NASA, the USGS, TIME, Google, and the CREATE Lab at Carnegie Mellon University collaborated to make these gifs showing progressions of development and human impact on earth over the course of several decades.
This is mind blowing and a testimony to the immense amount of work that needs to be done to address climate change and implement new notions of progress, development, and growth.
Full article here.
Common sense tells us that “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” just doesn’t apply here, but why do we still treat garbage like it does?
I was reading the Harvard Crimson’s article explaining why they don’t support the fossil fuel divestment movement, and I was left frustrated with their reasons for disapproval.
While we applaud the leaders and members of the campaign for engaging students, faculty, and administrators on the crucial issue of climate change, we still, as we have in the past, oppose the campaign’s call for divestment from the fossil fuel industry. We instead hope to see that the national Fossil Free movement direct its organizational capacities toward political channels rather than endowment divestment.
While climate change is certainly one of the most pressing issues of our generation, the moral issues at stake in the fossil fuel industry are not as unambiguous as those that prompted Harvard to divest from industries in the past, and divesting from fossil fuels may thus set a dangerous precedent for the University. While it might have been easy to definitively identify human rights violations in the South African regime of the 1980s—when the University did choose to divest its holdings in South African companies—such a definitive judgment cannot be made in this instance.
Before I get into why the argument that fossil fuels aren’t definitively morally unambiguous is so frustrating, I have to say I don’t know if I’m misreading the comment about 350.org, but 350.org is already directing its organizational capacities towards political channels in addition to endowments. It seems like many approaches to addressing environmental/energy issues try to choose one overarching solution and claim it’s the way to go. However, because these issues are so structurally and ideologically complex, the approach needs to be multi-faceted. The movement to move the United States towards cleaner energy and properly address environmental issues needs to engage in the public and private realms and from top-down and bottom-up approaches.
Now, back to the main point that the fossil fuel industry isn’t tied to moral issues that aren’t as unambiguous as those tied to apartheid in South Africa. Is there some sort of scale that determines one injustice is less unjust than another? If people’s lives are endangered and seriously harmed shouldn’t the undeniable conclusion be that something must change? Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) contaminates people’s drinking water and is responsible for local air pollution. Mountaintop-removal also poisons drinking water, pollutes local water bodies, and cracks the foundation’s of people homes via dynamite explosions in close proximity to communities. Oil spills contaminate entire marine ecosystems not only killing/harming marine life but also leaves many jobless because there are no fish/clams/shrimp/etc to catch. This list can go on and on.
I’m not saying that we need an immediate moratorium on all fossil fuels because that’s impossible and impractical. There clearly needs to be more funding, research, and credit given to alternative/renewable energy sources, but I think a crucial first step is to simply have people understand why the current energy source status quo needs to change.
When Evan Vokes stepped to the microphone during a public hearing on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline on Thursday afternoon, one might have guessed he supported the plan to send Canadian tar sands oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Like most of the pipeline supporters at the hearing, Vokes wore a polished suit. But the engineer informed those gathered in the Heartland Event Center in Grand Island, Neb., that he’s actually a former employee of TransCanada, the pipeline operator, who has since turned whistleblower. Vokes described shoddy practices, cut corners and a “culture of intimidation and coercion.”
“TransCanada management has not demonstrated the moral fiber to ensure compliance,” Vokes told the three-member State Department panel considering the environmental impact of the pipeline ahead of the White House decision on the project.
- whole article on HuffPost.
I went to hear Annie Leonard speak at UMass today, and even though her talk was very similar to the one I heard at Eco SXSW in Austin, it was an engaging reminder that albeit being difficult, we need to keep working to exercise our “citizen” muscle because our “consumer” muscle is out-of-control huge. Leonard writes a [short] blog post expanding on the citizen and consumer muscles analogy here. Also watch The Story of Stuff, which takes us through the whole process of creation, consumption, and disposal here!
I think the significance of what Leonard talks about is illustrated in this quote from Campus Progress:
“Campuses have all of a sudden become the front lines of climate policy now that Congress is deadlocked, so we have to take action,” says Daniel Sherrell, a grassroots leader with the Brown Divest Coal Campaign.”
It’s crazy to think many people in industrialized nations, especially the United States, are so far removed from the majority of the processes and structures that are involved with our patterns of consumption. Actively learning more about the products we consume is difficult and nearly impossible to be comprehensive, but the thought of being an ignorant consumer just haphazardly purchasing things doesn’t sit well with me.
It’s definitely overwhelming to always be thinking about all the inputs and implications of our actions, but I think even becoming aware of how much we are unaware of is a big step.
Do all issues stem from power structures or has academia created this construct/framework to make issues more tangible?
For the next 10 days, 350.org and other groups are coordinating a “comment sprint” where people will be submitting comments about why KXL is a bad project.
“The first issue we’re focusing on is how the pipeline undermines energy security. We need to clear about one thing: TransCanada wants this pipeline so they can get tar sands oil to export.
President Obama’s job is to decide whether the pipeline is in the US national interest. TransCanada has shown that it’s not. In filings to the State Department and contracts with refiners, they’ve spelled out their plans to pad their profits by exporting it to the international market where it will fetch a higher price — putting more money in the pockets of big oil and accelerating tar sands development in Canada.”
Submit your comment about energy security here: act.350.org/letter/kxl-sprint-day-1/
Don’t be a giraffe.
