The construction of nature, issues of control over local conservation issues by foreigners, degradation of that land and marginalization of local communities because of that invasive policy, and environmental conflicts between different groups over these conservation issues…These topics are all brought up not only in Robbins’ book, but also in Milking the Rhino. The movie in itself was intensely insightful and beneficial to be able to understand both sides of the matter. I’m grateful that we watched it before reading this part of Political Ecology because I feel that it gives an easily relatable face to the problems that arise in the text.
Additionally, I cannot help read Robbins without seeing anthropology within it all as well. Each chapter brings a new facet to both political ecology and anthropology. The concept of “we” versus “them” (151), the difficulties in defining “traditional” versus “contemporary” (153), and the proliferation and obscurities of boundaries both geographical and between humans (156, 173). I am excited to study these concepts further and be able to put the four theories to use in my career (hopefully).
Political ecology seems to be a wonderful mesh of so many different areas that would be beneficial to a multitude of professions. It seems strange that I have never heard of it before and that so many concepts arise from Robbins that seem newly foreign and yet common sense simultaneously. As previously noted in responses, the issues of Malthusian population and Garret Harding’s “Tragedy of the Commons” are both concepts that I learned long ago and took for granted. It has not been until now that my mind has changed (and quite quickly) after reading Robbins’ simple rebuttals. I wish that others had been introduced to this revolutionary (yet common sense) outlook on environmental issues before. I strongly urge you to use this book again for further classes taught in the department and ideally create an entirely new class around this concept that can be cross-referenced in a host of disciplines. Thanks for introducing me to this!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Response 9
While interesting, I was excited to get away from the first part of Robbins and into Part II. The perception of what is considered “natural” that Robbins addresses on page 89 immediately sparked my interest. I have found the concept of “natural” an extremely interesting one and something that comes up in a variety of contexts, including my study of anthropology. Being culturally or linguistically relative automatically assumes that there is no “natural” or “norm,” thus allowing room for each individual society to be accepted for what it is, regardless of comparison to others. However, the concept does come up in a similar way as it is used in political science when a culture is compared to a former version of itself. What religious practices are “right” or “natural” in modern Australian Aboriginal culture? What language is accepted as “natural” in a changing Brazilian tribe? These questions are repeatedly posed in a variety of contexts. As Robbins notes, “the way we view what is ‘natural’ is predetermined in the first place by social and cultural concepts/filters/structures” (90).
The definition of such a fluid concept as “natural” is a difficult task, yet an admirable one that Robbins takes up. He has chosen four ways that an area is considered degraded, or therefore unnatural. While reading, I found plenty of faults in these descriptions, yet the author himself also reveals his concerns and argues for the use of caution in using the defining factors due to their difficulty of measurement. I found additional issues than those mentioned, however, particularly the discussion of native species versus invasives. However, this too, as Robbins says, follows “claims of degradation or environmental change [being] inherently specific” (98).
Environmental ethics also seems to be an important concept throughout this chapter, as issues of anthropocentrism are central to many ideas, including those determining what we decide are measuring factors to environmental degradation. Does land usefulness truly describe an area’s degradation or is that merely information for humans to note (and to researchers to cite when gather funding if the usefulness is degraded)? The note that “anthropogenic disturbances can mimic ‘natural’ disturbances” (98) especially stood out to me as begging the question of “does that make it okay?” Obviously, there are serious concerns with the idea of environmental degradation and its definition, as Robbins certainly points out.
The definition of such a fluid concept as “natural” is a difficult task, yet an admirable one that Robbins takes up. He has chosen four ways that an area is considered degraded, or therefore unnatural. While reading, I found plenty of faults in these descriptions, yet the author himself also reveals his concerns and argues for the use of caution in using the defining factors due to their difficulty of measurement. I found additional issues than those mentioned, however, particularly the discussion of native species versus invasives. However, this too, as Robbins says, follows “claims of degradation or environmental change [being] inherently specific” (98).
