Sustainability

Sachs' book describes the need for sustainability, as well as walks the reader through how people view the term "sustainability" differently. Chapter 1 starts by mentioning that sustainable development is "a way of understanding the world and a method for solving global problem." That's a good starting point, a bit vague to encompass all of the complexities, while stating the goal of sustainability. Sachs then talks about the growing number of people and their economic troubles, like finding food, homes, and work, which has been a challenge since the globalization of the world market.
Rio's Earth Summit defined sustainability as a development that doesn't affect present and future generations' needs. This means making sure everyone has the resources they need to survive, without fear of running out of them. Sachs also mentions the goals of sustainability when focusing on well-being. Poverty, inequality, social mobility, discrimination, and social cohesion are all problems faced in society, and sustainability should be used to make sure social inclusion occurs. Government functions, equality, and efficiency are all important factors of living sustainablly.
These are all great ways to understand sustainability, but I'm a bit concerned that these definitions don't mention the environment, just how people will be affected. So, Sachs mentioned the GDP, and how it doesn't account for harm done to the environment, like air and water pollution. Sachs then delves in to the importance of sustainability in ensuring clean drinking water, nutrition, and power to homes, and how it greatly affects areas considered "pockets of poverty" (32). Lastly, Chapter 1 discusses the issues with not living sustainablly, like climate change and altering the ocean's chemistry and the water and nitrogen cycles. "Human-induced climate change" (34) has shifted us into the Anthropocene, where we focus on ourselves outside of the environment we need to survive. Charts of the ever-climbing carbon emissions are shown, as well as the importance of fixing this issue being listed.
Sachs' definition of sustainability focuses on creating the most good for the most people, ensuring it stays that way for generations. This definition also includes reasons why this is important, and the issues involved need to be worked on. However, I think a good, encompassing definition of sustainability is working to improve our lifestyles so that it creates the most good for ourselves as well as the rest of the planet, including the biotic and abiotic factors that help us survive. By including the good of plants, animals, ecosystems, biomes, habitats, and landscapes of the earth, it is better for us, as well as ensures the safety and renewal of the things we need to become closer with, to understand how necessary they are to our continued growth and happiness.

I hope to research the sustainability needs and efforts of either Denmark or Germany, because I've heard some good initiatives from both, including using garbage as energy and giving money to residents with solar panels. It would be interesting to see issues they still have, as well as gauge how much better off environmentally they may be with their proactive sustainability.

The Bet/Book Review

The Bet was written in a way that explains the complicated issues of overpopulation in a simple, chronological way. Sabin does an excellent job remaining as unbiased as possible, showing the merits and drawbacks of being overly optimistic and too worried about overpopulation and the future of humanity. Additionally, Sabin shows the harm media can do to people just trying to share their findings. Ehrlich spoke on various T.V shows and gained so much attention that he became a celebrity, and the only voice people would listen to when it came to population consultation. The media was also generalizing much of what Ehrlich said so it became posed as radical ideas of reducing the growing population. This media attention sparked the interest of Simon, who also joined the media through his views that contrasted Ehrlich's. The two actually agree on a lot, like measures need to be taken to make sure we don't overshoot our carrying capacity, and that technology can assist us in the process. However, where they disagreed, the media enlarged that to make it a battle with two polarized sides- pitting them against each other when they were advocating for the same thing. Granted, the processes they came up with were largely different, but the idea behind was the same. 

Sabin does a good job showing the struggles of sharing a viewpoint without it being twisted for the media, and also provides good examples of other advocates of each side and their research, with helpful graphs and background. A part of the novel I greatly appreciated was the background information Sabin added to Ehrlich and Simon. It helped keep in mind that they're still people, and that they're upbringing has a lot to do with where they stand. Simon lived around a lot of people so saw them as beautiful when abundant. Ehrlich lived in the countryside, so was more fearful when there were large groups of people. 

Christensen's review of Sabin's novel summarizes the ideas behind the text well enough, "We see the 

evolution of Simon’s ‘cornucopian’ view of ongoing population growth supported by human ingenuity; his open conflict with Ehrlich’s steadfast ‘neo-Malthusian’ argument that there are real ecological limits to growth; and how both standpoints have influenced US environmental politics." This article also puts into a larger perspective of how much this bet meant to Simon and Ehrlich. Even after Ehrlich lost, Christensen notes that Ehrlich said he doubted England would be around in 2000. Christensen is also able to show the surrounding political and environmental elements that shaped the bet, mentioning the presidential elections immigration, energy, and climate change. "Ultimately," Christensen explains, the bet is used to explain the whole messy evolution of US environmental politics from the early 1970s, when Republican Richard Nixon was an environmental champion, to today, when Republican environmentalists are an endangered species." So, Christensen sees Ehrlich and Simon's competition through a political lens, viewing how their bet shaped the legislation of the United States across their bet until today. Additionally, Christensen notes that Sabin thinks the split in environmental policies comes from the shift in political parties, and thus uses this novel to show the cause and effect environmental issues and solutions. 

