Environmental Engagement

Environmental Engagement pertains to reaching across the community and the globe to discuss and bring awareness to environmental issues that affect the world no matter a person’s background or beliefs. The key to engagement is communication and having a dialogic conversation. Essentially, keeping the conversation two way, talking with someone rather than talking at someone. Engagement requires connecting with someone or a group, a sustained connection, and steady communication.

In class, we created Engagement proposals on how to engage with the community on certain environmental issues. We focused on what the issue was, who we were engaging with, and how we will engage with them. In my group, we related environmental engagement to the conservation issue of Palm Oil in Southeast Asia.  Our goal was to facilitate a constructive discussion about the costs and benefits of the destruction of natural areas as a result of palm oil harvesting. We discussed environmental and Socio-economic Trade-offs Associated with Land-sparing and Land-sharing approaches to Oil Palm Expansion. Land sharing is incorporating Agriculture to the natural landscape, while land sparing is completely flattened and clear-cutting natural areas for agricultural reasons. According to the World Wildlife Fund, almost half of the products that people consume on a daily basis, such as shampoo and food products, contain palm oil. Palm oil is cheap and easily produced in abundant amounts, and many do not see a viable alternative to its production. The controversy lies in palm oil’s negative environmental impacts. It requires a large amount of space, which entails burning large amounts of peatland forests, causing the emission of greenhouse gases. Also, the destruction of the forests destroys the habitat of several species, including the Orangutang which is endangered.

In our project, we will engage with Lewis and Clark students from all corners of the curriculum. We would like views from different perspectives from students that are not necessarily involved in the ENVS major or minor. We would also open our presentation to the public around Lewis and Clark and in downtown Portland.

How we will engage is in a series of steps. First, we plan on interviewing with members of both sides of the debate on palm oil. For instance, we will meet with the administrators and owners of companies that use palm oil in their products and rely on palm oil for business. Then, we will interview members of environmental groups who oppose and protest the palm oil industry. We would then create a video showcasing our experiences while interviewing these people and highlight the major controversies around the argument. We would have a viewing of the video in the Lewis and Clark Council Chambers, followed by a panel of researchers and business owners and open a time for questions and answers. We would advertise this event through flyers and posters both around campus and around the city itself. We will determine the success of the video and panel through a follow-up feedback form from those who participated to determine if the activity developed awareness of the issues surrounding palm oil.

     

Environmental Action

This weeks debate involved Environmental Action. Position one advocates for educating the people. They believe that education is the fundamental foundation of all action. Instead of “changing minds”, they simply believe in providing the cold hard facts supported by trends and science. On the other end of the spectrum, position two advocates for tearing the system down. They see that see taking on radical change against laws and policies on a global level is the quickest way to reform the entire system. They also strongly view that the natural world takes top priority over all urban civilization. Position Three believes in engaging with our world. They believe in reaching across differences through solid communication. They see that connection is the key to engagement. They would rather explore and further understand differences to come to a consensus than simply fight and get nothing done. This is similar to the way in which Daryl Davis communicated with the Ku Klux Klan. They advocate talking with those who disagree in a dialogic way, a two-way conversation.

Of the three positions, I affiliate with all the positions. I see that one can not work without the others. You can not educate people without solid communication, you can not make radical change without education and connection, and you can not connect into a two-way conversation with people without being properly educated and unhostile while doing so. I believe that it is possible to incorporate all three positions in order to take both small daily actions, and large-scale political ones. In order to connect and engage with our counterparts and overthrow a flawed system, we must incorporate several ideas presented within the positions. There is no one way to get things done and to connect with others. 

Grid-Group Theory

Grid Group (GG) theory analyzes how we understand our differences. It takes into account several differences in risk perceptions for things such as political parties, policies, personal beliefs, etc. Within GG Theory, many of these perceptions arise from our thoughts on differing social relations that we encounter. Within these social relations, there is the grid (social hierarchy), and the group (social cohesion).  A social party with a high grid believes in leaders and a social party with a low grid follows their own authority. If a society has a high group, they are dependent on each other, and if a society has a high group the people do not interact. Within these are four different types of Grid Groups: Fatalists, Hierarchists, individualists, and egalitarians.

