In “World’s biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies,” the recent actions of Norway are detailed. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) is the world’s richest sovereign fund with over $850 billion in assets, including oil and gas companies. With that being said, the fund recently removed thirty-eight coal-mining companies, eight companies due to greenhouse emissions, five tar sand produces, two cement companies, and one coal-based electricity generator. The reason that the fund divested from these companies was because their business models of the companies were not aligned with the country’s commitment to climate change. Norway felt that investments in these companies were risky in the sense that they were counter-productive and increased environmental concerns. The concept of risk that is present in the article is similar to that presented in “From Liberal to Ecological Democracy.” A main theme addressed by Robyn Eckersley in “From Liberal to Ecological Democracy” is identifying and being conscious about the risks when making decisions that can potentially affect humans and non-humans communities. In my opinion, Eckersley is arguing for the reader to develop an ecological conscious that does not center on non-humans service to humans but rather non-humans and humans being valued the same. I think the Government of Norway understands those sentiments. The fund does not want to carry the burden of the risks and is proceeding to raise objections, by divesting, on behalf of the environment. Simply, an ecological democracy is all about taking into account of the risk implications of nonhuman species that are incapable of raising objections or challenging what is being done. The Government of Norway is moving in the right directions and hopefully other individuals, organizations, and governments will follow.
Law is a very powerful tool that can be used for the benefit for the environment and for all the organisms residing in the ecosystem. As the works of Cormac Cullian, “Wild Law” states, “if laws are to be effective they need to recognize the inherent nature of the subject”. In respect to the environment, the ones that create the laws must somehow comprehend and even acknowledge the subject, in this context, the environment. In the article that I found we see that their attempting to develop cities that are more environmentally friendly known as “smart cities”. What I found so interesting about this article is how it associated itself well in what the weeks readings were focused on. In the article it discusses the interest that the government has in regards to making these cities; their reasoning being that it would help the environment by encouraging the use of public transportation and cut back on carbon dioxide emissions and also have practices that are also beneficial for the environment. One of the things that was also interesting about this article is the amount of support that this project is receiving from large governments such as the U.S.A, Germany, and Spain who are all promising to lend their help for the project. What is so interesting about this is that it seems that their interests in supporting this project lies with the global interests in developing this country in regards for economic reasons. What is so important about this is that it seems that governments involved in this are not showing interests in the project for the benefit for the environment, but for the benefit of the economy, showing that the paradigm in economic interest has not shifted and there is still no true focus in making plans that are thinking of the environment first.
Weekly Response # 5 (February 9 -11)
Richard Cordero
The article, A Manifesto for Earth Justice written by Cormac Cullinan, discusses the plight of the environment’s fight against human society. Cullinan argues how we as a species are exponentially destroying the overall planet. He continues to describe how we are sacrificing the only world we have for financial gain that will ultimately mean nothing after our home is gone. Cullinan attests that we as a society needs to change our approach in how we view and treat the planet to maximize our potential impact on the world and the health of our future as a species. His conclusion not only addressed the logical and factual need to revise human interaction with the environment but the spiritual connection with the planet and how it can better our society morally and by giving us a better sense of identity.
In the article Protecting the Environment During Armed Conflict – An Inventory and Analysis of International Law, the UN discusses the importance of changing the human opinion of the way we interact with the environment. They discuss the importance of changing the opinion of the masses in order to change the preservation plans to a plan of cohabitation where we strengthen the relationship with the environment. As stated in the above article the UN explains how society and the environment can better from the relationship, the environment will thrive and reward and society will better their identity with the world.
“Sustaining Africa’s Development By Leveraging On Climate Change” relies on the idea of “slow violence” that is discussed in the Nixon reading for today’s class. The concept behind the article is that by improving agriculture technology to use energy and water more effectively, Africa can develop faster. According to policy and development practitioners Africa “should use the window of opportunity presented by a low carbon economy to implement new knowledge and information to transform the challenges posed by climate change into opportunities for social development.” Fatima Denton sees climate change as a way for Africa to adopt technology to help save water and energy.
CGIAR has given a large portion of its budget to focus on how to support farmers in sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on climate-smart agriculture. Africa has enough resources to feed itself but is currently unable to do so, leaving many of its inhabitants hungry. “Climate change is expected to disrupt current agricultural production systems, the environment, and the biodiversity in Africa unless there is a major cut in global greenhouse gas emissions.”
This connects with the reading because Africa is making small but sure steps towards dealing with a changing climate, by adapting the way they live currently to be more ecologically safe.