"Sabin bemoans the polarization that is the very structure of a wager, as if it were an important cause of the larger divide. But bets can be useful — they can clarify what is at stake and, by doing so, help us to frame thinking about the future of the planet." Here, Christensen notes the his issue with The Bet- he feels Sabin's issue with polarization isn't helpful. Christensen finds that the bet, and thus the polarization of the sides, allows people to see both sides as well as what each side is worth. Additionally, Christensen ends his article noting that the senior science advisor to Obama was against Simon in the bet, while Obama himself says he's hopeful for the future. By pushing that fact and Obama's quote together, Christensen is trying to imply the complexity of environmental policies, and how closely tied to politics environmental issues are. 

Personally, I like The Bet- it's a helpful book that shows the issues with just choosing a side, and what can occur if you're more interested in the media than in the facts. Christensen's review has merit- he sees flaws and interesting points for the book, but only interprets the text to be about the politics of environmentalism, and no the social factors that Sabin also discusses in detail. 

Kenya's Restoration Project 

Author Hayden Higgins wrote an article for The Daily Climate about a great initiative in Kenya. Just this past week, Kenya announced its plan to restore 12.6 million acres of the land in their country that are degraded due "poor land use, including overcultivation and overgrazing." Much of the land in Kenya has gone through desertification because of this, but a team of researchers found that over 65 percent of Kenya’s land is "suitable for restoration."

Higgins writes about how this project "will help government, civil society and business leaders ascertain how they will achieve it." Suggested by Higgins was having Kenyan leaders look at the areas they want to restore and determine how they want to go about restoring the area, and advised planting trees and other vegetation. Higgins most likely comes from an environmental background, seeing how their comments are well-informed and ideas about restoration are helpful. For example, Higgins also notes the benefits of this restoration, including reduced carbon emissions by 3.7 percent, a good step toward Kenya's goal of reducing their CO2 emissions 30% by 2030.

Higgins' identity is probably one that is college educated and from somewhere in United States, and has studied journalism first and foremost. Much of what they discuss is taught in college environmental classes, and the perceptive is one of someone who doesn't live directly in Kenya (using "they" and "them" instead of "us" or "we"). What is discussed of environmental policies in the U.S is largely reflected in the ideas Higgins presents, and their background is most likely journalistic over environmental simply because of the way they report the information- more factual than celebratory and reported in easy-to-understand terms than scientific. 

The article also discusses how the restoration will improve life economically, assisting farmers by giving them more nutrient-rich soil. This is also good for many different groups of people, Higgins reports, such as "members of nomadic tribes that make their living by grazing livestock and growing food crops in the rangelands." Higgins definitely studied journalism to be able to report this concisely, but also studied environmentalism because of the way they analyze the various facets of impacts this restoration will have, socially, economically, environmentally, and politically. 

Environment in the News
An environmental issue that's been bothering me most recently is the North Dakota pipeline, because is disregards the people living on the land as well as their right to clean drinking water. An article from The Daily Caller mentioned how Energy Transfer, the group trying to make the pipeline happen, is appeasing protesters. However, many other reports, like the one from ABC News, mentioned that people trying to keep this work off their land have been attacked. Chris White, the Daily Caller's article writer, said that Energy Transfer was going to "extraordinary lengths to avoid trampling Native American ritual sites." However, early in the development, the pipelines construction ran through sacred burial sites of the tribes of American Indians who live on that land. The judge for this case didn't stand with the Standing Rock Sioux because they couldn't prove how the pipeline would harm the burial grounds. However, a good idea of this would be if the judge and the writer of this article considered if there was a pipe full of sludgy looking oil being pumped through a cemetery where they're family members were buried, and part of the area were dug up to make room for that pipeline. White also wrote that the tribe "haggled" with developers, trying to see if the National Historic Preservation Act would actually protect them, posing this group as trying to win something over on the developers. There's no haggling about this, the tribes in North Dakota are struggling to find ways that developers can't continue their work, even though there's clear proof of damage and danger from their project. White's main focus in this article is posing how much money would be lost from this project, which is only money the company has invested so it doesn't mean the country would be losing those funds. Additionally, White writes how this pipeline would be the first of its kind, trying to make it seems like a waste if we don't follow through.