Environmental ethics also seems to be an important concept throughout this chapter, as issues of anthropocentrism are central to many ideas, including those determining what we decide are measuring factors to environmental degradation. Does land usefulness truly describe an area’s degradation or is that merely information for humans to note (and to researchers to cite when gather funding if the usefulness is degraded)? The note that “anthropogenic disturbances can mimic ‘natural’ disturbances” (98) especially stood out to me as begging the question of “does that make it okay?” Obviously, there are serious concerns with the idea of environmental degradation and its definition, as Robbins certainly points out.
Response 8
I am very much entranced by the concept of community-based natural resource management and am always happy to see it mentioned, as Robbins does on page 42 in his example of management gone wrong in India. In doing so, he stresses the importance of local knowledge—another idea that I am moved and excited by. I think it is extremely important for the global community to finally realize that natives have it right and what has worked for centuries is probably the way that things should continue instead of trying to solve one culture’s issues with another culture’s solutions.
However, local communities are often not able to solve their own issues, as they are “tied into a global economy where they are disempowered, they live within a…system where they are most marginal, and where new demands for capital can only be met by exploiting their local natural resource” (51). This global economy has sucked in so many small societies and is now forcing them into overproduction so that they may meet a new, unrealistic quota. These systems that may have worked for the small communities for so long are transformed into huge industries through the promise of generating greater income. This is seen not only in Asian countries mentioned in the chapter, but also rural American agriculturalists. Many farmers have worked for generations on small farms that generate little income, but provide subsistence for the families living on it. Through promises of money, these farmers decide to buy expensive equipment such as pesticides, fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, etc. These small-scale farms are instantly transformed from innocent crops to monocultures driven by yield. The entire thought process changes and farmers go into debt when unable to provide in this new large-scale system, yet are forced to degrade the land further with their GMOs, pesticides, monocultures, and intensive tilling in a desperate attempt to increase production. Thus, it is difficult to provide in this new large-scale, global economy and often daunting to stick to what one knows in the looming prospect of money…
Also in this chapter, Robbins yet again threw me a curve ball as he completely negated Garret Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons.” This classic theory was taught to me in AP Environmental Science and I seem to have always stuck by it, or at least I’ve never been presented with an alternative—until now. Suddenly, Robbins comes along and patiently explains to those misinformed why exactly this theory does not hold up and the problems associated with it. “The ‘tragedy of the commons,’ moreover, by placing the fault of degradation at the feet of disempowered local communities, actually disguises and supports this outcome [of appropriation of locals’ communal capital]” (45). What a rational thought that had never presented itself to me before. Robbins describes the theory as apolitical and “though attractive, is inadequate” (45).
However, local communities are often not able to solve their own issues, as they are “tied into a global economy where they are disempowered, they live within a…system where they are most marginal, and where new demands for capital can only be met by exploiting their local natural resource” (51). This global economy has sucked in so many small societies and is now forcing them into overproduction so that they may meet a new, unrealistic quota. These systems that may have worked for the small communities for so long are transformed into huge industries through the promise of generating greater income. This is seen not only in Asian countries mentioned in the chapter, but also rural American agriculturalists. Many farmers have worked for generations on small farms that generate little income, but provide subsistence for the families living on it. Through promises of money, these farmers decide to buy expensive equipment such as pesticides, fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, etc. These small-scale farms are instantly transformed from innocent crops to monocultures driven by yield. The entire thought process changes and farmers go into debt when unable to provide in this new large-scale system, yet are forced to degrade the land further with their GMOs, pesticides, monocultures, and intensive tilling in a desperate attempt to increase production. Thus, it is difficult to provide in this new large-scale, global economy and often daunting to stick to what one knows in the looming prospect of money…
Also in this chapter, Robbins yet again threw me a curve ball as he completely negated Garret Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons.” This classic theory was taught to me in AP Environmental Science and I seem to have always stuck by it, or at least I’ve never been presented with an alternative—until now. Suddenly, Robbins comes along and patiently explains to those misinformed why exactly this theory does not hold up and the problems associated with it. “The ‘tragedy of the commons,’ moreover, by placing the fault of degradation at the feet of disempowered local communities, actually disguises and supports this outcome [of appropriation of locals’ communal capital]” (45). What a rational thought that had never presented itself to me before. Robbins describes the theory as apolitical and “though attractive, is inadequate” (45).
