Websites
The Violence of the Lambs
Terror Alert Level: Green
Green Rage
From Push to Shove
Earth Liberation Front
Videos
Testify! (pt. 1 of 9)
Journal Articles
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Indigenous Knowledge
I was both totally confused and very interested in the article on Indigenous Knowledge. I understood enough of it to want to read further, but not enough that I didn't have to do further research on my own. After viewing this site I had a much greater picture of how IK was applied in real situations. I felt like the article was very confusing to me because I had a hard time grasping all of the jargon amidst long complicated sentences.I do think the author had a good point about IK and Western knowledge being closer than declared by neo-indiginistas. I feel like IK should be applied to politics in a much larger way, as suggested in the article. I feel like it can be a powerful tool to create an argument for conservation when it supports the main lifestyles of the people in the community. It seems to me that if the IK style was combined with the use of Western technological knowledge environmental change could be achieved faster and with the support of many local political and social interest groups. It seems like common sense to apply IK to the application of change in any situation. The author also pointed that idea out in his article when establishing the links between both IK and Western knowledge. I would like to explore the practicality of this method more in class.
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Hatchet and Seed at Home.
I'm still settling in to the idea of Political and non-political aspects of Political Ecology. It seems that despite the name Robbins spends much time on theory and future potentials of environmental changes of a third world area, but the political change that Kraft desired is left to the side. Obviously, the hatchet and seed represent Robbin's idea of this relationship. I feel like just as it may be used in developing nations it may be applied with the same fervor in the United States. I am a Baltimore historian and devote my outside school time to research and lectures on the city. It seems to me that a Political Ecology model in the downtown ghettos of the city could do well as the hatchet and seed. In fact it is happening as we speak. Certainly the urban citizens could be guided and inspired to create a cleaner area filled with gardens and parks for the community and push the city government to clean up industrial mess from decades ago. I love the use of Robbin's real life examples and would love to talk more about the first-world applications. As much as I love healing the world I feel like I want to start with my hometown. Political Ecology with a big hatchet and determined seed could really work here I think.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Hatchet and Roots
Political ecology has certainly immediately caught my attention. I often feel under informed in class compared to the multitude of burgoning enviromental scientists that sit around the room. However, it is always so fascinating to hear their stories and contributions to the conversations and it appears that during class this week they have picked up on this topic too.
Most memorable to me about the reading is the first chapter when Robbins reveals the four thesis of political ecology. It immediately connected me to my class this semester on African history. Learning of Africa pre white conquest was like finding a new continent. I had always maintained that "pristine" theory and to realize the continent had a diverse and successful pre-history I felt both embarrassed and enlightened. The continent struggles so greatly as a result of European conquest and all of the major changes to help the people and environment have been handed down through large world organizations with no link to the how's and why's of community and history that Robbins states. I can't wait to use my African history class to connect with this fascinating topic that brings my love of history directly to environmental policy.
(hope this is short enough. sorry about before! :) )
Most memorable to me about the reading is the first chapter when Robbins reveals the four thesis of political ecology. It immediately connected me to my class this semester on African history. Learning of Africa pre white conquest was like finding a new continent. I had always maintained that "pristine" theory and to realize the continent had a diverse and successful pre-history I felt both embarrassed and enlightened. The continent struggles so greatly as a result of European conquest and all of the major changes to help the people and environment have been handed down through large world organizations with no link to the how's and why's of community and history that Robbins states. I can't wait to use my African history class to connect with this fascinating topic that brings my love of history directly to environmental policy.
(hope this is short enough. sorry about before! :) )
Monday, October 5, 2009
Policy Control
The more I read Kraft the more I like his clean and simple analysis of huge problems. Chapter 7 about analyzing environmental policy made me realize my ignorance about the ideas I support. His talk about the many forms of analysis such as the GAO, National Academy of Sciences, and Congressional Committee hearings on the EPA left me scrambling to remember what I've heard on the news and where it's actually come from. I never thought about a Congressional hearing or investigation being "limited" and of "varying quality." Of course that makes sense now that I think of it because Congressional groups are comprised of many political interests and lobby influences that would limit or manipulate the data. Of course it is also Congress that is the source of policy changes due to the same fact regarding their differing opinions based mainly on political factors and less on environmental needs. These realizations concern me the most because Congress is the nation's trusted and established body to regulate important matters of public environmental policy yet they are basing such decisions on committee reports that are insufficient and often biased. There is no regulation on their quality of information used.