The grid group theory relates strongly to environmental action. In environmental action, there are four approaches to nature: nature benign (individualist), ephemeral (egalitarian), tolerant within limits (hierarchist), and capricious (fatalist). After taking the Ecotype Survey, I discovered that I affiliated as a mild Individualist. This means I have a low grid and a low group. Essentially, I prefer to follow my own authority and tend to not depend on the community around me. I was surprised by this result. I believed that I am someone who is actually very much dependent on the opinions and affiliations with other in my community and that I prefer to have a leader rather than follow authority for I tend to be a very indecisive person. Also, in relation to environmental action, it would mean that I am nature benign. Nature benign essentially means that I believe that nature and the natural world is robust and can handle disturbances caused by humans for it will always return to its natural state. I actually disagree with this and believe that nature is fragile and reacts very sensitively to man-made creations. Therefore, I believe that the Ecotype Survey was incorrect and that I am actually egalitarian and ephemeral, believing that nature is delicate.  

Debate on Food

This week there was a debate on food and the actors which surround its importation and distribution. Position one advocates for “growing and buying local”. They believe that distributing food products straight to the consumer means less transportation, which in turn emits less energy. Through small action comes small successes, which, as they see, does add up. Not only does travel demand for products decrease, but communities will also be more connected with the farmers who raise and harvest what they eat, meaning more transparency within the food agency. Position one’s beliefs also support the local economy and open up jobs within the community. Position one is also against GMOs. They see that GMOs cause allergic reactions, more pesticides which disrupt the food web and causes us to question what exactly is in the food they eat.

Position two disagrees with the sentiments of position one. They see that global agriculture is a green solution. They believe all food should be grown in one place and then transported somewhere else. They believe that this is better for the environment for food transportation accounts for 7% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Position two also supports the production of GMOs. They see that it is simply better for the economy and production. Not only would GMOs entail a larger output from farmers, but it would also allow food to be cheaper and more accessible to everyone. It is a global solution for a global problem.

Position Three argues that society should be wary of lifestyle environmentalism. Lifestyle environmentalism is activism through daily lifestyle choices such as: how you eat, what you wear, and how you get places. These small act of defiances will not get us anywhere. Local food production is inefficient, expensive, and will not combat oppressive capitalism. Agriculture, especially animal, is not safe or regulated enough. They believe that reform is key to reduce inefficiency and increase safety. Policy change is much more effective than small change.

Of these three positions, I agree most with position three. In position one, there is a major hole in the argument for they do not properly address how to confront situations like food deserts or how local food is much more expensive and not accessible to a large portion of the working class. Position two holds good claims but fails to acknowledge the unsafe and unhealthy environmental and physical risks of large-scale transportation. Position three simply advocates for large incremental change of the infrastructure and regulations around food. If we change the entire system to be safer and more productive, rather than focusing on small actions, we can reach not only a more accessible food supply but a greener and economically beneficial one.  

The controversy of the Northern Spotted Owl

The Northern Spotted Owl is one of the three subspecies of spotted owls that has caused major controversy in the biological and environmental field of study. The Spotted Owl live in old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest, feeding on small mammals. However, somewhat recently, there has been late successional forest due to timber companies harvesting the trees in which these owls reside. Since the early 19th century, the Northern Spotted Owl populations habitat has progressively declined by 60-80% of its original space, leaving this species endangered. After several efforts by the Fish and Wildlife Service and The Northwest Forest Plan (1994), there was a huge relocation of public forests strictly for Spotted Owl protection. However, the decline in the population of the Northern Spotted Owl still persisted. Biologists were extremely confused for they were almost certain that the population decline was due to Timber harvest and habitat destruction. Even as Timber harvest rates declined at a great deal, the spotted owl’s struggles steadily persisted. Biologists then blamed the next best option: Barred Owls (Strix Varia) were invading the habitat of the Spotted Owl and stealing their resources. As a result, biologists recommended lethal trapping of the Barred owl as an experiment to see if this would cause the Spotted Owl’s population to increase. This sparked major controversy for the Barred Owls were native species and their cause of arrival into these Old Growth forests of the Pacific Northwest is unknown among scientists. The only reason Spotted Owls were being favored is due to the fact that they have a more limited diet and are only able to live in these old growth forests, while Barred Owls are much more adaptable to new environments.

This Environmental and biological controversy over the Northern Spotted Owl demonstrated how the field of Environmental Studies encompasses a large number of other studies. In just one controversy over an owl and its habitat, it integrates ideas from the biology of the Northern Spotted owl and Barred owl, politics surrounding conservation, ethics of killing one bird over the other, and economics of the Timber industry.