Monday, October 26, 2009
Response 7
Robbins was extremely uplifting for me to read after the constant, dense environmental policy of Kraft. As a social science major, there often seems little hope to make it in the world of environmental studies, yet Political Ecology defines much of itself just as that and in fact says, “surveying the changing fortunes of local people and the landscapes in which they live, probably comprise the largest share of work in political ecology” (13). This is exactly perfect for me, as I have been thinking for the past year that my dream job of being the intermediary between environmental policy and how it affects the communities that it regulates was a phantom. Apparently all along I’ve been looking for political ecology without knowing where to look. At Robbins’ mention of cultural ecology I nearly leapt up and proclaimed to the world how excited I was, since it sounds perfect for me—combining my background of anthropology and environmental studies at last!
Robbins again amazed me with his discussion of Malthusian population ideas. Probably since high school, I have been convinced that the population problem was the root of our environmental problems. If there were fewer people inhabiting the earth, fewer resources would be needed and we would therefore live more sustainably and without the issues we now face. Robbins accepts this idea and takes it several steps further. Population is an issue, yes. However, the style of life of that population is of even greater importance. If we all lived the way that the rural citizens of Peru live, the world would be a different place. And if the entire earth held the same “quality of life” as Americans, our resources would long have expired, leaving us with a dead planet. It is this way of life that is so important to change, not just the numbers of humans. We all know that we need to slow our use of those resources left on our planet, but being most focused on our way of life, we find it hard to step back and analyze ourselves and therefore see that how we live is entirely ridiculous. We are brought up to believe that we need all of these things—the laptop full of heavy metals and chemicals, the cars full of deadly fluids and batteries, light bulbs, cell phones all created of toxins that leach into our earth after we (readily) dispose of them. All of this I knew already, yet Robbins just makes me look at things from a new perspective. It is important to change what we have to be more sustainable, but it is most important to a complete paradigm shift into what is truly sustainable and change the way Americans think about the way they live. All of this again excites me as a social scientist, as I automatically see the importance of being culturally relative and instead of spurning other, “less developed” countries, we must instead strive to be more like them, to adopt their sustainable habits and rethink… everything.
Robbins again amazed me with his discussion of Malthusian population ideas. Probably since high school, I have been convinced that the population problem was the root of our environmental problems. If there were fewer people inhabiting the earth, fewer resources would be needed and we would therefore live more sustainably and without the issues we now face. Robbins accepts this idea and takes it several steps further. Population is an issue, yes. However, the style of life of that population is of even greater importance. If we all lived the way that the rural citizens of Peru live, the world would be a different place. And if the entire earth held the same “quality of life” as Americans, our resources would long have expired, leaving us with a dead planet. It is this way of life that is so important to change, not just the numbers of humans. We all know that we need to slow our use of those resources left on our planet, but being most focused on our way of life, we find it hard to step back and analyze ourselves and therefore see that how we live is entirely ridiculous. We are brought up to believe that we need all of these things—the laptop full of heavy metals and chemicals, the cars full of deadly fluids and batteries, light bulbs, cell phones all created of toxins that leach into our earth after we (readily) dispose of them. All of this I knew already, yet Robbins just makes me look at things from a new perspective. It is important to change what we have to be more sustainable, but it is most important to a complete paradigm shift into what is truly sustainable and change the way Americans think about the way they live. All of this again excites me as a social scientist, as I automatically see the importance of being culturally relative and instead of spurning other, “less developed” countries, we must instead strive to be more like them, to adopt their sustainable habits and rethink… everything.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Response 6
I believe that one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time is population growth. This issue that is constantly escalating and rarely being addressed exacerbates every other environmental problem that the world faces. Kraft finally brings up this issue in the last section of his last chapter, though devotes a surprisingly thorough view of policy within those few pages, including multiple pieces of legislation and their changes throughout time. Population is a touchy subject, as it is nearly always spoken of in conjunction with abortion and the strong religious ideas opposing it.