“The Japanese town that was poisoned” is the article I picked up from BBC News and was truly disgusted by what was happening. The article was short so I did a little more research on what happened. Mercury poisoning is a leading assassin that faces the nation of Japan in the past and currently in its present. MInamata is not the only region of the world that has depreciating environmental justice due to the grips of a capitalistic economy. Another region that faces mercury poisoning on a hidden scale is the city of Taiji. This area is heavy in dolphin hunting and the leading exporting region in the world for dolphins and other porpoises. The local government there is also keeping the vast mercury poisoning that is going on so they can keep up with their million dollar dolphin hunting enterprise. The lack of environmental justice from the governments of these nations is horrific. They are knowingly killing their own people; the people they are suppose to protect and provide a sense of security for. Environmental justice will only come is the international community realizes that it is truly a crime. We can only that the international community and its people will realize the seriousness of the harm they are being put in and prohibit it. It is truly ridiculous that we are not only destroying our only world but we are destroying ourselves in the process. This idea was brought up in this weeks reading and for some reason the interests of making a fortune is more important then our own well being. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31156620
One of the things that the readings keep touching on is that we are the ones doing things that affect the environment and most readings have said we are responsible for some of the effects on the environment. Well the BBC posted an article about an alternative way of “fixing” things. The article is called “Climate change: Could we engineer greener humans?” and it talks about the idea of instead of trying to fix the environment we try to fix ourselves. Some of the things at hand are changing our size and/or diets to reduce carbon footprint and thus creating “green humans.” In Cormac Cullinans “Wilde Law A Manifesto For Earth Justice” he talked about how the environment is constantly changing and thus our environmental laws must be flexible as well this takes it the extra mile. We would literally be altering human biology and force a kind of new evolution on humans for us to adapt to the needs of our environment. This article gives a rather radical suggestion for benefiting our environment and also, unintentionally, giving a way in which we can become more connected to the earth and be part of its finely tuned system. If we change humanity so that is naturally reduces the over use of environmental resources then we are back to being part of nature, not just using it as our means to an end. Of course the article is still seeing the planet and environment as an object, as something we do not want to damage, while many of the readings seem to be referring to it as an organism in itself, a self sustaining body that we are a part of, so in a way it is also countering some of the readings because it is taking an “unnatural” rout to solving the issue; and one could also say that it is cheating us out of our own nature since it would be controlling human development. It is still a very controversial topic because it would fall along the lines of “playing god” but the truth is if there we don’t make the laws or take the actions necessary to sustain more of our environment, whether for our sake or for the common good, then the longer we take the more radical the solutions will have to get. For now, in my eyes, this is as radical as it gets and it if were implemented, I think it might actually make some difference in what our environment needs. Only time will tell.
In this week’s reading Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice by Cormac Cullinan, he discusses the topic of “wild law” which he generalizes as the laws of the world that “… regulate humans in a manner that creates the freedom for all the members of the Earth Community to play a role in the continuing co-evolution of the planet.” (pg 31). In more depth he discusses that it is meant to connects the wilderness and society, but in an unrestricted nature where humans can continue to evolve/develop new sciences while protecting the rest of nature. An example given of this connection is a German law that was passed protecting animal rights. This reminded me about an article I found from thegaurdian about a more environmentally friendly way to make houses. In this article, (called “Straw houses: builders hope past will inspire greener, warmer future” by Steven Morris) it discusses the town of Shirehampton, and how they started a project last month of making several houses out of straw, instead of more modern materials, such as bricks and insulation materials. The biggest factor to how I feel this relates to the article (other than how it is about being more environmentally friendly) is that towards the end of the article, they discuss how straw is used in the UK, and that they have millions of tonnes of straw left over from wheat production. Yes, they use it as animal bedding, but Cullinan mentions how resources gathered shouldn’t be wasted (he uses an example of seeds farmers might have excess of that should be allowed to be planted), and that by using the straw for houses, they are creating a unique and valued product that many people will use.
When reading the article titled: Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice, one of the things Culling pointed out was many different things hat had to do with wild life and nature that humans did that were primarily negative, but they were looked at as a positive thing. He gave the example of the slaughter of certain animals being slaughtered because the thought that these animals were ‘problem animals’ for the human race. There are many examples that one could think of around the globe. I found an article that gives an example of this happening.
The species called the Pangolin is the most highly trafficked animal all over the world. This animal runs the risk of being extinct before many people have even heard of what it exactly is. The reason that this animals becomes extinct so easily is because they do not do well while being held in captivity. Humans traffic these animals in hopes of getting paid a big chunk of money to get them into zoos so the human population can become more aware of them. It reminded me of the reading because this is a prime example of how humans can be so selfish to only think about their needs and not think of the animal and the nature that surrounds us first when making decisions. These animals have almost vanished from Vietnam’s forests while being trafficked over the many borders for humans entertainment.
The first article I read, and fought my attention significantly, was the Nixon Article. he introduces two terms in the reading (Slow violence and structural violence). Nixon defines “Slow Violence” as an, “understated violence with delayed repercussions, poses challenges to the environmental action because its effects are hard to observe”. Structural Violence was defined as a social structure or an institution that will eventually cause danger, ad harm people by depriving them from their basic needs for life. This article reminds me of the discussion i posted a couple weeks ago that mentioned how the big actors in the world worry about the big countries and their environmental problems but they leave the little, and underdeveloped, countries or states abandoned, if you would say. In Nixon’s article, he explains how the bigger actors are hurting the smaller undeveloped countries and the consequences for not giving them the attention that they need. It seems like the bigger countries global actors do not want to get involved unless there is some sort of compensation, or money going their way.
“Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor” is an article that discusses the slow, destructive nature of violence that so many are oblivious to and the impacts this has on the poor. Violence that is given attention is the one with instant change. Terrorist attacks, fires, and tsunamis are all examples of violence that offer the most immediate threat. Slow violence is a threat such as toxic buildup and species loss that take place over time, sometimes even spanning across a few generations. This slow violence is often overlooked, or agreed something should be done about it, but it put off for another generation to deal with. The poor, lacking resources, are the main casualties of this slow violence. The article I chose is titled, “African Food Crises Threatens Food Security” from BBC News. The article discusses the neglect to the African soil, and how it will threaten food security for generations to come. The soil degradation also resulted in damaging economic development, causing farmers to lose billions of dollars. Reducing soil fertility leads to increased greenhouse gasses and lower crop yields. The impacts are more substantial in this developing continent, leading to “65% or arable land, 30% of grazing land and 20% of forests are already damaged.” The article states that there are about one hundred and eighty million people living on degraded land in Africa. The African panel made a number of recommendations to improve the situation. Nixon’s Slow Violence article applies to the BBC article, showing how poor populations are affected over the course of generations via slow violence. Nixon also addresses this notion that people are aware of this slow violence, but let other generations deal with the case. I found it interesting that the African panel made recommendations, but no immediate changes, leading me to believe that they are delaying acting as well.