Health and Environmental Justice: Why can’t we work together?

In society, the health of ourselves, our families, and our children are one of the greatest concerns. In this week’s debate, we discussed two positions that advocated to be what they believed, the best way to achieve and attain both physical and mental health on a larger scale. Position one believes in the “Natural Way.”  Essentially stating that natural medicinal techniques such as acupuncture, herbal remedies, and music therapy are the only healthy way to achieve the health of society. This position draws from holistic medicine and traditional healing techniques and sees that modern medicine greatly fails to bring attention to the importance of the aspect of the spiritual mind and its effect on the body. Position two believes in the exact opposite. They base their approach off of the future, stating that technology has proven most effective over time. Position two argues that natural medicine is not yet regulated enough, does not go through a proper approval process, and is simply a marketing ploy. The third position argues that only environmental justice will bring health for all.  According to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Environmental Justice is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulation, and policies.” Essentially, position three believes that Natural and Modern medicine does not matter if everyone, especially POC and lower-income households, does not have access to them. They argue for political action and quality control over groundwater and air in lower-income neighborhoods.  

All three positions have their good qualities and their faults. However, I question why we can not have all three options. Through natural medicine, technology, and political environmental action working together would it not make achieving the goal of health for all seem more practical and feasible? In this situation, it is silly to think that there can only be one option or that only one option os possible. Instead of time wasted contradicting each other, the two positions should simply work together to use all of the strengths of each practice in order to achieve the goal of health.

 

Daryl Davis: Klan we Talk?

Musician and influencer, Daryl Davis, is a man who has successfully convinced more than 200 white supremacists and neo-nazis to turn in their robes and leave the Ku Klux Klan. How can an African American man convince his complete opposites who are so set in their way of hate, to change their values and leave all they have ever known? After speaking at Lewis and Clark, Davis revealed that the most important things are communication and respect. He asks “How can they hate me, if they don’t even know me?” Davis does exactly that, he gets to know the members and find a way to relate with them or form some sort of common ground. He builds trust through communication, and he truly listens to what they have to say without overreacting. He gives his opponent a platform and challenges them both intelligently and influentially. He argues that ideology stems from conversation– if one learns from conversation, they can unlearn from conversation. Davis also shows the members respect, something they do not receive from most people who protest their hateful beliefs. Although Davis did not agree with what the klansmen have to say, he agrees with their right to voice their opinions.

In environmental studies, one may often encounter individuals who do not believe in the existence of climate change. We can take what we have learned from  Darryl Davis, and apply his method of communication and respect in order to not only teach climate change deniers but also start taking action. It is important to invite the opposition to the table and listen to all their arguments respectfully. If they will not allow you to get a word in, allow them to talk themselves out. Establish ground rules with your opponent and be wary that they are acting out of defense. Through communication, we can take strides toward understanding.

Darryl Davis Ted Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw    

Hurricanes and Climate

The Florida Panhandle is a known hotspot for hurricanes. Its beaches, houses, and businesses become utterly obliterated. For example, hurricane opal resulted in $1.8 billion in property damage. However, people find a way to stay hopeful and profit from the hurricane’s destruction through the housing market. Property left in disaster make way for new development. This brings economic growth as the government and developers coincide to rebuild what the hurricanes demolish. Eager investors, without hesitation, ignore the Panhandle’s history of hurricanes for speculative investments or for building their dream homes.

Despite the possible positive effects of hurricanes for the small number of businessmen taking advantage of the storm’s free bulldozing, the majority of citizens reap horrible circumstances of death, relocation, and destruction. As the years go on, Hurricanes have been getting stronger, and many refuse to see the direct connection of climate change to their increasing intensity. According to Henry Fountain, a  New York Times Author and Climate Scientist, as the atmosphere gets warmer, the Earth’s oceans increase in temperature giving hurricanes more energy. Since warmer air holds more moisture, the hurricanes will also be much wetter. The warmer surface temperature also leads to a greater temperature difference causing a stronger release of energy into the storms.

