For our December meetings we discussed "Mother Nature's Sum", a Miller-McCune article by Matt Jenkins. The article describes efforts by scientists to determine the economic value of ecosystem services, including benefits like pollination, carbon sequestration, water filtration, and so on. It also explores the debate over the very idea of "putting a price on nature", which some see as harmful and morally bankrupt.
While the article quotes some vehement critics of the idea, members of our discussion did not express such deep opposition to it. There was some questioning as to whether focusing on the economics of nature would take away from the idea of moral or intrinsic value of nature. Yet many felt having a dollar figure to point to is an important tool in planning and economic discussions. "You need a number," said one member. "If you go to the table without a valuation, you have nothing." It was generally accepted as a good tool to allow economists and environmentalists to communicate.
But the article also discussed the policy implications for valuing economic services, and focused a lot on the idea of payments for ecosystem services--essentially paying landowners NOT to do destructive things to their land. A few current examples were given, such as programs in the U.S. and other countries that pay farmers not to farm poor, erodible land or important wetlands. The article also mentioned the idea of coming up with some kind of cap and trade system for ecosystem services. This seemed a little muddier. How would that work and who would pay? We wondered why the author didn't talk more about taxes and fines based on ecosystems values, rather than just payments, which could easily be abused. We discussed when it might be appropriate policy to use payments, and when to use taxes and when to simply outlaw environmentally damaging behavior.
The article and the research it explored was interesting and provided a lot of food for thought. For follow-up reading, check out the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics headed by Robert Costanza, which was referred to in the article. I tried in vain to find a website for Mark Sagoff, one of environmental economics' strongest critics, but here's a sneak peek at one of his books: Price, Principle, and the Environment. Maybe we'll put this one on the list! Finally, for a local example of pricing the environment, check out the website for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cooperative carbon cap-and-trade program of which Rhode Island is a participant.
We hope you will join us in January to discuss the book The Sense of Wonder by Rachel Carson. See sidebar for schedule. Enjoy the holidays, and have a wonderful New Year!
Yours,
July Lewis
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Consuming Desires
July Lewis was unable to attend book club this month, so Eugenia Marks wrote the summary. Thanks Eugenia!
At this month's book club we discussed Consuming Desires , edited by Roger Rosenblatt. The book is a collection of essays on consumerism and just why people in Western cultures buy so much stuff.
“It is not our responsibility to cut back so that other people can have our lifestyle. We led them into consumption,” contributed one reader. Upon discussion, the assertion was not changed. We talked about “led them into” meaning “showed them the way;” we pointed out one essay identifying human nature as wanting things better as a precursor to consumerism; we talked about the role of advertising. Group was divided as to whether advertising or human nature was the major factor in consumerism.
We talked about whether virtue of savings was a legacy of the Victorian era or came from the Depression. We noted that the virtue currently valued is not savings but a high credit rating, which ironically requires creating debt (and paying it off) to acquire a loan; an excellent record of savings and buying on savings is worthless in applying for a loan.
The notion of disposable income and disposable goods led to a discussion of loss of sense of purpose in our activities. Participants complained that lack of perspective and desire for immediate gratification, combined with velocity of acquisitions and brief communications, characterized those under 40. Some were concerned that TV and electronics are distancing or detaching young people from families. However, electronics permits awareness of each other, if not substantive communication, among family members.
Images of life as action-oriented presented by television was contrasted with the romantic escapism of movies of the 1930s. Both presented a vicarious desirable lifestyle connected to consumerism. “We have not progressed all that much.”
The easy access to money and rapidly transmitted information contributes to the problem of consumerism. Not enough real stuff, real experience, is available particularly for young. Computers represent simulation and fantasy.
On the subject of publishing, the loss of ideas as the basis for publishing a title was challenged by the idea that anything can be published on the internet. The lack of quality control of internet publishing, a lack of analysis—even short and sweet analysis, a loss of common knowledge were rebuttals.
Readers commented that no solutions to consumerism were offered in the book. There were commonalities of concern, but no solutions. One remarked that the introduction was extravagantly long and termed it “bafflegab.”