Out of the reading that we had this week the main one that stuck out to me was the video. She conversed about environmental rights and how they were consequence as well as different living conditions according to class. A video that instantly made a connection to me was dealing with the incident in Japan where a town was poisoned due to industrial pollution. Thus, this is why having environmental laws are so crucial; It has an ongoing negative cycle. Mercury was found in the water which had an effect on living organism of the sea which humans consume; wild animals drink and so forth. Like the lady said in the video in comparison to New York, people in power do not see it to be a problem until a situation like this occurs. It is imperative that we stop living for ourselves because we get in our own way of making an environment better. People died from this , people were permanently physically and mentally affected. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31156620
My article this week is about the beginning of a movement in the UK to produce houses made of hay. Hay, as defined by the article, is the leftover stalks from cereal crops, and just under four million tons of it is produced every year in the UK. Researchers and engineers from the University of Bath say that using hay as construction material instead of traditional insulation is significantly more sustainable in terms of energy consumption. The article describes a launch of hay-houses that are to be available to ecologically-minded Europeans all across the continent.
The article states that there are many misconceptions about hay-built houses. When consumers think about them, images of the three little pigs dance in their heads. They think the houses are fragile, unsafe and incendiary. To the contrary, engineers say that hay-built houses are safe, robust and not any more flammable than traditional houses.
This article makes me think about Paul Taylor’s writings in that this movement seems like one in which humans are realizing their place in the environment, and trying to adapt to fit that place. I think Paul Taylor would approve of this.
In Rob Nixon’s article, “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor”, Nixon is arguing that the choices made today, which appear to be harmless for the health of the environment, will actually reap major detrimental consequences for the environment in the future.
Nixon argues that, the policies made now are not addressing the actual problems threatening the environment, but rather strategically displacing them so that the problems appear invisible until they become violently threatening to the future generations.
The idea of “slow violence” is simply distracting the public from the environmental concerns by utilizing a temporary approach to “solving” these issues by placing them “out of sight”. This method is more dangerous for the sustainability of the environment because it allows the issue to gradually worsen and become more threatening over time. Due to the fact that individuals cannot see the damage being caused, it is easier for one to ignore the issue. Most people spark concern for tangible things or obvious issues that are currently threatening, this is a challenge “slow violence” faces when attempting to raise awareness.
One example Nixon uses in his argument is the problem of ocean acidification, which is a current threat of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.
In the article, “Protecting Great Barrier Reef Needs a $785M Fund”, the author addresses how pollution over time and carbon emissions have lead to ocean acidification, which is deteriorating the Great Barrier Reef. The deterioration has lead to the loss of habitat for numerous aquatic animals, diminished the attractive appearance of the reef, which was a lead economic driver for the regions surrounding the reef. The decline has resulted in the loss of jobs for countless citizens and is taking a major toll on the region. In order for the nation to thrive and receive a profit again this project costing multi-millions of dollars must take place. If the project is not implemented or fails to be successful, there may not be a future for the Great Barrier Reef. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-30891037
BBC’s Article on climate change in September of last year correlates very accurately with one of Rob Nixon’s main points in “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor.” Nixon opens his argument with the quote from from the then President of the World Bank, Lawrence Summers. A quote that due to its content I thought was sarcastically said. Summers states that we should just dump out the toxic waste from the more industrialized countries of China and USA to the “lowest wage” countries of Africa. You can clearly understand my clear confusion as to why I thought this was a satirical comment. Nixon uses this quote to make his audience understand the “slow violence” that occurs from globalization. He informs us that the response from would help ease the growing pressure from rich-nation environmentalists who “were campaigning against garbage dumps and industrial effluent that they condemned as health threats and found aesthetically offensive.” The dumping provides a win-win scenario for the developed countries.
This weeks article tackles exactly those campaigns against dumps and health threats. The opening lines of the article state that “street protests demanding urgent action on climate change have attracted hundreds of thousands of marchers in more than 2,000 locations worldwide.” This has been a worldwide global protest to help climate change. The very same pressures that Nixon discusses in this book that influence the slow violence of toxic dumping into other nations.
In the article, “Why Are So Many Environmental Activists Being Murdered?”, by Mike Shanahan, an unusual issue is brought up (in the obvious title) that Environmental activists have been targeted by ranchers, loggers and other agriculture based business owners for fighting for the environment and land rights. The article explains that globally, as of 2012, there are about 3 activists murdered per week and is expected to climb.
This article relates perfectly with “Slow violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor” by Rob Nixon. IN Nixon’s discourse, he explains how corporate greed, especially in core (first-world) countries have trickled economic issues into the peripheral countries that provide resources to the core countries. These issues, slowly but surely, lead to conflict in these countries. As seen in the mines of Sierra Leone, the Brazilian riots around the 2014 FIFA World Cup and now with the increasing murders of environmental activists around the world.
At the base of Nixon’s argument he is asserting that the world phenomenon of globalization and industrialization is not only having a negative impact on the world from an ecological standpoint, but also a negative impact on the people of the world. I believe that this “slow violence” that Rob Nixon mentions is also paralleled to the punishment of neocolonialism.
One area heavily affected by the punishments of “neocolonialism” and “slow violence” is that of Brazil. During the summer of last year Brazil hosted the 2014 FIFA world cup, and as portrayed in a BBC news article violence in areas around the stadium have increased. The production of stadiums and other amenities to cater to guests of the world event led to the neglect of the impoverished members of the Brazilian society. This angered civilians and brought forth a violent struggle between Brazilian police and the people of Brazilian society. As a semi-periphery society Brazil is known for its capitalist industrialization which is encouraged by core countries such as the United States or Germany. These core countries strong arm semi-periphery countries into building industrial infrastructure that encourages poor wage rates and labor laws. Core countries then exploit these inequalities as a cheap source of labor, thus leaving citizens underpaid and upset with the government infrastructure. Citizens of Brazil want social programs that support individual economic growth rather than growing their society as a tourist attraction.