Kraft rightfully uses the population issue as an example “that environmental agreements often rest on a fragile political consensus that can weaken at any time” as support for international family planning programs has waxed and waned with each presidential election. Each time I read about the huge changes involved with the US’s new presidents, backsliding with Reagan, eventually gaining ground with Clinton, and again falling with G.W. Bush, I wonder if there should be a policy created that does not allow new administrations to weaken environmental policy. In the case of population, there is little regulation in the first place, though such topics as deforestation and pollution emissions are constantly being made more or less stringent. I have to wonder if there is a way to force administrations to comply with previous standards without being able to deteriorate the laws. I am afraid that by allowing this, other, conflicting “interest groups” would want such promises as well such as the coal industry being able to mine so much per year or the oil industry being able to drill so much oil per year. It seems an impossible task, yet one that would benefit the earth so very much. Is there a democratic way of allowing such changes? Or do we have to rely on ourselves, the citizens, to create a sea change in the environmental movement (which perhaps has already started…) that will elect only environmentally conscious officials?
Kraft rightfully uses the population issue as an example “that environmental agreements often rest on a fragile political consensus that can weaken at any time” as support for international family planning programs has waxed and waned with each presidential election. Each time I read about the huge changes involved with the US’s new presidents, backsliding with Reagan, eventually gaining ground with Clinton, and again falling with G.W. Bush, I wonder if there should be a policy created that does not allow new administrations to weaken environmental policy. In the case of population, there is little regulation in the first place, though such topics as deforestation and pollution emissions are constantly being made more or less stringent. I have to wonder if there is a way to force administrations to comply with previous standards without being able to deteriorate the laws. I am afraid that by allowing this, other, conflicting “interest groups” would want such promises as well such as the coal industry being able to mine so much per year or the oil industry being able to drill so much oil per year. It seems an impossible task, yet one that would benefit the earth so very much. Is there a democratic way of allowing such changes? Or do we have to rely on ourselves, the citizens, to create a sea change in the environmental movement (which perhaps has already started…) that will elect only environmentally conscious officials?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Response 5
In Kraft’s discussion of the Natural Resource policy of the US, he devoted a section to the ESA and a short paragraph to CITES, including one sentence on the international black market on animal smuggling. I feel that he severely underplayed this important convention and the issues involved with it. While abroad in Brazil, I heard horrifying stories of finding crates filled with hundreds of endangered birds, many of them already dead, on their way out of the country. Smugglers work with huge numbers of animals, knowing that many will die under the terrible conditions they are put through and banking on the hope that some will survive. This sort of black market smuggling goes on constantly in and out of Brazil and South America, among a variety of other countries.
CITES is a vastly ignored piece of legislation in many countries and there is a severe lack of enforcement and funding. Working with the ESA in one country alone is hard enough to fund and enforce and when this is considered on an international scale, the task seems impossible. However, it is a crucial aspect of protecting the world’s quickly dwindling number of species. There are many questions of how to fund an international treaty (Are there rules of how to gather funds? Is most of the money raised by fining smugglers? Are the fines standardized internationally?), how these funds are decided upon (A percentage of the budget for environmental protection? A certain dollar amount? More or less depending on the country/area of the country?), and how the enforcement is itself enforced (Are countries fined for not having enough guards? Does any organization pay attention to how countries are imposing regulations or if they are at all?).
Kraft gives no attention to any of these issues and gives no insight into how such an international convention is carried out. My first hand experiences have proven to me that the importance of these regulations is vast and every day they are being broken with not enough workers finding the smugglers, not heavy enough fines penalizing them, and not enough research into how their organizations work and how to stop them. So much needs to be done, and so much needs to be explained.
CITES is a vastly ignored piece of legislation in many countries and there is a severe lack of enforcement and funding. Working with the ESA in one country alone is hard enough to fund and enforce and when this is considered on an international scale, the task seems impossible. However, it is a crucial aspect of protecting the world’s quickly dwindling number of species. There are many questions of how to fund an international treaty (Are there rules of how to gather funds? Is most of the money raised by fining smugglers? Are the fines standardized internationally?), how these funds are decided upon (A percentage of the budget for environmental protection? A certain dollar amount? More or less depending on the country/area of the country?), and how the enforcement is itself enforced (Are countries fined for not having enough guards? Does any organization pay attention to how countries are imposing regulations or if they are at all?).