Assessing need as a basis for purchasing, understanding the culture of desire, and making personal decisions that consider the condition of the planet and its inhabitants may be answers. What solutions do you see?
Yours,
Eugenia Marks
At this month's book club we discussed Consuming Desires , edited by Roger Rosenblatt. The book is a collection of essays on consumerism and just why people in Western cultures buy so much stuff.
“It is not our responsibility to cut back so that other people can have our lifestyle. We led them into consumption,” contributed one reader. Upon discussion, the assertion was not changed. We talked about “led them into” meaning “showed them the way;” we pointed out one essay identifying human nature as wanting things better as a precursor to consumerism; we talked about the role of advertising. Group was divided as to whether advertising or human nature was the major factor in consumerism.
We talked about whether virtue of savings was a legacy of the Victorian era or came from the Depression. We noted that the virtue currently valued is not savings but a high credit rating, which ironically requires creating debt (and paying it off) to acquire a loan; an excellent record of savings and buying on savings is worthless in applying for a loan.
The notion of disposable income and disposable goods led to a discussion of loss of sense of purpose in our activities. Participants complained that lack of perspective and desire for immediate gratification, combined with velocity of acquisitions and brief communications, characterized those under 40. Some were concerned that TV and electronics are distancing or detaching young people from families. However, electronics permits awareness of each other, if not substantive communication, among family members.
Images of life as action-oriented presented by television was contrasted with the romantic escapism of movies of the 1930s. Both presented a vicarious desirable lifestyle connected to consumerism. “We have not progressed all that much.”
The easy access to money and rapidly transmitted information contributes to the problem of consumerism. Not enough real stuff, real experience, is available particularly for young. Computers represent simulation and fantasy.
On the subject of publishing, the loss of ideas as the basis for publishing a title was challenged by the idea that anything can be published on the internet. The lack of quality control of internet publishing, a lack of analysis—even short and sweet analysis, a loss of common knowledge were rebuttals.
Readers commented that no solutions to consumerism were offered in the book. There were commonalities of concern, but no solutions. One remarked that the introduction was extravagantly long and termed it “bafflegab.”
Assessing need as a basis for purchasing, understanding the culture of desire, and making personal decisions that consider the condition of the planet and its inhabitants may be answers. What solutions do you see?
Yours,
Eugenia Marks
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Two perspectives on "the green economy"
Hi book club members!
This month we read two perspectives on different aspects of the “green economy”. “Eco-Junk: Why Buying Less Is More Than Buying Green” by George Monbiot is a critical take on the idea that you can shop your way to sustainability. He argues that green trendiness and marketing is at odds with “the central demand of environmentalism: that we should consume less”. He states that “it is easy to picture a situation in which the whole world religiously buys green products, and its carbon emissions continue to soar.” We enjoyed his funny and sarcastic take on the excesses of the environmental elite, yet most of our time was spent discussing the other piece: “The Green Road to Economic Recovery” by Bracken Hendricks.
“The Green Road to Economic Recovery” is testimony that was presented to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives on September 18, 2008. It presents the case that public investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy is an essential part of an economic recovery program, and that money invested this way will create more jobs and economic stimulus than money spent on petroleum or household consumption. Then it lays out the specifics of such a program.
“Genius!” was one word used to describe the paper. It was seen by many as an exciting, convincing way to address problems of recession, energy dependence and global warming. Others were a bit more cautious, wondering if the plan could really produce such benefits and questioning what the role of government should be in developing the alternative energy industry. We noted that nuclear energy was not addressed in the plan, and guessed it was too controversial to touch. We referred back several times to the energy crisis of the 1970s, and recalled Jimmy Carter’s “Malaise Speech”. His message was generally seen as unpalatable to the American people, and we asked if Hendricks’ “can-do” message would be more inspiring. We noted that both presidential candidates are addressing global warming and energy independence in the debates.
Many were interested in following up on this testimony—who heard it and what became of it. Some information can be found on the committee’s website. On the page devoted to the hearing, they have great video clips of the follow up Q&A! It is interesting that the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 was passed 93-2 by congress several days after this testimony, on 9/23/08. (summary here)
If you are excited about this testimony and want more action, let your legislators know! Go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt and type your zip code in the My Elected Officials box in the right sidebar.