The issue on display in the BBC’s article “Brazil World Cup: Clashes at Sao Paulo and Rio protests” does an ideal job in showing that industrialization is not only “toxic” to the environment but also to civilians of the state effected. This is the same point that Rob Nixon makes in his book “Slow Violence and Then Environmentalism of the Poor”. The acts of violence that surrounded the Brazil cup have been slow brewing for quite some time. Inequality in the economic system caused by industrialization and unjust labor laws. The mass media surrounding the Brazil World Cup helped shed light on the injustices in Brazil.
After reading the article “What would happen if all the parasites disappeared?” by Lucy Jones, the conversation in class last week was immediately brought to mind. Parasites exist for a reason this article establishes just how important each species is, regardless of whether or not humans see them as a benefit. If we were to try to alter the environment by eradicating a species we found undesirable, the unforeseeable consequences could be detrimental.
This coincides with Rob Nixon’s beliefs voiced in his article, “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor”. The choices make today have an enormous impact on the future health of our planet. Climate change isn’t the only factor. Just because today man thinks one way about a particular aspect of nature does not give us the right to act on it. By doing so we could change the world and not for the best.
In an article by The Guardian, scientists from the National Academy of Science urge that the rapid advancement of climate change is a cause for immediate planetary-scale intervention. The scientists suggest reducing carbon emissions wouldn’t warrant a fast enough result, and geo-engineering technology could prove to be a more effective alternative. By injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, a greater amount of sunlight will be reflected away from earth, thereby reducing the suns effect on global warming. While geo-engineering is currently very risky, the scientists insist that with more research it could efficiently reduce climate change.
While the scientists at the National Academy of Science presented a drastic solution to the issue of global warming, I believe the utilization of technology may help to draw attention to the issue. Rob Nixon argues that slow violence doesn’t receive enough attention to motivate action because our media prefers stories that show immediate devastation. People are more interested in violence that depicts a definite villain with an immediate outcome. Global climate change doesn’t have a definite villain and the outcome won’t be experienced for many years. By injecting the climate change dilemma with an aspect of science fiction, I believe the National Academy of Science has been able to draw more attention to the need for action. While I don’t believe injecting the atmosphere with sulphur dioxide is a safe solution to climate change, I believe the proposition of radical alternatives can draw light to how serious the slow violence of carbon emissions is to our environment.
The reading with week by Rob Nixon, “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor” argued how our actions have a negative effect on the world as so do our poor choices. Between globalization and industrialization we are demonstrating the “slow violence” that Nixon discussed. He also explains how the habits within a first world country have an adverse effect on developing countries as we have blatant disregard for how our greed causes turmoil within these countries whether it be economic or environmental. The article summarizes how we often think some things that we do, have no effect on the environment but fail to analyze the potential long term damage.
The article I chose this week to coincide with this week’s reading was” Long-term environmental damage by CO2 emissions: Study.” It described how todays carbon dioxide emissions are a problem only for the future generations because researchers have found that a single carbon emission takes only about 10 years to reach its maximum effect. The reality of Carbon dioxide is, it is a primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. This encompasses Nixon’s idea of “Slow Violence” and how we are negatively affecting future generations and those who cannot help themselves.
Two studies have recently come out saying that climate change is becoming an increasingly large issue that needs to be addressed. Some have said that we, as a global community, need to take measures to fix this issue now. One controversial option is geoengineering. A simple example of geoengineering would be the Albedo Modification. The Albedo Modification focuses on reflecting sunlight out of our atmosphere to keep greenhouse gases down. The two main ways to do this is by introducing aerosols into the upper atmosphere to scatter sunlight and prevent sunlight from hitting the surface of the planet. The second method is to increase the reflectivity of the lower clouds to keep the sunlight away and maintain a cool surface temperature.
The article described this method as a pain pill to treat the symptoms, not the lifesaving surgery.
I see this more as taking a diet pill while still eating poorly and not exercising. This seems to be the trend in the world when it comes to dealing with environment and climate issues. It is really upsetting to me when I see this same sorry excuse for a solution over and over again. Driving an electric car is great. Except for the fact that you charge the car on an outlet that is powered by a coal burning power plant. As we discussed in class, GE has bought large chunks of forest to offset their carbon emissions, but they have done nothing to change their emissions habits. We need to change this mentality now if we want to continue to live on this planet.
In the article, “Eight Million Tons of Plastic Dumped in Ocean Every Year”, Laura Parker discusses the accumulation of garbage patches floating on the ocean surface. In recent studies, scientists have concluded that there is an equivalent of “five grocery bags per every foot of coastline around the global.” Scientists identified the major source of ocean plastic waste to be China. Although the United States is currently ranked twentieth, its dense coastal population and consumerism culture may increase its ranking.