I liked the amount of time Kraft spent discussing how to improve the creation and implementation of public policy regarding the environment. I am a big believer that the ultimate deciding factor in big business and following policy is whether it can fit within their budgets. Kraft's discussion of costs and benefits was really interesting. Quoting Portney who stated, "In other words, wise regulations are those that pass a kind of common sense benefit-cost test," made me think deeply about how policy changes may do that and what fail before ever being in place. He continued to quote Portney, "The tendency of legislators to draft 'lowest acheivable emissions' does not take into account such marginal costs." His statement implies that lawmaker, the public and staunch environmentalists agree that there must be some "acceptable" limit to pollution in the country in order to maintain a certain cost-benefit that allows an environmental policy to be feesable. That argument to me seems like one of the most intelligent I have explored in this semester. I don't know how I feel about accepting the idea of "limited pollution levels" instead of the ideals of a perfectly clean water supply or Chesapeake Bay. I have to ask myself if that is truly possible and is "almost clean" as good as "completely clean?" So often business and environmentalists put politicians in the midst of "one or the other" both wanting purity in their requests. Maybe it isn't necessarily just the politicians pushing through impossible environmental policy as much as it is the lobbying factions forcing a mediocre compromise. I am interested now to read more from this Portney guy and find out more of what his benefit-cost test is and what other examples he has to show whether success or failure.
This chapter intrigued me like nothing else we have read. I am often discouraged by the constant discussion circulating in the environmentalist's corner about how the government..the public..the "establishment" is always out to ruin or sabotage or not care about their causes. I think that is part of the role of the reformer. Rather than dwelling on the past, while totally important ( I am a history major :) ) this chapter brought environmental policy into a light of potentials for change and examples of success. It challenged the going norms surrounding my ideas of being an environmentalist. It made me think that maybe you could be active and make change without being a staunch idealist. I could go on an on about my impressions of environmental justice and market incentives, but instead I'll save your time and save some ideas for class.
I liked the amount of time Kraft spent discussing how to improve the creation and implementation of public policy regarding the environment. I am a big believer that the ultimate deciding factor in big business and following policy is whether it can fit within their budgets. Kraft's discussion of costs and benefits was really interesting. Quoting Portney who stated, "In other words, wise regulations are those that pass a kind of common sense benefit-cost test," made me think deeply about how policy changes may do that and what fail before ever being in place. He continued to quote Portney, "The tendency of legislators to draft 'lowest acheivable emissions' does not take into account such marginal costs." His statement implies that lawmaker, the public and staunch environmentalists agree that there must be some "acceptable" limit to pollution in the country in order to maintain a certain cost-benefit that allows an environmental policy to be feesable. That argument to me seems like one of the most intelligent I have explored in this semester. I don't know how I feel about accepting the idea of "limited pollution levels" instead of the ideals of a perfectly clean water supply or Chesapeake Bay. I have to ask myself if that is truly possible and is "almost clean" as good as "completely clean?" So often business and environmentalists put politicians in the midst of "one or the other" both wanting purity in their requests. Maybe it isn't necessarily just the politicians pushing through impossible environmental policy as much as it is the lobbying factions forcing a mediocre compromise. I am interested now to read more from this Portney guy and find out more of what his benefit-cost test is and what other examples he has to show whether success or failure.
This chapter intrigued me like nothing else we have read. I am often discouraged by the constant discussion circulating in the environmentalist's corner about how the government..the public..the "establishment" is always out to ruin or sabotage or not care about their causes. I think that is part of the role of the reformer. Rather than dwelling on the past, while totally important ( I am a history major :) ) this chapter brought environmental policy into a light of potentials for change and examples of success. It challenged the going norms surrounding my ideas of being an environmentalist. It made me think that maybe you could be active and make change without being a staunch idealist. I could go on an on about my impressions of environmental justice and market incentives, but instead I'll save your time and save some ideas for class.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Government Housing for All ?