Next time: Consuming Desires: Consumption, Culture, and the Pursuit of Happiness edited by Roger Rosenblatt. Check out the sidebar for the schedule. Happy Reading!
July Lewis
This month we read two perspectives on different aspects of the “green economy”. “Eco-Junk: Why Buying Less Is More Than Buying Green” by George Monbiot is a critical take on the idea that you can shop your way to sustainability. He argues that green trendiness and marketing is at odds with “the central demand of environmentalism: that we should consume less”. He states that “it is easy to picture a situation in which the whole world religiously buys green products, and its carbon emissions continue to soar.” We enjoyed his funny and sarcastic take on the excesses of the environmental elite, yet most of our time was spent discussing the other piece: “The Green Road to Economic Recovery” by Bracken Hendricks.
“The Green Road to Economic Recovery” is testimony that was presented to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives on September 18, 2008. It presents the case that public investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy is an essential part of an economic recovery program, and that money invested this way will create more jobs and economic stimulus than money spent on petroleum or household consumption. Then it lays out the specifics of such a program.
“Genius!” was one word used to describe the paper. It was seen by many as an exciting, convincing way to address problems of recession, energy dependence and global warming. Others were a bit more cautious, wondering if the plan could really produce such benefits and questioning what the role of government should be in developing the alternative energy industry. We noted that nuclear energy was not addressed in the plan, and guessed it was too controversial to touch. We referred back several times to the energy crisis of the 1970s, and recalled Jimmy Carter’s “Malaise Speech”. His message was generally seen as unpalatable to the American people, and we asked if Hendricks’ “can-do” message would be more inspiring. We noted that both presidential candidates are addressing global warming and energy independence in the debates.
Many were interested in following up on this testimony—who heard it and what became of it. Some information can be found on the committee’s website. On the page devoted to the hearing, they have great video clips of the follow up Q&A! It is interesting that the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 was passed 93-2 by congress several days after this testimony, on 9/23/08. (summary here)
If you are excited about this testimony and want more action, let your legislators know! Go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt and type your zip code in the My Elected Officials box in the right sidebar.
Next time: Consuming Desires: Consumption, Culture, and the Pursuit of Happiness edited by Roger Rosenblatt. Check out the sidebar for the schedule. Happy Reading!
July Lewis
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Spring Without Bees by Michael Schacker
Hi Everyone!
Our book for September was A Spring Without Bees by Michael Schacker. The book investigates Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a syndrome that has had a major impact on honeybees. Schacker describes how the loss of bees could be a disaster for food production, the economy, and even civilizaton itself. While U.S. media and government say that CCD is a mystery with no known cause, the author cites French studies that implicate the pesticide imidacloprid and other similar pesticides. These studies led to the pesticide being banned in France. He argues that U.S. research institutes and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are ignoring this evidence because they are dominated by the chemical industry. He then outlines a plan to save the bees, which includes a recommendation to switch to organic agriculture.
This book prompted an interesting book club discussion. Many of our members enjoyed this book and liked the engaging writing style, and appreciated knowing more about this issue. Few of us had heard of the CCD/imidacloprid link, and most found it quite plausible that chemical companies were using their influence to suppress the French research and focus attention on other possible causes. There was a general appreciation for the author's promotion of organic methods, and many pleasant digressions into the topics of gardening and honey and beekeeping.
However, many people found Schacker's style to be too sensationalist. Some thought he exaggerated the threat, and overemphasized or misrepresented evidence that supported his argument and glossed over anything that didn't. Others noted that he seemed to rely on a very few studies, mention them repetetively, and treat their conclusions as fact. Some thought that sensationalist writing wasn't necessarily a bad thing, and that it might be necessary to get people to engage with the issue and pay attention. Still others criticized Schacker's expansion beyond the issue of CCD, and felt he was overreaching in his proposals to completely convert U.S. agriculture to organic methods. We brought up the large-scale organic farms talked about in Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, and commented that it didn't seem as ideal as Schacker envisioned. All in all it was an imperfect but interesting read that raised our awareness of an issue many of us knew little about.