This article relates to the Rob Nixon’s, “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor”. Nixon describes slow violence as “a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight.” As citizens of the United States, we carelessly commit slow violence towards the Global South by embracing consumerism. This practice supports China’s actions in continuation of degrading the environment for economic means. Many campaigns have been launched to encourage US citizens to become environmentally conscious. However, instilling a sense of ethics in regards to the environment is difficult. Aldo Leopold stated that ”we can be ethical only towards what we can see.” Thus we are not motivated to change our lifestyles if the repercussions are not immediate and personal. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150212-ocean-debris-plastic-garbage-patches-science/
SD 3800 Voices in Sustainable Development 
In “World’s biggest sovereign wealth fund dumps dozens of coal companies,” the recent actions of Norway are detailed. Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) is the world’s richest sovereign fund with over $850 billion in assets, including oil and gas companies. With that being said, the fund recently removed thirty-eight coal-mining companies, eight companies due to greenhouse emissions, five tar sand produces, two cement companies, and one coal-based electricity generator. The reason that the fund divested from these companies was because their business models of the companies were not aligned with the country’s commitment to climate change. Norway felt that investments in these companies were risky in the sense that they were counter-productive and increased environmental concerns. The concept of risk that is present in the article is similar to that presented in “From Liberal to Ecological Democracy.” A main theme addressed by Robyn Eckersley in “From Liberal to Ecological Democracy” is identifying and being conscious about the risks when making decisions that can potentially affect humans and non-humans communities. In my opinion, Eckersley is arguing for the reader to develop an ecological conscious that does not center on non-humans service to humans but rather non-humans and humans being valued the same. I think the Government of Norway understands those sentiments. The fund does not want to carry the burden of the risks and is proceeding to raise objections, by divesting, on behalf of the environment. Simply, an ecological democracy is all about taking into account of the risk implications of nonhuman species that are incapable of raising objections or challenging what is being done. The Government of Norway is moving in the right directions and hopefully other individuals, organizations, and governments will follow.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/05/worlds-biggest-sovereign-wealth-fund-dumps-dozens-of-coal-companies
Law is a very powerful tool that can be used for the benefit for the environment and for all the organisms residing in the ecosystem. As the works of Cormac Cullian, “Wild Law” states, “if laws are to be effective they need to recognize the inherent nature of the subject”. In respect to the environment, the ones that create the laws must somehow comprehend and even acknowledge the subject, in this context, the environment. In the article that I found we see that their attempting to develop cities that are more environmentally friendly known as “smart cities”. What I found so interesting about this article is how it associated itself well in what the weeks readings were focused on. In the article it discusses the interest that the government has in regards to making these cities; their reasoning being that it would help the environment by encouraging the use of public transportation and cut back on carbon dioxide emissions and also have practices that are also beneficial for the environment. One of the things that was also interesting about this article is the amount of support that this project is receiving from large governments such as the U.S.A, Germany, and Spain who are all promising to lend their help for the project. What is so interesting about this is that it seems that their interests in supporting this project lies with the global interests in developing this country in regards for economic reasons. What is so important about this is that it seems that governments involved in this are not showing interests in the project for the benefit for the environment, but for the benefit of the economy, showing that the paradigm in economic interest has not shifted and there is still no true focus in making plans that are thinking of the environment first.
http://ens-newswire.com/2015/02/05/india-plans-smart-cities-for-harmonious-living-with-nature/
Weekly Response # 5 (February 9 -11)
Richard Cordero
The article, A Manifesto for Earth Justice written by Cormac Cullinan, discusses the plight of the environment’s fight against human society. Cullinan argues how we as a species are exponentially destroying the overall planet. He continues to describe how we are sacrificing the only world we have for financial gain that will ultimately mean nothing after our home is gone. Cullinan attests that we as a society needs to change our approach in how we view and treat the planet to maximize our potential impact on the world and the health of our future as a species. His conclusion not only addressed the logical and factual need to revise human interaction with the environment but the spiritual connection with the planet and how it can better our society morally and by giving us a better sense of identity.
In the article Protecting the Environment During Armed Conflict – An Inventory and Analysis of International Law, the UN discusses the importance of changing the human opinion of the way we interact with the environment. They discuss the importance of changing the opinion of the masses in order to change the preservation plans to a plan of cohabitation where we strengthen the relationship with the environment. As stated in the above article the UN explains how society and the environment can better from the relationship, the environment will thrive and reward and society will better their identity with the world.
Source: http://www.un.org/zh/events/environmentconflictday/pdfs/int_law.pdf
“Sustaining Africa’s Development By Leveraging On Climate Change” relies on the idea of “slow violence” that is discussed in the Nixon reading for today’s class. The concept behind the article is that by improving agriculture technology to use energy and water more effectively, Africa can develop faster. According to policy and development practitioners Africa “should use the window of opportunity presented by a low carbon economy to implement new knowledge and information to transform the challenges posed by climate change into opportunities for social development.” Fatima Denton sees climate change as a way for Africa to adopt technology to help save water and energy.
CGIAR has given a large portion of its budget to focus on how to support farmers in sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on climate-smart agriculture. Africa has enough resources to feed itself but is currently unable to do so, leaving many of its inhabitants hungry. “Climate change is expected to disrupt current agricultural production systems, the environment, and the biodiversity in Africa unless there is a major cut in global greenhouse gas emissions.”
