel, anti-worker, anti-consumer, anti-environment, anti-women, even anti-children programs of the Republican Party” and senator Bernie Sanders has said “The United States is on the verge of becoming an oligarchy.”

With a divided government and even more anti-environmentalists in place, how do you think the rest of the government will respond to these elections? How about the public?

http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/270848/speedreads-stephen-colbert-credibly-blames-the-nra-for-legal-dog-and-cat-eating-in-pennsylvania

I thought this might be an enjoyable clip to watch. When we talked about the ethics of meat-eating among environmental movements (i.e. some radicals agree that we are animals and should eat animals; ecofeminists believe that it promotes domination), it took it out of context from pets. Due to our culture around dogs and cats, many meat-eaters in America wouldn’t dream of eating them… but pigeons? Nah, shoot them dead. It was more important to keep gun rights above animal lives, even man’s best friend. By eliminating consideration of this bill, the NRA seems to continue our domination over the natural world and has even pushed us further than the norm of respect of pets.

Oddly, it’s very difficult to find mainstream news sources that have information on the bill or even the topic (NYTimes had nothing to show). Any thoughts on why the topic was hidden by everyone but Colbert?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/01/us-climatechange-denmark-idUSKBN0IL35R20141101

Denmark’s Climate, Energy and Building Minister (Helveg Petersen) has made a tentative proposal that the country will phase out of coal use by 2025, even stating that the cost, “would not be significant.” Denmark has been known to have a very green track record. However, the record downsizing in coal use is aside from the amount they use: 6 million tons a year, and coal constitutes about 1/3 of electricity use. As details are being worked out, some estimates say that wind turbines will generate over half of all the country’s electricity by 2020.

Goals like these made me think about two different components. 1) Political motives or impacts and 2) How the country was culturally accepting of a shift. Firstly, Denmark gets a good deal of its coal from Russia, according to the article. What impact would goals like these have on imports/exports on the global market? If other countries began mapping out proposals, how would some countries respond as opposed to others? Second, the article also detailed lifestyle choices of the Danes that makes a goal like this seem acceptable: “41 percent of people in Copenhagen cycle to work or school”, for example. Copenhagen has cycle lanes, has cleaned up the polluted water, and created livable environments for families. As we’ve all noticed bike sharing systems popping up in places like NYC, how far away do you think the US is from being culturally accepting of national green goals? Thinking back on the 60s and 70s grassroots movement, in what ways can the public begin to take more individual and/or structural interest in supporting environmental goals?

http://ecowatch.com/2014/10/28/bp-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill/

Researchers have discovered a large “bathtub ring” of oil on the bottom of the ocean due to sinking oil particles presumably from the BP oil spill 4 years ago. The study traces the fallout plume of hydrocarbons from the Macondo Well, and has estimated that around 2 million barrels of oil are trapped within the bottom ocean layers. Although BP has been fined up to $9.2 billion in settlement charges previously for the spill, a new federal case in Louisiana might demand an additional $18 billion. Despite the research, BP says that the data is “overblown.”

Hearing about the BP oil spill reminded me that although we don’t see headlines overarching each year as more research is done, the effects are still being felt… perhaps even due to a time lag. What headlines can you recall being environmentally important and seemed to never be resolved (or at least covered in the news as events progressed)?

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/15/colombian-farmers-sue-bp-british-court

Being called one of the largest cases in environmental legal history, over 100 Colombian farmers are suing BP (called Equion Energia there) due to the damage that the oil pipeline (Ocensa, laid in the 1990s) has caused them. They claim that they did not fully understand the contracts and that they were never fully compensated. Since this is the first time BP is being sued from overseas, it could open up a whole mess of trouble with other developing countries. The Colombian farmers want to show evidence that the pipeline caused “severe soil erosion and sedimentation of fields and water sources, reduced vegetation coverage and areas for pasture, and blocked water sources.” This case seems to overlap conceptions that we’ve talked about in class (environmental justice, capitalism, globalism, consumerism, fossil fuels); if successful, we might be seeing more claims like this to come. As of now, I suppose we have to wait… but what impact do you think a win or lose for these Colombians farmers might signify?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/02/ban-uranium-mining-grand-canyon-arizona-court

Here’s a short article that I thought might boost some hope (and critical thought)!

In 2012, the US interior secretary Ken Salazar created a 20 year ban on new mining claims and mine development (without permits) across 1 million acres of public lands around the Grand Canyon. When it was recently questioned by a mining industry lawsuit as “unconstitutional”, the US district court for Arizona upheld the ban by saying that Salazar had the authority to protect a national treasure.

Uranium mining in the area would threaten aquifers and streams and release toxic waste. For example, one picture in the article is captioned with the fact that although one uranium mine stopped functioning in 1969, it still is contaminated with radioactivity. On the other hand, the ban itself is projected to stop 26 new uranium mines and 700 exploration projects from being developed.

Although this article is fairly succinct, it elicits a lot of different ideas about policy and values. For example, some might see this as extremely cautionary since it stops development and the enhancement it would bring to the economy. Others yet might say that uranium mining is better than fracking or crude oil imports from Canada; after all, another post on the blog stated that some environmental groups are now embracing nuclear energy. In terms of preservation, the fact that this ban was upheld seems almost dreamlike. Is the only way to continue preservation to promote national symbolism of the environment? If this was anywhere else besides the Grand Canyon, would the ban have been upheld?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29321143

Wait a second, did I read this article correctly? Norway is going to pay Liberia to be more environmentally aware?

Norway will pay Liberia $150 million to stop its illegal logging. The deal, which was unveiled at the UN climate summit, is the first ever country-level agreement and works like so: Liberia will put 30% of its forests under protected area status by 2020 and will pay communities directly affected; Norway will pay so long as the protection is verified.

Firstly, this agreement interested me since it addresses many arenas: the economy, environmental justice, biodiversity, and global health. In terms of health, researchers have seen correlations in deforestation and contact with Ebola virus in reservoirs. Biodiversity? Liberia has 43% of the Upper Guinean forest and is a diversity hotspot with many rare species. The economy would also be improved, since it gives money to stop the extreme logging that was endorsed by the president in 2012 (President Sirleaf gave licenses to companies that would account for 58% of the rainforest left in Liberia). Plus, the poverty-stricken communities around the rainforest will be paid too.

Second, the article made me consider Norway’s and Liberia’s roles in this exchange. As a wealthier country, should we be held accountable to make agreements like this? And why has Norway specifically been a leader in this sort of global behavior? Maybe it would be beneficial to look at the sociocultural components that made this deal a reality so that it could be applied by other first world countries.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/09/17/349223674/tiny-spanish-island-nears-its-goal-100-percent-renewable-energy

The Spanish island of El Hierro is running off of 100% renewable energy (wind and hydro-power), making it the first energy self-sufficient island that hasn’t been hooked up to a power grid (Denmark’s island, Samso, is energy-independent but hooked up).

This article makes me optimistic about sustainability. At the fracking forum, a lot of Lafayette students mentioned how with sustainable energy we would not (and could not) reach our energy demand… but on this island, the lights never even flicker. (Also, in my opinion, maybe we should be reconsidering our demand anyway…) Regardless, El Hierro is set up so that whenever the wind dies down and the turbines stop spinning, the hydro plants start up five seconds later to start pumping water uphill so that it will start generating hydro-power.

What interested me was that these two elements were already technology that we had. They were just never paired together. Who knew we could just spin something a bit to make it so much more effective? It makes me happy to see people thinking about creative ways to achieve energy independence for the future, and gives me hope for the rest of the world.