We selected the book for November (see sidebar) but wanted to get ideas for more positive environmental books. So please, we would appreciate your recommendation of environmental books with a positive or solution oriented emphasis. Send them to jlewis@asri.org. Any and all recommendations are welcome. Thanks!
Next up: "The Green Road to Economic Recovery" by Bracken Hendricks and “Eco-Junk: Why Buying Less Is More Than Buying Green” by George Monbiot. See sidebar for schedule.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis
Our book for September was A Spring Without Bees by Michael Schacker. The book investigates Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a syndrome that has had a major impact on honeybees. Schacker describes how the loss of bees could be a disaster for food production, the economy, and even civilizaton itself. While U.S. media and government say that CCD is a mystery with no known cause, the author cites French studies that implicate the pesticide imidacloprid and other similar pesticides. These studies led to the pesticide being banned in France. He argues that U.S. research institutes and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are ignoring this evidence because they are dominated by the chemical industry. He then outlines a plan to save the bees, which includes a recommendation to switch to organic agriculture.
This book prompted an interesting book club discussion. Many of our members enjoyed this book and liked the engaging writing style, and appreciated knowing more about this issue. Few of us had heard of the CCD/imidacloprid link, and most found it quite plausible that chemical companies were using their influence to suppress the French research and focus attention on other possible causes. There was a general appreciation for the author's promotion of organic methods, and many pleasant digressions into the topics of gardening and honey and beekeeping.
However, many people found Schacker's style to be too sensationalist. Some thought he exaggerated the threat, and overemphasized or misrepresented evidence that supported his argument and glossed over anything that didn't. Others noted that he seemed to rely on a very few studies, mention them repetetively, and treat their conclusions as fact. Some thought that sensationalist writing wasn't necessarily a bad thing, and that it might be necessary to get people to engage with the issue and pay attention. Still others criticized Schacker's expansion beyond the issue of CCD, and felt he was overreaching in his proposals to completely convert U.S. agriculture to organic methods. We brought up the large-scale organic farms talked about in Michael Pollan's book, The Omnivore's Dilemma, and commented that it didn't seem as ideal as Schacker envisioned. All in all it was an imperfect but interesting read that raised our awareness of an issue many of us knew little about.
We selected the book for November (see sidebar) but wanted to get ideas for more positive environmental books. So please, we would appreciate your recommendation of environmental books with a positive or solution oriented emphasis. Send them to jlewis@asri.org. Any and all recommendations are welcome. Thanks!
Next up: "The Green Road to Economic Recovery" by Bracken Hendricks and “Eco-Junk: Why Buying Less Is More Than Buying Green” by George Monbiot. See sidebar for schedule.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis
Thursday, August 21, 2008
"Why Mow" and "Turf War"
Hi everyone,
We enjoyed a nice summertime discussion this week on two articles about the Great American Lawn--“Turf War” by Elizabeth Kolbert and “Why Mow?” by Michael Pollan. We found the cultural history of the lawn very interesting…how lawns originally only belonged to the gentry in Europe (mostly England), but in the U.S., with improvements in irrigation and the invention of the lawn mower, lawns became an essential part of a uniquely American approach to landscape gardening. Pollan and Kolbert make much of the symbolism of the lawn—the democratizing influence of a carpet of green that connects neighborhoods, the monoculture that reflects the conformity of suburban life, the tightly controlled landscape that perhaps reflects our relationship to nature. They also discussed the environmental impacts of fertilizers, pesticides, and water use.
We all had plenty of our own lawn experiences to share, from childhood recollections of flower-filled lawns and lying on soft grass, to adult debates on how to break free of the dominance of the lawn. We all acknowledged a lawn’s usefulness as a playing space, and generally agreed that there was no need to apply all kinds of fertilizer, pesticides and water. Many people described slowly converting lawn space over the years to borders, flower beds, trees, wild meadows and vegetable gardens. The word “reclaiming” was used for this process more than once, perhaps reflecting the idea that a lawn often doesn’t feel like it’s ours. Usually it was the developer who decided to put down turf because it was the easiest, cheapest, quickest thing to do. Planting a garden can feel like reclaiming something that was supposed to be yours in the first place, and making your own choices about beauty and usefulness in your own home.