This connects with the reading because Africa is making small but sure steps towards dealing with a changing climate, by adapting the way they live currently to be more ecologically safe.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201410240376.html
“The Japanese town that was poisoned” is the article I picked up from BBC News and was truly disgusted by what was happening. The article was short so I did a little more research on what happened. Mercury poisoning is a leading assassin that faces the nation of Japan in the past and currently in its present. MInamata is not the only region of the world that has depreciating environmental justice due to the grips of a capitalistic economy. Another region that faces mercury poisoning on a hidden scale is the city of Taiji. This area is heavy in dolphin hunting and the leading exporting region in the world for dolphins and other porpoises. The local government there is also keeping the vast mercury poisoning that is going on so they can keep up with their million dollar dolphin hunting enterprise. The lack of environmental justice from the governments of these nations is horrific. They are knowingly killing their own people; the people they are suppose to protect and provide a sense of security for. Environmental justice will only come is the international community realizes that it is truly a crime. We can only that the international community and its people will realize the seriousness of the harm they are being put in and prohibit it. It is truly ridiculous that we are not only destroying our only world but we are destroying ourselves in the process. This idea was brought up in this weeks reading and for some reason the interests of making a fortune is more important then our own well being.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31156620
One of the things that the readings keep touching on is that we are the ones doing things that affect the environment and most readings have said we are responsible for some of the effects on the environment. Well the BBC posted an article about an alternative way of “fixing” things. The article is called “Climate change: Could we engineer greener humans?” and it talks about the idea of instead of trying to fix the environment we try to fix ourselves. Some of the things at hand are changing our size and/or diets to reduce carbon footprint and thus creating “green humans.” In Cormac Cullinans “Wilde Law A Manifesto For Earth Justice” he talked about how the environment is constantly changing and thus our environmental laws must be flexible as well this takes it the extra mile. We would literally be altering human biology and force a kind of new evolution on humans for us to adapt to the needs of our environment. This article gives a rather radical suggestion for benefiting our environment and also, unintentionally, giving a way in which we can become more connected to the earth and be part of its finely tuned system. If we change humanity so that is naturally reduces the over use of environmental resources then we are back to being part of nature, not just using it as our means to an end. Of course the article is still seeing the planet and environment as an object, as something we do not want to damage, while many of the readings seem to be referring to it as an organism in itself, a self sustaining body that we are a part of, so in a way it is also countering some of the readings because it is taking an “unnatural” rout to solving the issue; and one could also say that it is cheating us out of our own nature since it would be controlling human development. It is still a very controversial topic because it would fall along the lines of “playing god” but the truth is if there we don’t make the laws or take the actions necessary to sustain more of our environment, whether for our sake or for the common good, then the longer we take the more radical the solutions will have to get. For now, in my eyes, this is as radical as it gets and it if were implemented, I think it might actually make some difference in what our environment needs. Only time will tell.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140716-the-most-extreme-way-to-be-green
In this week’s reading Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice by Cormac Cullinan, he discusses the topic of “wild law” which he generalizes as the laws of the world that “… regulate humans in a manner that creates the freedom for all the members of the Earth Community to play a role in the continuing co-evolution of the planet.” (pg 31). In more depth he discusses that it is meant to connects the wilderness and society, but in an unrestricted nature where humans can continue to evolve/develop new sciences while protecting the rest of nature. An example given of this connection is a German law that was passed protecting animal rights. This reminded me about an article I found from thegaurdian about a more environmentally friendly way to make houses. In this article, (called “Straw houses: builders hope past will inspire greener, warmer future” by Steven Morris) it discusses the town of Shirehampton, and how they started a project last month of making several houses out of straw, instead of more modern materials, such as bricks and insulation materials. The biggest factor to how I feel this relates to the article (other than how it is about being more environmentally friendly) is that towards the end of the article, they discuss how straw is used in the UK, and that they have millions of tonnes of straw left over from wheat production. Yes, they use it as animal bedding, but Cullinan mentions how resources gathered shouldn’t be wasted (he uses an example of seeds farmers might have excess of that should be allowed to be planted), and that by using the straw for houses, they are creating a unique and valued product that many people will use.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/09/straw-houses-builders-home-green-warm-energy
When reading the article titled: Wild Law: A Manifesto for Earth Justice, one of the things Culling pointed out was many different things hat had to do with wild life and nature that humans did that were primarily negative, but they were looked at as a positive thing. He gave the example of the slaughter of certain animals being slaughtered because the thought that these animals were ‘problem animals’ for the human race. There are many examples that one could think of around the globe. I found an article that gives an example of this happening.
The species called the Pangolin is the most highly trafficked animal all over the world. This animal runs the risk of being extinct before many people have even heard of what it exactly is. The reason that this animals becomes extinct so easily is because they do not do well while being held in captivity. Humans traffic these animals in hopes of getting paid a big chunk of money to get them into zoos so the human population can become more aware of them. It reminded me of the reading because this is a prime example of how humans can be so selfish to only think about their needs and not think of the animal and the nature that surrounds us first when making decisions. These animals have almost vanished from Vietnam’s forests while being trafficked over the many borders for humans entertainment.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30833685
The first article I read, and fought my attention significantly, was the Nixon Article. he introduces two terms in the reading (Slow violence and structural violence). Nixon defines “Slow Violence” as an, “understated violence with delayed repercussions, poses challenges to the environmental action because its effects are hard to observe”. Structural Violence was defined as a social structure or an institution that will eventually cause danger, ad harm people by depriving them from their basic needs for life. This article reminds me of the discussion i posted a couple weeks ago that mentioned how the big actors in the world worry about the big countries and their environmental problems but they leave the little, and underdeveloped, countries or states abandoned, if you would say. In Nixon’s article, he explains how the bigger actors are hurting the smaller undeveloped countries and the consequences for not giving them the attention that they need. It seems like the bigger countries global actors do not want to get involved unless there is some sort of compensation, or money going their way.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2013/03/28/environmentalist-calls-action-combat-slow-violence#.VNt5Ib7Lj4c
“Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor” is an article that discusses the slow, destructive nature of violence that so many are oblivious to and the impacts this has on the poor. Violence that is given attention is the one with instant change. Terrorist attacks, fires, and tsunamis are all examples of violence that offer the most immediate threat. Slow violence is a threat such as toxic buildup and species loss that take place over time, sometimes even spanning across a few generations. This slow violence is often overlooked, or agreed something should be done about it, but it put off for another generation to deal with. The poor, lacking resources, are the main casualties of this slow violence. The article I chose is titled, “African Food Crises Threatens Food Security” from BBC News. The article discusses the neglect to the African soil, and how it will threaten food security for generations to come. The soil degradation also resulted in damaging economic development, causing farmers to lose billions of dollars. Reducing soil fertility leads to increased greenhouse gasses and lower crop yields. The impacts are more substantial in this developing continent, leading to “65% or arable land, 30% of grazing land and 20% of forests are already damaged.” The article states that there are about one hundred and eighty million people living on degraded land in Africa. The African panel made a number of recommendations to improve the situation. Nixon’s Slow Violence article applies to the BBC article, showing how poor populations are affected over the course of generations via slow violence. Nixon also addresses this notion that people are aware of this slow violence, but let other generations deal with the case. I found it interesting that the African panel made recommendations, but no immediate changes, leading me to believe that they are delaying acting as well.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30277514
Out of the reading that we had this week the main one that stuck out to me was the video. She conversed about environmental rights and how they were consequence as well as different living conditions according to class. A video that instantly made a connection to me was dealing with the incident in Japan where a town was poisoned due to industrial pollution. Thus, this is why having environmental laws are so crucial; It has an ongoing negative cycle. Mercury was found in the water which had an effect on living organism of the sea which humans consume; wild animals drink and so forth. Like the lady said in the video in comparison to New York, people in power do not see it to be a problem until a situation like this occurs. It is imperative that we stop living for ourselves because we get in our own way of making an environment better. People died from this , people were permanently physically and mentally affected.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31156620
My article this week is about the beginning of a movement in the UK to produce houses made of hay. Hay, as defined by the article, is the leftover stalks from cereal crops, and just under four million tons of it is produced every year in the UK. Researchers and engineers from the University of Bath say that using hay as construction material instead of traditional insulation is significantly more sustainable in terms of energy consumption. The article describes a launch of hay-houses that are to be available to ecologically-minded Europeans all across the continent.
