Author: Miranda Wilcha (Page 2 of 2)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/18/349562067/sweet-dunkin-donuts-and-krispy-kreme-pump-up-pledge-on-palm-oil

On a lighter note as the People’s Climate March is about to stream through New York, it looks like marchers might be able to reward themselves with donuts and no longer feel guilty. This NPR post states how Krispy Kreme and Dunkin Donuts have pledged to use palm oil from sources that don’t clear cut rain forests.

The campaign director of Forest Heroes called it a rapid shift in the fast-food industry, indicating that consumers have an impact on companies’ practices after all.  Environmental groups have used direct action approaches to get the attention of company leaders and speed up environmental action within the companies. For example, one advocate found his way into an earnings conference call last year and asked Kellogg about the company’s palm oil policy.

Although we have talked about direct action approaches like marches, I wonder if consumer practices like boycotts had anything to do with these companies’ changes in palm oil sourcing?

Does this signal a larger shift in environmentally safer mainstream foods?

Poor water quality, coastal development, and climate change have been significant factors in killing off half of the coral in the Great Barrier Reef… in only 27 years. This article discusses the interplay by governments, international groups, and conservation movements in creating environmental policy.

Firstly, it took action from the UN for Australia to be woken up about what they needed to be doing to save the reef. When the UN hinted that the Reef would be reclassified as a “World Heritage in Danger in 2015″, Australia issued a 35 year plan to manage risks.

Secondly, the Australian government relied on contributions from conservation groups like WWF-Australia to even come up with policy. Then of course, they didn’t take the recommendations as far as they should have. The plan will manage sea-life, improve water quality, and wants to limit runoff from farms getting into the water. As great as this sounds, WWF-Australia stated that billions of dollars was needed to fix these problems… and Australia doesn’t seem to want to budge. For example, the area is coal-rich and 30,000 jobs are estimated to be created if mining becomes operational.

Why don’t the UN and environmental groups have greater power over policy than big business does? Is it a problem stemming off of corporate personhood and conglomerate international business?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/climate-change-has-an-outrage-problem

I think we’ve all agreed that a lack of leadership, lack of pop culture, more abstract ideas, and complex solutions have made the recent environmental movement difficult for the public to grasp. This short article addresses some of the challenges and gives some hope in solving the hindrances to the movement in order for it to progress. A documentary called “Disruption” is being released to coincide with a huge march coming up soon (covering pop culture and “performances” as discussed in the Johnston reading). The article also calls climate change a wedge issue, giving me hope that politics must soon address the matter.

I found a website that details the supposedly largest climate march ever seen: http://peoplesclimate.org/march/ So… field trip??

In light of the Johnston reading from last week, I was reminded of the gradient scale we drew (with ‘formal’ at one end, interest groups in the middle, and SMOs at the other end) when I read this article from a few days ago. Although the federal government is the most “formal” we can get to enforce a social movement and new policy, it struck me as a rather “informal” way for the Obama administration to do so. For example, the article calls the “‘politically binding’ deal” a sidestep: the president is only allowed to enter a legally binding treaty if it’s approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate… yet he finds a loophole by mixing conditions from a 1992 treaty already in place so no new voting for ratification would be necessary.

Why do some see this as the “only realistic path” towards reducing carbon emissions worldwide (especially when the article keeps mentioning how infuriated American Republicans will be)? And why does it seem like our “formal” method to improve laws is set up to delay necessary change?

If this agreement relies mainly upon voluntary pledges to diminish carbon pollution, is this set up only to fail? Finally, why is the nation still so divided on such an important policy goal?