Have something to say about lawns? Click where it says the number of comments at the bottom of this post, below the signature.
Next reading is also about something you can find in your backyard—bees! Check out the schedule in the sidebar.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis
We enjoyed a nice summertime discussion this week on two articles about the Great American Lawn--“Turf War” by Elizabeth Kolbert and “Why Mow?” by Michael Pollan. We found the cultural history of the lawn very interesting…how lawns originally only belonged to the gentry in Europe (mostly England), but in the U.S., with improvements in irrigation and the invention of the lawn mower, lawns became an essential part of a uniquely American approach to landscape gardening. Pollan and Kolbert make much of the symbolism of the lawn—the democratizing influence of a carpet of green that connects neighborhoods, the monoculture that reflects the conformity of suburban life, the tightly controlled landscape that perhaps reflects our relationship to nature. They also discussed the environmental impacts of fertilizers, pesticides, and water use.
We all had plenty of our own lawn experiences to share, from childhood recollections of flower-filled lawns and lying on soft grass, to adult debates on how to break free of the dominance of the lawn. We all acknowledged a lawn’s usefulness as a playing space, and generally agreed that there was no need to apply all kinds of fertilizer, pesticides and water. Many people described slowly converting lawn space over the years to borders, flower beds, trees, wild meadows and vegetable gardens. The word “reclaiming” was used for this process more than once, perhaps reflecting the idea that a lawn often doesn’t feel like it’s ours. Usually it was the developer who decided to put down turf because it was the easiest, cheapest, quickest thing to do. Planting a garden can feel like reclaiming something that was supposed to be yours in the first place, and making your own choices about beauty and usefulness in your own home.
Have something to say about lawns? Click where it says the number of comments at the bottom of this post, below the signature.
Next reading is also about something you can find in your backyard—bees! Check out the schedule in the sidebar.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Control of Nature by John McPhee
For the month of July we discussed The Control of Nature by John McPhee. The book details three places in the world where people have been engaged in “all-out battles with nature”: the Mississippi, where the Army Corps of Engineers is tasked with preventing the river from diverting course to the Atchafalaya; Heimay, Iceland, where residents fought to control the flow of lava from a newly erupted volcano; and Los Angeles, where engineers attempt to control recurring debris flows that destroy houses built on the mountains.
People were fascinated by the details we never knew about—in some places in New Orleans, the land has settled so much (because soft sediments are not being replenished by regular floods) and the levees have been built so high, that you can be on the street and see a ship pass on the river overhead, like an elevated highway. The battles often seemed absurd—turning hoses on flowing lava to get it to stop, digging giant basins to catch mudslides but continuing to build in mudslide-prone areas. The author didn’t seem to take a stand or have a point to drive home. It was left to the readers to come to their own conclusions.
So what were our conclusions? Humans alter and control our environment, and this book was about the frontiers of that control, the edge of what is possible or reasonable. There was discussion of the idea that we shouldn’t be in those marginal places, and that they are examples of human hubris. We discussed the idea that people will build in unsuitable places if they feel that insurance or government will protect them, and is that a good idea? The Iceland story seemed different—more a heroic community response to a disaster, than an ongoing exercise in folly. We debated just how foolish some of these battles were, especially in the Mississippi—it seems insane, but then to let the river take its course would be so costly and destructive, maybe it’s the right thing to do after all. We talked about the very concept of control of nature. Some felt that attempting to control nature is wrong and impossible, and that nature will strike back and win. Others objected to viewing humans and nature as separate and oppositional—and nature as personified thing with a psyche and a will. They argued that humans are a part of nature. What do you think? Click on "comments" below to let us know!
An interesting read that let us look in on situations many of us knew nothing about. Next time we will be discussing something that most of us are familiar with: lawns! A timely summer topic. We will read the "Turf Wars" by Elizabeth Kolbert and "Why Mow?" by Michael Pollan. See sidebar for the schedule.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
People were fascinated by the details we never knew about—in some places in New Orleans, the land has settled so much (because soft sediments are not being replenished by regular floods) and the levees have been built so high, that you can be on the street and see a ship pass on the river overhead, like an elevated highway. The battles often seemed absurd—turning hoses on flowing lava to get it to stop, digging giant basins to catch mudslides but continuing to build in mudslide-prone areas. The author didn’t seem to take a stand or have a point to drive home. It was left to the readers to come to their own conclusions.