The article states that there are many misconceptions about hay-built houses. When consumers think about them, images of the three little pigs dance in their heads. They think the houses are fragile, unsafe and incendiary. To the contrary, engineers say that hay-built houses are safe, robust and not any more flammable than traditional houses.
This article makes me think about Paul Taylor’s writings in that this movement seems like one in which humans are realizing their place in the environment, and trying to adapt to fit that place. I think Paul Taylor would approve of this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31156579
In Rob Nixon’s article, “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor”, Nixon is arguing that the choices made today, which appear to be harmless for the health of the environment, will actually reap major detrimental consequences for the environment in the future.
Nixon argues that, the policies made now are not addressing the actual problems threatening the environment, but rather strategically displacing them so that the problems appear invisible until they become violently threatening to the future generations.
The idea of “slow violence” is simply distracting the public from the environmental concerns by utilizing a temporary approach to “solving” these issues by placing them “out of sight”. This method is more dangerous for the sustainability of the environment because it allows the issue to gradually worsen and become more threatening over time. Due to the fact that individuals cannot see the damage being caused, it is easier for one to ignore the issue. Most people spark concern for tangible things or obvious issues that are currently threatening, this is a challenge “slow violence” faces when attempting to raise awareness.
One example Nixon uses in his argument is the problem of ocean acidification, which is a current threat of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.
In the article, “Protecting Great Barrier Reef Needs a $785M Fund”, the author addresses how pollution over time and carbon emissions have lead to ocean acidification, which is deteriorating the Great Barrier Reef. The deterioration has lead to the loss of habitat for numerous aquatic animals, diminished the attractive appearance of the reef, which was a lead economic driver for the regions surrounding the reef. The decline has resulted in the loss of jobs for countless citizens and is taking a major toll on the region. In order for the nation to thrive and receive a profit again this project costing multi-millions of dollars must take place. If the project is not implemented or fails to be successful, there may not be a future for the Great Barrier Reef.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-30891037
BBC’s Article on climate change in September of last year correlates very accurately with one of Rob Nixon’s main points in “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor.” Nixon opens his argument with the quote from from the then President of the World Bank, Lawrence Summers. A quote that due to its content I thought was sarcastically said. Summers states that we should just dump out the toxic waste from the more industrialized countries of China and USA to the “lowest wage” countries of Africa. You can clearly understand my clear confusion as to why I thought this was a satirical comment. Nixon uses this quote to make his audience understand the “slow violence” that occurs from globalization. He informs us that the response from would help ease the growing pressure from rich-nation environmentalists who “were campaigning against garbage dumps and industrial effluent that they condemned as health threats and found aesthetically offensive.” The dumping provides a win-win scenario for the developed countries.
This weeks article tackles exactly those campaigns against dumps and health threats. The opening lines of the article state that “street protests demanding urgent action on climate change have attracted hundreds of thousands of marchers in more than 2,000 locations worldwide.” This has been a worldwide global protest to help climate change. The very same pressures that Nixon discusses in this book that influence the slow violence of toxic dumping into other nations.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29301969
In the article, “Why Are So Many Environmental Activists Being Murdered?”, by Mike Shanahan, an unusual issue is brought up (in the obvious title) that Environmental activists have been targeted by ranchers, loggers and other agriculture based business owners for fighting for the environment and land rights. The article explains that globally, as of 2012, there are about 3 activists murdered per week and is expected to climb.
This article relates perfectly with “Slow violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor” by Rob Nixon. IN Nixon’s discourse, he explains how corporate greed, especially in core (first-world) countries have trickled economic issues into the peripheral countries that provide resources to the core countries. These issues, slowly but surely, lead to conflict in these countries. As seen in the mines of Sierra Leone, the Brazilian riots around the 2014 FIFA World Cup and now with the increasing murders of environmental activists around the world.
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/02/10/why-are-so-many-environmental-activists-being-murdered/
At the base of Nixon’s argument he is asserting that the world phenomenon of globalization and industrialization is not only having a negative impact on the world from an ecological standpoint, but also a negative impact on the people of the world. I believe that this “slow violence” that Rob Nixon mentions is also paralleled to the punishment of neocolonialism.
One area heavily affected by the punishments of “neocolonialism” and “slow violence” is that of Brazil. During the summer of last year Brazil hosted the 2014 FIFA world cup, and as portrayed in a BBC news article violence in areas around the stadium have increased. The production of stadiums and other amenities to cater to guests of the world event led to the neglect of the impoverished members of the Brazilian society. This angered civilians and brought forth a violent struggle between Brazilian police and the people of Brazilian society. As a semi-periphery society Brazil is known for its capitalist industrialization which is encouraged by core countries such as the United States or Germany. These core countries strong arm semi-periphery countries into building industrial infrastructure that encourages poor wage rates and labor laws. Core countries then exploit these inequalities as a cheap source of labor, thus leaving citizens underpaid and upset with the government infrastructure. Citizens of Brazil want social programs that support individual economic growth rather than growing their society as a tourist attraction.
