Eleanor Babcock
11/1/15
Cool Campus
Our class topic of focus this week was all about campus sustainability relating to climate change and sustainability efforts. I was not present in class on Tuesday this week because I attended the AASHE conference in the Twin Cities. AASHE stands for the Association for Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. For this blog, I would like to reflect on my experience at AASHE and share some information and knowledge I accumulated while being at the conference because I feel it lines up with our class discussions this week.
The Sunday portion of the conference was the student summit. Students who advocate for a certain aspect of sustainability on their campus presented. I found it interesting to hear from my peers as to how they're using their resources to become more knowledgeable and implement new sustainable programs on their campuses.
I also attended the conference on Tuesday. This day of the conference was interesting because the demographics switched from predominantly students to campus sustainability representatives and professors. There were more options of sessions to attend and I found them interesting because these ideas and programs were coming from a different lens.
The most interesting experience I had at the AASHE conference was on Tuesday was at a session on measuring impacts of campus oil and gas consumption. I decided to go to this one because it expanded the topic of climate change from campus carbon emissions to other sources of resource use and how to measure those types of environmental impacts. My experience was unique because I was the only member who attended this specific conference. The two presenters invited me to join them in a smalll group discussion where they began to inform me on their work with campus oil and gas consumption. Their major concern for oil and gas consumption was land ethics. If campuses make the shift to renewables there are negative impacts including issues with land-use contracts, Free People and Informed Conscent (FPIC) and other resource issues such as water use. The presentors had an interesting take on how to assess oil and gas consumption, they tended to focus on the ethical side of the impacts ratrher than the environmental side.
About ten minutes into the small group presentation, something out of the ordinary happened. A man walked in and sat down and began to discuss the importance of oil and gas consumption in terms of divestment. Divestment is the removal of university stocks in oil and gas companies. As the man spoke I realized this was no ordinary man. He spoke with intelligence on the topic and contributed wise remarks about divestment and campus sustainability. A few minutes into his talk, he finally introduced himself as the president of Unity college. Yes, I was sitting in a conference room with Stephan Mulkey, president of the first college in the nation to divest. One of the most interesting points he made about divestment is that our investment is financially imperative for universities. The driving force behind some of the most un-sustainable actions we do as a campus is money. Economics always tends to trump environmental impact. Ethics are not among one of the driving decisions for good campus sustainability decisions.
As the conversation between the presenters and Stephan Mulkey went on, their discussion went off topic from oil and gas consumption and divestment to talk about other important issues regarding campus sustainability, they were all very interesting and insightful. I really enjoyed the AASHE conference and I feel I learned a lot about campus sustainability initiatives from my peers and the presenters.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Friday, October 23, 2015
Eleanor Babcock
10/23/15
Climate and Politics
The climate policy interface is an interesting network. The complexity of the relationship between climate scientists and policy bodies is worth evaluation. There is an existing clash between the ideals of environmentalists and politicians. This clash lies in the continuum of power.
Authority is a powerful thing. In terms of the power continuum which exists between climate scientists and the politicians and policy makers the politicians definitely have more power. The problem with power, however, is that many people tend to think that the people with the most power have the most expertise. This is not always true. In terms of climate research. The data and analysis is coming from scientists. The under body on the continuum of power. Some scientists do have power, but generally do not have the authority to make executive decisions on mitigation and adaptation policies.
What puts politicians in the climate debate at the top of the power spectrum? Political planning in terms of diplomatic aims is what drives political authority. Many of these strategies used come from publicity, media coverage and funding. This keeps the general public engaged and updated on politics and political aims and shines them in a positive light. Scientists, on the flip side, Have many more restrictions before they can present their findings in a public setting than political entities. They do have good amounts of funding, but are limited on the publicity side. This puts them lower in the eyes of the public because they are not constantly hearing messages and data from the scientific side of climate change like they do from the political side.