The H.R. 2454, "Establishes a rebate program to assist low-income households residing in pre-1976 manufactured homes in purchasing new Energy Star qualified manufactured homes." This quote was found on http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454&tab=summary. I own a home that was build in 1952 and this statement just made me feel uneasy the first time I read it. I was initially feeling upset about the bills push for so many electric cars, as if that would eliminate the carbon waste associate with creating the energy and the volatile chemicals in the batteries. I just couldn't get the idea of the government telling me that I could move into a "manufactured home" to save the environment. Where does my old home go? Do all of the wood beams and cement blocks get turned to scrap and fill a landfill? The Energy Star website describes how each house gets processed in factories approved by a third-party EPA employee. It states how their homes are far more advanced than the homes built under the 2004 environmentally minded building codes. But, where do they get their materials? The website reads like talking to a used car salesman or a real estate agent. For every question I had about the process I was pushed to another page describing how these manufactured homes benefited the world and my monthly energy bills. This was only one line in the whole bill and it is easily read over and forgotten. I am worried about the fact that the government, in its reach for sustainability is building more factories, taking up more land and creating more waste rather than supporting the homes that already exist and saving so much energy in the process.
Energy Star is a government backed organization that provides ratings for various household appliances and their energy usage information. If something is labeled as an Energy Star approved product it is considered more efficient for the household. However, when I had to buy a new washing machine this summer I looked first at the Energy Star products and found that they would over 300 hundred dollars more expensive than the machines I could afford. I worry that if this Energy Star distinction carries such a high price tag, how much would the government be paying to subsidize their manufactured housing work? While the government offers the public money to go into a government backed program who determines market value for these products? Each community is not given the opportunity to use the government money for manufactured homes to put into restoring their existing town they have only the opportunity to move out of potentially fine homes and move into a house trucked in with a wide load sign on the back.
While the bill does not mention an amount of money provided to individuals for a move to one of these super homes I am sure that it is in the few thousands. For a few thousand dollars I would be able to replace my leaky doors, but all Energy Star rated appliances. Currently everything I have is for the 70's or earlier. I could buy the supplies I've been dying to get to really till and expand my garden as well as compost area. With a little money Essex could get single stream recycling and then my stodgy old neighbors would use it. Our cars could get regular service to maintain their optimum operating potential. The services we would use for all of these things would come from Essex or Whitemarsh. My garage is right down the street run by good ol' local boys. The Energy Star website talks about how it would benefit communities with work. It would only benefit those able to work in the factories or the agents out to sell the houses after they've been put in bulldozed fields. This concepts has no consideration for the real communities and how people exist day to day. If everyone was able to improve their house with government money there is a potential to have construction guys working for years, let alone carpet, plumbing, carpenters, furniture salesmen, appliance people the list goes on and on..
Obviously this hit a nerve. I love my house and I love my neighborhood. I am terribly offended that the government would find it "sustainable" to give up on true quality craftsmanship that didn't come off of an assembly line. For that reason alone I do not support this bill because I feel that is misdirected in so many ways. Environmental change does not come from building more factories, but respecting and understanding the potential that already exists within our world.
Energy Star is a government backed organization that provides ratings for various household appliances and their energy usage information. If something is labeled as an Energy Star approved product it is considered more efficient for the household. However, when I had to buy a new washing machine this summer I looked first at the Energy Star products and found that they would over 300 hundred dollars more expensive than the machines I could afford. I worry that if this Energy Star distinction carries such a high price tag, how much would the government be paying to subsidize their manufactured housing work? While the government offers the public money to go into a government backed program who determines market value for these products? Each community is not given the opportunity to use the government money for manufactured homes to put into restoring their existing town they have only the opportunity to move out of potentially fine homes and move into a house trucked in with a wide load sign on the back.