However, White's background is most likely journalistic, so he doesn't realize that this will effect him, too. The pipeline is being built from the Bakken Shale formation, which also coincides with the spot for the North Dakota watershed. So, if the pipe they're building has a crack in it, which is will at some point, it could be leaking 309,000 barrels to 1 million barrels a day into the water millions of people use to drink. Which then goes into environmental issues of clean water and pollution, as well as economic issues of lost revenue and damage control. It also gets in to politics, as to who will respond and how to the disaster. And this issue is already environmental and political, since a group of people in America is under threat, since the developers didn't even notify the tribes that they were considering their land a site for construction. It's already environmental because the construction work has already contaminated the drinking water, and thus harmed the living organisms, people included, in that area. So I think different perspectives need to be put into play to write this issue correctly, not just looking at it from a financial point of view. Additionally, it's not a big deal if we can't transport oil, because it's a nonrenewable resource and will run out, so it'll be harmful on the economy when that happens. If this project ceases, maybe people will consider renewable energy more seriously, too. So we can consider the social repercussions to events like this as well.

Malthusian Perspective 

After reading and discussing both perspectives of overpopulation, it makes it clear that this is a complex issue. I believe we are connected to our environment, which means we need to take responsibility for what we are doing to our surroundings. This includes living sustainably, where we have enough resources, whether for food, shelter, or clothing, while still leaving some in nature. Overpopulation strains our resources, but so do people who don't live sustainably. Many wealthy families who have a few people in their group consume and waste more resources than some poorer families who have more members. I can understand the Malthusian perspective of a threat to survival, but I think that one of human beings' best qualities is our adaptability. When we see a situation going badly, we find solutions, and we adjust because it will help us survive. I think the concerns for lack of resources are well founded, and overpopulation definitely contributes. But, I think the problem is more to do with how we interact with our environment- if we use what we need we should be fine, but since people over-consume it can become a problem. Ehrlich mentions that threats to the environment include "excessive consumption, pesticide use, disease, and the ecological limits that he thought constrained future food production" (Sabin 11). So, if we're worried about survival, we should focus more on studying diseases to eradicate them, stop wasting food, stop using pesticides, and stop using the monoculture crop method of growing food, since it makes plants susceptible to diseases and creates a capitalist market for feeding people. That in turn means that people, and in fact countries, can be chosen for whether or not they deserve food. Ehrlich himself believed this to be a solution- "Countries should be separated according to whether they 'can't be saved' (Haiti, Egypt, India), were 'walking wounded' (Libya, The Gambia), or 'should receive food' (Pakistan Tunisia)" (Sabin 25). Additionally, it hurts enterprise because food is grown by large corporations instead of smaller businesses, so people have less say of what's in their food and how it's produced.

This leads in to Simon's argument, "Whether population growth is too fast or too slow is a value judgement, not a scientific one" (Sabin 62). The value we put on resources, on the earth, and on people are what define how we're going to respond to these issues. If we focus on people as being intelligent and innovative, overpopulation shouldn't be a major concern, since people are smart enough to understand the best options and how to counter major issues. Rita James, Simon's amazing wife, discussed (transracial) adoption and immigration in her career, as well as was an advocate of women's rights, an important section of the overpopulation debate. Instead of the inhumane ideas Ehrlich proposed and other Malthusians thought was a viable option, Rita and Julian promoted advertising birth control, keeping it optional, as well as strategized government-run monetary incentives for having less children, because "even in family planning, he thought, people make 'rational decisions'" (Sabin 77). Simon also proved that statistic for overpopulation are not "straightforward and clear-cut" (Sabin 80), so there are many ways to stay adaptable to fixing overpopulation. So, overpopulation is a major issue, but there are ways to counter it humanely. Additionally, it's over-consumption and the way we treat the environment that caused these issues, so we should focus on them before trying to decide who gets to eat and why others deserve it more.

Work Cited

Sabin, Paul. The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth's Future. New Haven: Yale UP, 2013. Print.

Passaic River Cleanup 
After reading the article from The Washington Post about the Newark river cleanup, there are some mixed thoughts that come about. I think it's a good initiative, but I think they should use their funding to solve the issues at the source. If the EPA could stop businesses from dumping waste into the river, it would make the cleanup easier on them since the source of the pollution would cease. There were some questions about this initiative, too, as to whether or not the barrier and slabs will hold during storms. I think it's an interesting and well-intentioned idea, but I think the funds could be used more wisely.
This is an important topic to most people in the class on a personal level, since many students come from New Jersey, and even from Newark. Over the summer, I worked with a Nature Camp in Madison that was based at Memorial Park. We headed to the river a lot over the summer, and it was full of broken glass an garbage, which was really disappointing to the counselors and kids alike. Each week of the camp talked about different subjects, one of which being water. So, we taught the kids the importance of clean water through different crafts and fun facts, so that they know how dependent on water we all are. Additionally, we had speakers from the Great Swamp teach a class, and they brought a 3D model of the Passaic River to show the kids how much this river means to so many people.

3D map provided by the Great Swamp

So, reading this article about the river cleanup gave me mixed emotions. I'm happy people are doing something to help a large group of people- I just hope it's a project that is stable enough to make a lasting impact for many generations.