In order for the climate problem to be solved, we need for scientists and politicians to been seen on a balanced scale. This would even out tensions and lead to a brighter future in terms of climate change and political and scientific unity.
10/23/15
Climate and Politics
The climate policy interface is an interesting network. The complexity of the relationship between climate scientists and policy bodies is worth evaluation. There is an existing clash between the ideals of environmentalists and politicians. This clash lies in the continuum of power.
Authority is a powerful thing. In terms of the power continuum which exists between climate scientists and the politicians and policy makers the politicians definitely have more power. The problem with power, however, is that many people tend to think that the people with the most power have the most expertise. This is not always true. In terms of climate research. The data and analysis is coming from scientists. The under body on the continuum of power. Some scientists do have power, but generally do not have the authority to make executive decisions on mitigation and adaptation policies.
What puts politicians in the climate debate at the top of the power spectrum? Political planning in terms of diplomatic aims is what drives political authority. Many of these strategies used come from publicity, media coverage and funding. This keeps the general public engaged and updated on politics and political aims and shines them in a positive light. Scientists, on the flip side, Have many more restrictions before they can present their findings in a public setting than political entities. They do have good amounts of funding, but are limited on the publicity side. This puts them lower in the eyes of the public because they are not constantly hearing messages and data from the scientific side of climate change like they do from the political side.
In order for the climate problem to be solved, we need for scientists and politicians to been seen on a balanced scale. This would even out tensions and lead to a brighter future in terms of climate change and political and scientific unity.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Eleanor Babcock
10/16/15
Climate Inequality and Development
Environmental injustice is a prevailing issue in today's society. Ethnic minorities in countries face major burdens from the impacts of environmental catastrophes such as destructive weather events or concentrated pollution. These ethnic minorities generally are not the populations which are placing those issues on themselves. It is the countries with high per capita emissions which make that choice to emit on behalf of others.
Our readings focused on two case studies on effects of climate change in areas where there are ethnic minorities. One chapter focused on issues regarding deforestation in Vietnam and the other one discussed the depleting water resource in Egypt. Both took focus on management of problems in the political sense. There was a call for decentralization of policy for fixing these problems. Both these case studies also looked at the relationships people have with the environment and how climate change policies put strain on the population. One of the main reasons that there is strain on the general public because of climate change policy is because the lack of education.
People suffering from climate change issues suffer many barriers from climate policy. As a delegation for the UNFCCC proposing policies to mitigate climate change we have to be aware of these barriers. In the context of the case study in Vietnam regarding deforestation limitations, the program policy called REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) ran into barriers when trying to place their program into effect. These barriers were issues with forest rights, people's responsibilities who live in the forests, and the definition of what classifies as problematic deforestation.
In order for policy makers to avoid running into limitations which hinder the application of climate change policy we must educate the public about the program benefits, and the climate change issues in certain areas. Education will not only make the public more aware but it will also improve our environmental injustice issues. By improving awareness of issues, limitations and benefits we can reduce negative effects on populations of ethnic minorities.
10/16/15
Climate Inequality and Development
Environmental injustice is a prevailing issue in today's society. Ethnic minorities in countries face major burdens from the impacts of environmental catastrophes such as destructive weather events or concentrated pollution. These ethnic minorities generally are not the populations which are placing those issues on themselves. It is the countries with high per capita emissions which make that choice to emit on behalf of others.
Our readings focused on two case studies on effects of climate change in areas where there are ethnic minorities. One chapter focused on issues regarding deforestation in Vietnam and the other one discussed the depleting water resource in Egypt. Both took focus on management of problems in the political sense. There was a call for decentralization of policy for fixing these problems. Both these case studies also looked at the relationships people have with the environment and how climate change policies put strain on the population. One of the main reasons that there is strain on the general public because of climate change policy is because the lack of education.