While the bill does not mention an amount of money provided to individuals for a move to one of these super homes I am sure that it is in the few thousands. For a few thousand dollars I would be able to replace my leaky doors, but all Energy Star rated appliances. Currently everything I have is for the 70's or earlier. I could buy the supplies I've been dying to get to really till and expand my garden as well as compost area. With a little money Essex could get single stream recycling and then my stodgy old neighbors would use it. Our cars could get regular service to maintain their optimum operating potential. The services we would use for all of these things would come from Essex or Whitemarsh. My garage is right down the street run by good ol' local boys. The Energy Star website talks about how it would benefit communities with work. It would only benefit those able to work in the factories or the agents out to sell the houses after they've been put in bulldozed fields. This concepts has no consideration for the real communities and how people exist day to day. If everyone was able to improve their house with government money there is a potential to have construction guys working for years, let alone carpet, plumbing, carpenters, furniture salesmen, appliance people the list goes on and on..
Obviously this hit a nerve. I love my house and I love my neighborhood. I am terribly offended that the government would find it "sustainable" to give up on true quality craftsmanship that didn't come off of an assembly line. For that reason alone I do not support this bill because I feel that is misdirected in so many ways. Environmental change does not come from building more factories, but respecting and understanding the potential that already exists within our world.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Ah Ha!
Since I started at Goucher in 2007 I have been struggling with the beauraucrats in SAS and the CDO for various rights that should have been granted to me based on my status as an independent. I have argued with the Dean of Students to assist me with notifying Professors last Spring when I had a flare up of my chronic illness. I am currently fighting with the administration to be recognized as a Goucher II student so I may graduate on time. I have evidence and proof that I have been wronged and lied to. I have the testimonies of others that have gotten the same treatment. I have cried, threatened, begged and insisted that those in charge take my situations seriously.
This morning as I contemplated what this class means to me in my last semester at Goucher I realized how relevant it is. I have considered my struggles the past four years as frustrations and set backs but what I am really doing is fighting internal Goucher policies that are set to fit the average student, but not satisfactory for any student that may exist on the fringes. Kraft and Mazmanian talk about the same problems when it comes to environmental policy. They are emphasizing the struggle to affect changes when administrations have no vision or ability to budge from the norm. Slowly but surely I am getting what I want because I have never let down my persistence and that is how this class has presented the successful environmental policies. Policy and beauraucracy are the same no matter what the cause.
I wonder if my struggle for equal treatment at Goucher will have any impact on the administrators I see. Will they react in the same cold and calculated way when another non-traditional student asks for help? Have my stress and tears and migraines done anything to break policies and rules that discriminate? I'm sure these type of questions emerge when a non-profit gets a big break with the government regarding a valuable piece of environmental legislation. The little organization faces daunting tasks and huge insecurities as well. Will their lobbying stay relevant? Will the law make the right changes? etc. etc. etc...
Without thinking about it I have incorporated the values of this class and its readings into my own personal fight. It is evident by your tenacity surrounding the subject and the readings you share that there is hope in a cause bigger than all of us. If there is change happening in environmental policy through persistence and intelligence then any policy shift is possible. I am very thankful for my early morning epiphany and am super excited to continue learning about fighting the good fight..
This morning as I contemplated what this class means to me in my last semester at Goucher I realized how relevant it is. I have considered my struggles the past four years as frustrations and set backs but what I am really doing is fighting internal Goucher policies that are set to fit the average student, but not satisfactory for any student that may exist on the fringes. Kraft and Mazmanian talk about the same problems when it comes to environmental policy. They are emphasizing the struggle to affect changes when administrations have no vision or ability to budge from the norm. Slowly but surely I am getting what I want because I have never let down my persistence and that is how this class has presented the successful environmental policies. Policy and beauraucracy are the same no matter what the cause.
I wonder if my struggle for equal treatment at Goucher will have any impact on the administrators I see. Will they react in the same cold and calculated way when another non-traditional student asks for help? Have my stress and tears and migraines done anything to break policies and rules that discriminate? I'm sure these type of questions emerge when a non-profit gets a big break with the government regarding a valuable piece of environmental legislation. The little organization faces daunting tasks and huge insecurities as well. Will their lobbying stay relevant? Will the law make the right changes? etc. etc. etc...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