The issue on display in the BBC’s article “Brazil World Cup: Clashes at Sao Paulo and Rio protests” does an ideal job in showing that industrialization is not only “toxic” to the environment but also to civilians of the state effected. This is the same point that Rob Nixon makes in his book “Slow Violence and Then Environmentalism of the Poor”. The acts of violence that surrounded the Brazil cup have been slow brewing for quite some time. Inequality in the economic system caused by industrialization and unjust labor laws. The mass media surrounding the Brazil World Cup helped shed light on the injustices in Brazil.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-27811657
After reading the article “What would happen if all the parasites disappeared?” by Lucy Jones, the conversation in class last week was immediately brought to mind. Parasites exist for a reason this article establishes just how important each species is, regardless of whether or not humans see them as a benefit. If we were to try to alter the environment by eradicating a species we found undesirable, the unforeseeable consequences could be detrimental.
This coincides with Rob Nixon’s beliefs voiced in his article, “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor”. The choices make today have an enormous impact on the future health of our planet. Climate change isn’t the only factor. Just because today man thinks one way about a particular aspect of nature does not give us the right to act on it. By doing so we could change the world and not for the best.
In an article by The Guardian, scientists from the National Academy of Science urge that the rapid advancement of climate change is a cause for immediate planetary-scale intervention. The scientists suggest reducing carbon emissions wouldn’t warrant a fast enough result, and geo-engineering technology could prove to be a more effective alternative. By injecting sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, a greater amount of sunlight will be reflected away from earth, thereby reducing the suns effect on global warming. While geo-engineering is currently very risky, the scientists insist that with more research it could efficiently reduce climate change.
While the scientists at the National Academy of Science presented a drastic solution to the issue of global warming, I believe the utilization of technology may help to draw attention to the issue. Rob Nixon argues that slow violence doesn’t receive enough attention to motivate action because our media prefers stories that show immediate devastation. People are more interested in violence that depicts a definite villain with an immediate outcome. Global climate change doesn’t have a definite villain and the outcome won’t be experienced for many years. By injecting the climate change dilemma with an aspect of science fiction, I believe the National Academy of Science has been able to draw more attention to the need for action. While I don’t believe injecting the atmosphere with sulphur dioxide is a safe solution to climate change, I believe the proposition of radical alternatives can draw light to how serious the slow violence of carbon emissions is to our environment.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/10/geoengineering-should-not-be-used-as-a-climate-fix-yet-says-us-science-academy
The reading with week by Rob Nixon, “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor” argued how our actions have a negative effect on the world as so do our poor choices. Between globalization and industrialization we are demonstrating the “slow violence” that Nixon discussed. He also explains how the habits within a first world country have an adverse effect on developing countries as we have blatant disregard for how our greed causes turmoil within these countries whether it be economic or environmental. The article summarizes how we often think some things that we do, have no effect on the environment but fail to analyze the potential long term damage.
The article I chose this week to coincide with this week’s reading was” Long-term environmental damage by CO2 emissions: Study.” It described how todays carbon dioxide emissions are a problem only for the future generations because researchers have found that a single carbon emission takes only about 10 years to reach its maximum effect. The reality of Carbon dioxide is, it is a primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. This encompasses Nixon’s idea of “Slow Violence” and how we are negatively affecting future generations and those who cannot help themselves.
Two studies have recently come out saying that climate change is becoming an increasingly large issue that needs to be addressed. Some have said that we, as a global community, need to take measures to fix this issue now. One controversial option is geoengineering. A simple example of geoengineering would be the Albedo Modification. The Albedo Modification focuses on reflecting sunlight out of our atmosphere to keep greenhouse gases down. The two main ways to do this is by introducing aerosols into the upper atmosphere to scatter sunlight and prevent sunlight from hitting the surface of the planet. The second method is to increase the reflectivity of the lower clouds to keep the sunlight away and maintain a cool surface temperature.
The article described this method as a pain pill to treat the symptoms, not the lifesaving surgery.
I see this more as taking a diet pill while still eating poorly and not exercising. This seems to be the trend in the world when it comes to dealing with environment and climate issues. It is really upsetting to me when I see this same sorry excuse for a solution over and over again. Driving an electric car is great. Except for the fact that you charge the car on an outlet that is powered by a coal burning power plant. As we discussed in class, GE has bought large chunks of forest to offset their carbon emissions, but they have done nothing to change their emissions habits. We need to change this mentality now if we want to continue to live on this planet.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/10/geoengineering-should-not-be-used-as-a-climate-fix-yet-says-us-science-academy
In the article, “Eight Million Tons of Plastic Dumped in Ocean Every Year”, Laura Parker discusses the accumulation of garbage patches floating on the ocean surface. In recent studies, scientists have concluded that there is an equivalent of “five grocery bags per every foot of coastline around the global.” Scientists identified the major source of ocean plastic waste to be China. Although the United States is currently ranked twentieth, its dense coastal population and consumerism culture may increase its ranking.
This article relates to the Rob Nixon’s, “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor”. Nixon describes slow violence as “a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight.” As citizens of the United States, we carelessly commit slow violence towards the Global South by embracing consumerism. This practice supports China’s actions in continuation of degrading the environment for economic means. Many campaigns have been launched to encourage US citizens to become environmentally conscious. However, instilling a sense of ethics in regards to the environment is difficult. Aldo Leopold stated that ”we can be ethical only towards what we can see.” Thus we are not motivated to change our lifestyles if the repercussions are not immediate and personal.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150212-ocean-debris-plastic-garbage-patches-science/