So what were our conclusions? Humans alter and control our environment, and this book was about the frontiers of that control, the edge of what is possible or reasonable. There was discussion of the idea that we shouldn’t be in those marginal places, and that they are examples of human hubris. We discussed the idea that people will build in unsuitable places if they feel that insurance or government will protect them, and is that a good idea? The Iceland story seemed different—more a heroic community response to a disaster, than an ongoing exercise in folly. We debated just how foolish some of these battles were, especially in the Mississippi—it seems insane, but then to let the river take its course would be so costly and destructive, maybe it’s the right thing to do after all. We talked about the very concept of control of nature. Some felt that attempting to control nature is wrong and impossible, and that nature will strike back and win. Others objected to viewing humans and nature as separate and oppositional—and nature as personified thing with a psyche and a will. They argued that humans are a part of nature. What do you think? Click on "comments" below to let us know!
An interesting read that let us look in on situations many of us knew nothing about. Next time we will be discussing something that most of us are familiar with: lawns! A timely summer topic. We will read the "Turf Wars" by Elizabeth Kolbert and "Why Mow?" by Michael Pollan. See sidebar for the schedule.
Happy Reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
Friday, June 20, 2008
Polar Bears, Endangered Species Act, and Climate Change
Hi everyone,
The readings we discussed this week were on polar bears and the recent listing of the polar bear as ‘threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) . The polar bear was listed because it is dependent upon sea ice, which is melting due to global warming. However, US Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, is taking “administrative and regulatory action” to try to prevent the ESA from being used to make global warming policies.
We spent a long time trying to puzzle out some of the implications. Questions that came up and some answers:
Q: What exactly does the Endangered Species Act do?
A: Biologists with either US Fish & Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries propose species to be listed, and once through Administration hoops, there is a public comment period listed in the Federal Register to list the species as “threatened” or “endangered.” In short, it is illegal to “take” (kill, harm, wound, etc.) endangered species. US F&WS and NOAA are required to create a Recovery Plan for each species on the list and define “critical habitat” (habitat essential to conservation of the species). Federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that destroy or degrade critical habitats. (Exceptions apply…)
Most of the effect is through the permitting process for projects and development. If a road, house, dam, etc., will significantly affect an endangered species or its habitat, permit can be withheld. Click here for a more complete explanation of the Act.
Q: Kempthorne is proposing a 4(d) rule that says if an act is “permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act”, it will be allowed under the ESA for the polar bear. So…
What is a 4(d) rule?
A: Section 4(d) of the ESA allows for special regulations for threatened (not endangered) species. This is intended to make the ESA more flexible, and these regulations may either increase or decrease the ESA’s normal protections.
What is “stricter”?
A: We thought that by “stricter”, Kempthorne meant that the Marine Mammal Protection Act was more protective than the ESA…but after doing some research, it seems the opposite. We came to believe he was using intentionally misleading speech, and that he really meant the marine Mammal Protection Act was more limited, narrower. We are not lawyers, so we can’t be sure...we think that was his intention.
Are polar bears considered marine mammals?
A. Yes, polar bears are regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but they along with walruses, sea otters and manatees, are under the authority of Dept. of Interior (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service), whereas most marine animals come under authority of Dept. of Commerce (NOAA) . So Polar Bears are now protected under both ESA and MMPA.
So the question is: is it appropriate to use the ESA to create climate change policy? While we all support action on climate change, there was some sympathy for the idea that the ESA is really not the best tool, as it is more suited to permit-by-permit actions. It might not be fair to single out specific developments, nor reasonable to claim that a particular development will cause polar bears to die. However, many people felt that we should use any legal hammer we have available to us, since our government seems unwilling to create a more comprehensive policy. In California, Jerry Brown is using the California Environmental Quality Act to sue local municipalities over land use plans that do nothing to reduce driving and the car-dependent lifestyle. We handed out an article about cultural conflicts over the Endangered Species Act as well.