Kraft gives no attention to any of these issues and gives no insight into how such an international convention is carried out. My first hand experiences have proven to me that the importance of these regulations is vast and every day they are being broken with not enough workers finding the smugglers, not heavy enough fines penalizing them, and not enough research into how their organizations work and how to stop them. So much needs to be done, and so much needs to be explained.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Response 4
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is an extremely complicated bill with many facets. Interestingly, different websites portrayed the bill in very different lights and each seemed to be almost a different piece of legislation entirely. For example, from govtrack.us, I found the bill to have several amendments to previous legislature such as the CAA, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. I saw much fewer instances of the word “require” than I would have liked to and no actual numbers for reducing emissions or dates to phase in new technology by. There were also many examples of establishing programs without necessarily explaining how/when they would be established or paid for. From this, it was extremely difficult to tell the degree of change that the bill would create and would have been difficult to understand even without prior background knowledge of climate and energy legislation.
Sightline.org seemed to oversimplified many aspects of the bill, creating confusion in contrast to the previous information. A quick Google search for “climate bill” or “American Clean Energy and Security Act” retrieved top hits of anti-ACES information about job losses and tax increases. It was finally the Energy and Commerce Department of the U.S. actually did the best job of describing ACES and how it would affect the general public—monetarily, employment-wise, etc. It gave actual numbers (e.g. $90 billion invested in energy efficiency and renewal by 2025) and described the many types of jobs that it would create (millions, including many blue collar such as construction). It also discussed the five programs that would be created to protect consumers from energy price increases and the CBO estimates of how much the legislation would cost consumers per day ($0.50, without considering the savings consumers would benefit from).
In all, I found it difficult to research the bill and find solid information that would be accessible to the mainstream public. This is a problem, especially with such an important bill that has come to a close vote already in the House and faces much opposition on its journey to the Senate and President Obama. It is crucial for the community to be knowledgeable about policy so that they may influence their legislators. With such contradictory and confusing information, people are likely to give up the search (if they are politically concerned enough to even begin) without obtaining the facts they deserve. ACES is a perfect example of one of the big issues that American political policy faces today—public ignorance. Without any sort of voice from the community, elected officials are free to decide as they wish—or how they are swayed by big industries.
SOURCES:
http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/cap-and-trade-101?gclid=CPGl29TM kp0CFeFM5QodKzei2Q
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16 33&catid=155&Itemid=55
-->I can comment more specifically if you want. I just feel like I need the background behind my thoughts and have a hard time with the 400 word limit (already over here..) Let me know if you want something different for this one; I certainly have more I can say.
Sightline.org seemed to oversimplified many aspects of the bill, creating confusion in contrast to the previous information. A quick Google search for “climate bill” or “American Clean Energy and Security Act” retrieved top hits of anti-ACES information about job losses and tax increases. It was finally the Energy and Commerce Department of the U.S. actually did the best job of describing ACES and how it would affect the general public—monetarily, employment-wise, etc. It gave actual numbers (e.g. $90 billion invested in energy efficiency and renewal by 2025) and described the many types of jobs that it would create (millions, including many blue collar such as construction). It also discussed the five programs that would be created to protect consumers from energy price increases and the CBO estimates of how much the legislation would cost consumers per day ($0.50, without considering the savings consumers would benefit from).
In all, I found it difficult to research the bill and find solid information that would be accessible to the mainstream public. This is a problem, especially with such an important bill that has come to a close vote already in the House and faces much opposition on its journey to the Senate and President Obama. It is crucial for the community to be knowledgeable about policy so that they may influence their legislators. With such contradictory and confusing information, people are likely to give up the search (if they are politically concerned enough to even begin) without obtaining the facts they deserve. ACES is a perfect example of one of the big issues that American political policy faces today—public ignorance. Without any sort of voice from the community, elected officials are free to decide as they wish—or how they are swayed by big industries.
SOURCES:
http://www.sightline.org/research/energy/res_pubs/cap-and-trade-101?gclid=CPGl29TM kp0CFeFM5QodKzei2Q
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show
http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16 33&catid=155&Itemid=55
-->I can comment more specifically if you want. I just feel like I need the background behind my thoughts and have a hard time with the 400 word limit (already over here..) Let me know if you want something different for this one; I certainly have more I can say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)