Climate change clearly has a major effect on Earth’s systems and natural disasters which have been increasing in frequency. In class, fellow students debated three ways in which the community can reduce their carbon footprint. The first position argued that we must solve the climate crisis with renewable energy such as solar and wind. Economically, this decision is most sound and easiest to carry through. However, these structures require rare earth metals which entail environmentally harmful mining practices. Also, they would require a lot of space, which means imminent habitat obstruction. The second position argued that the best option is to connect nuclear power with every day fuels. This option has the lowest amount of pollution and is long lasting, creates high energy, and much safer than perceived. However, nuclear energy has a high principle cost. Lastly, the third option believes that climate change is the crisis of civilization and as a result, we must revert back into an Anarcho-civilization. We must view nature as a sacred and reject modern institutions. In theory, reverting back into a time with no technology is a good idea, but on a global or national level, it is impossible to achieve.

Personally, although falsely advertised as extremely dangerous, I feel that the best out of these options is nuclear power. Not only is it safe, economically it although has a high initial cost, but the operating cost is also much lower than renewable energy practices. Lastly, Nuclear power releases no carbon emissions, therefore of all, it is the greenest.

 

Situating

This past week in class we discussed the meaning of situating in the context of Environmental Studies. Situating is a process that it interdisciplinary that studies places. Essentially, it brings together all the pieces of Environmental Studies in order to answer a framing question. Situating is almost always in relation to a place. A place is a mixture of nature, social science, and meaning. The process of situating is much like an hourglass: it starts broad, gets more condensed in the middle, then opens backs up at the bottom.

Situating research starts with a very eclectic framing question that is often unanswerable. Then, the researchers must look at the details, focusing on methodology and analysis. Most of the empirical research is done towards the center of the hourglass. Lastly, one must make comparisons and generalizations of the data they have collected and relate it back to the bigger picture.

In the readings for the week, we read a report of a study done by Professor Jim Proctor and other Environmental Studies majors at Lewis and Clark and their research done in
Swaziland. While volunteering, they went from several households in many villages throughout Swaziland and surveyed the ways in which households dealt with water, energy, and solid/human waste. In class, we related this research in terms of situating. The research began very broadly with discussing “global environmental health”. It then narrows as it moved towards the center of the project by discussing a specific study site: the Ezulwini Valley. They took into account the immense urbanization and environmental health at the scale of the household. They recorded data such as in Swaziland what was considered “improved water” was any water being pumped through a pipe. However, after further analysis, even the piped water contained a sufficient number of contaminants. Improved sanitation involved a pit latrine. Lastly, they compared there data to economic and resource sector urban versus rural differences. They related it back to how the needs for environmental health are extremely variable.

Through discussing its meaning and putting it into the context of the research done in Swaziland,  the importance of situation is evident. In order to thoroughly comprehend and do research one must start with the big picture. They must then compact and deconstruct the ideas presented into data and ideas. Lastly, relating it back to the broad scope of things. Through this process, an individual or group will be able to hold a successful mindset and obtain a well-rounded research.

ENVS Senior Panel

  This past Friday, the Environmental Studies Lewis and Clark graduating seniors came and answered questions about the major itself. During this panel, many discussed their concentration and thesis. I learned that Environmental Studies is expansive and can be catered to an individual’s interests while simultaneously tackling issues within not only our environment but also our society. Many discussed how what they love about Environmental Studies is that you are able to take a large number of breadth courses. These courses, although may seem to have nothing to do with the prospect of environmental studies, relate back to the major in some form or another. They also happen to be extremely interesting and tie into major issues we face within our society today.

I also noticed a few drawbacks to the major. One was that it seemed very difficult and stressful when coming up with a concentration or thesis. One student even mentioned that she had some form of an identity crisis when trying to come up with the “perfect thesis”. However, I expected this from most of the majors I would consider pursuing. Also, it appeared that almost no study abroad opportunities would count as credits towards the major. This upset me for I am extremely interested in going abroad and traveling while simultaneously learning more about environmental studies and its effects on a global scale. Lastly, I was hoping to hear more about internship and research opportunities, but the people I spoke with did not offer much insight.

Despite these few minute drawbacks, my place within the major seems secured. I have a passion for environmental issues, such as conservation, and am extremely satisfied with the curriculum. The graduating seniors who came and spoke seemed as though they have a steady path and are extremely well versed in the current and past conflicts within our society regarding environmental issues. I am nervous about the workload and future, but I am optimistic about the extensive opportunity and many interesting classes that come along with being an environmental studies major.