We talked about the fact that the polar bear is an ideal poster child for stopping global warming…how we are biologically programmed to respond to furry creatures, and that almost every child has seen a polar bear at the zoo, and they seem so cute and cuddly in photos. The irony is that they are one of the most fearsome predators on land, and very intelligent and dangerous. We also touched on why there has been so much discussion of the threat to polar bears, and so little of actual countries that could disappear due to rising sea levels—such as many island nations in the South Pacific. We talked about the cost-benefit analysis of various types of action on climate change…and Stephanie forwarded an article that gives more info on this.
Finally, we talked about signs of hope…the strong sense that momentum is growing to fight global warming, both personally and politically…that vehicle miles traveled in the US have actually been dropping since November (due to high gas prices, but still)…and that Rhode Island farmers can barely keep up with the increased demand for local food. See the Take Action! section on the sidebar if you want to step up the fight against global warming!
OK, I've gone on long enough...let us know what you think by adding a comment! Just click where it says "comments" below this message. See you next time, and happy reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
The readings we discussed this week were on polar bears and the recent listing of the polar bear as ‘threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) . The polar bear was listed because it is dependent upon sea ice, which is melting due to global warming. However, US Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, is taking “administrative and regulatory action” to try to prevent the ESA from being used to make global warming policies.
We spent a long time trying to puzzle out some of the implications. Questions that came up and some answers:
Q: What exactly does the Endangered Species Act do?
A: Biologists with either US Fish & Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries propose species to be listed, and once through Administration hoops, there is a public comment period listed in the Federal Register to list the species as “threatened” or “endangered.” In short, it is illegal to “take” (kill, harm, wound, etc.) endangered species. US F&WS and NOAA are required to create a Recovery Plan for each species on the list and define “critical habitat” (habitat essential to conservation of the species). Federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that destroy or degrade critical habitats. (Exceptions apply…)
Most of the effect is through the permitting process for projects and development. If a road, house, dam, etc., will significantly affect an endangered species or its habitat, permit can be withheld. Click here for a more complete explanation of the Act.
Q: Kempthorne is proposing a 4(d) rule that says if an act is “permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act”, it will be allowed under the ESA for the polar bear. So…
What is a 4(d) rule?
A: Section 4(d) of the ESA allows for special regulations for threatened (not endangered) species. This is intended to make the ESA more flexible, and these regulations may either increase or decrease the ESA’s normal protections.
What is “stricter”?
A: We thought that by “stricter”, Kempthorne meant that the Marine Mammal Protection Act was more protective than the ESA…but after doing some research, it seems the opposite. We came to believe he was using intentionally misleading speech, and that he really meant the marine Mammal Protection Act was more limited, narrower. We are not lawyers, so we can’t be sure...we think that was his intention.
Are polar bears considered marine mammals?
A. Yes, polar bears are regulated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but they along with walruses, sea otters and manatees, are under the authority of Dept. of Interior (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service), whereas most marine animals come under authority of Dept. of Commerce (NOAA) . So Polar Bears are now protected under both ESA and MMPA.
So the question is: is it appropriate to use the ESA to create climate change policy? While we all support action on climate change, there was some sympathy for the idea that the ESA is really not the best tool, as it is more suited to permit-by-permit actions. It might not be fair to single out specific developments, nor reasonable to claim that a particular development will cause polar bears to die. However, many people felt that we should use any legal hammer we have available to us, since our government seems unwilling to create a more comprehensive policy. In California, Jerry Brown is using the California Environmental Quality Act to sue local municipalities over land use plans that do nothing to reduce driving and the car-dependent lifestyle. We handed out an article about cultural conflicts over the Endangered Species Act as well.
We talked about the fact that the polar bear is an ideal poster child for stopping global warming…how we are biologically programmed to respond to furry creatures, and that almost every child has seen a polar bear at the zoo, and they seem so cute and cuddly in photos. The irony is that they are one of the most fearsome predators on land, and very intelligent and dangerous. We also touched on why there has been so much discussion of the threat to polar bears, and so little of actual countries that could disappear due to rising sea levels—such as many island nations in the South Pacific. We talked about the cost-benefit analysis of various types of action on climate change…and Stephanie forwarded an article that gives more info on this.
Finally, we talked about signs of hope…the strong sense that momentum is growing to fight global warming, both personally and politically…that vehicle miles traveled in the US have actually been dropping since November (due to high gas prices, but still)…and that Rhode Island farmers can barely keep up with the increased demand for local food. See the Take Action! section on the sidebar if you want to step up the fight against global warming!
OK, I've gone on long enough...let us know what you think by adding a comment! Just click where it says "comments" below this message. See you next time, and happy reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
Friday, May 30, 2008
Sippewissett by Tim Travers
Hi everyone,
I’d say Sippewissett was a favorite! Many people really enjoyed Tim Traver’s poetic book on his well-loved salt marsh summer home, and even wanted to read it again. The writing was very appealing, and many wrote down some of their favorite quotes or turned back the corner of a page to mark especially moving passages. The mix of science, history, memoir, poetry and philosophy provided lots to talk about. We found it interesting that as much as he wanted to protect the marsh, he was not an advocate of untouched nature. He seemed to feel that nature, and home, was best experienced by getting your hands dirty and your feet wet, by immersing yourself in it and eating the clams and oysters you have pulled from it with your own fingers. We found similar themes in past readings like Last Child in the Woods. This bought up the question, how do you love nature and enjoy it without destroying it? The answer seemed to be in the concept of stewardship, of knowing a place well enough to know where that shifting line is.
As much as he discussed the biological ecology of the place, he also paid equal attention to the social ecology of this community. He resisted the increasing tide of privatization that had landowners putting up McMansions and fencing off the traditional paths and right-of-ways that the neighborhood all used. Spirituality was another theme that ran through the book, and we discussed why nature writing is often concerned with spirit, and is that the same as religion? It was suggested that both religious and non-religious people can feel awe and inspiration from the wonder of a salt marsh.
An excellent, thought-provoking read. See sidebar for June and July readings and meeting times.
Happy reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
Audubon Society of RI
401-949-5454
P.S. Now Audubon gift shops in Bristol and Smithfield have a 20% discount for all our Book Club selections! Just let them know you’re part of the Environmental Book Club to get the discount. Bristol is open 9-5 daily, and Smithfield is open 9-5 Monday through Friday, and 10-4 on Saturdays.
I’d say Sippewissett was a favorite! Many people really enjoyed Tim Traver’s poetic book on his well-loved salt marsh summer home, and even wanted to read it again. The writing was very appealing, and many wrote down some of their favorite quotes or turned back the corner of a page to mark especially moving passages. The mix of science, history, memoir, poetry and philosophy provided lots to talk about. We found it interesting that as much as he wanted to protect the marsh, he was not an advocate of untouched nature. He seemed to feel that nature, and home, was best experienced by getting your hands dirty and your feet wet, by immersing yourself in it and eating the clams and oysters you have pulled from it with your own fingers. We found similar themes in past readings like Last Child in the Woods. This bought up the question, how do you love nature and enjoy it without destroying it? The answer seemed to be in the concept of stewardship, of knowing a place well enough to know where that shifting line is.
As much as he discussed the biological ecology of the place, he also paid equal attention to the social ecology of this community. He resisted the increasing tide of privatization that had landowners putting up McMansions and fencing off the traditional paths and right-of-ways that the neighborhood all used. Spirituality was another theme that ran through the book, and we discussed why nature writing is often concerned with spirit, and is that the same as religion? It was suggested that both religious and non-religious people can feel awe and inspiration from the wonder of a salt marsh.
An excellent, thought-provoking read. See sidebar for June and July readings and meeting times.
Happy reading!
July Lewis & Eugenia Marks
Audubon Society of RI
401-949-5454
P.S. Now Audubon gift shops in Bristol and Smithfield have a 20% discount for all our Book Club selections! Just let them know you’re part of the Environmental Book Club to get the discount. Bristol is open 9-5 daily, and Smithfield is open 9-5 Monday through Friday, and 10-4 on Saturdays.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Welcome!
This is the first blog entry for Audubon's Environmental Book Club. Check back here soon for more!
July Lewis
July Lewis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