People suffering from climate change issues suffer many barriers from climate policy. As a delegation for the UNFCCC proposing policies to mitigate climate change we have to be aware of these barriers. In the context of the case study in Vietnam regarding deforestation limitations, the program policy called REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) ran into barriers when trying to place their program into effect. These barriers were issues with forest rights, people's responsibilities who live in the forests, and the definition of what classifies as problematic deforestation.
In order for policy makers to avoid running into limitations which hinder the application of climate change policy we must educate the public about the program benefits, and the climate change issues in certain areas. Education will not only make the public more aware but it will also improve our environmental injustice issues. By improving awareness of issues, limitations and benefits we can reduce negative effects on populations of ethnic minorities.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Eleanor Babcock
10/9/15
Climate Modeling
This week in class, we discussed how the world became a system and how our worldly system and infrastructure relates back to climate change and how we discuss climate change. Jerome Whitington divides up our climate change into three different categories which analyzes the speculative anthropology of climate change.The Fingerprint, Bellweather and Model Event are his three components of climatic anthroploogy. They all are important and all link together in our understanding of climate change.
The Fingerprint is defined by our information problem, our collection of data and our concrete evidence. This data and evidence is the "fingerprint" of climate change on our planet. This is important in climate modeling because it gives us our information in a concrete fashion. We can have more meaningful exchanges about the science behind climate change, or about the policies which we institute for climate change through the implication of evidence and data revolving around the warming of the planet.
Bellweather is generally termed as a predictor or indicator of change. It tends to be related to the patterns we see in the fingerprint, or weather patterns, rather than the hard data. through bellweather we can assess the big problems versus the little problems and prepare for change. In terms of climate change, bellweather helps us gage what we should focus on in terms of initial steps to reduce emissions and later steps.
Model Event is an event which has happened in the real world which has the potential to understand climate change situationally. It gives us ethical motives to fix problems which we already see occurring. It gives climate change a solid meaning and proportions it with varying degrees of intensity.
These three different categories are all helpful in modeling climate change for current understanding of the risks we face if we do not act. They give us speculation, results which we see and analyze so we can anticipate and plan ahead for the worst to come.
10/9/15
Climate Modeling
This week in class, we discussed how the world became a system and how our worldly system and infrastructure relates back to climate change and how we discuss climate change. Jerome Whitington divides up our climate change into three different categories which analyzes the speculative anthropology of climate change.The Fingerprint, Bellweather and Model Event are his three components of climatic anthroploogy. They all are important and all link together in our understanding of climate change.
The Fingerprint is defined by our information problem, our collection of data and our concrete evidence. This data and evidence is the "fingerprint" of climate change on our planet. This is important in climate modeling because it gives us our information in a concrete fashion. We can have more meaningful exchanges about the science behind climate change, or about the policies which we institute for climate change through the implication of evidence and data revolving around the warming of the planet.
Bellweather is generally termed as a predictor or indicator of change. It tends to be related to the patterns we see in the fingerprint, or weather patterns, rather than the hard data. through bellweather we can assess the big problems versus the little problems and prepare for change. In terms of climate change, bellweather helps us gage what we should focus on in terms of initial steps to reduce emissions and later steps.
Model Event is an event which has happened in the real world which has the potential to understand climate change situationally. It gives us ethical motives to fix problems which we already see occurring. It gives climate change a solid meaning and proportions it with varying degrees of intensity.
These three different categories are all helpful in modeling climate change for current understanding of the risks we face if we do not act. They give us speculation, results which we see and analyze so we can anticipate and plan ahead for the worst to come.
Monday, October 5, 2015
Eleanor Babcock
10/4/15
Climate Denial
A quote from Merchants of Doubt: "Climate change is happening, it is due to human activity, but if we regulate CO2 emissions it would ruin society, that's what enviros want"
Let that sink in.
Climate change denial has taken on many different angles, arguments and perspectives, but this one expressed in the documentary Merchants of Doubt caught my attention. It was presented with a whole slew of other arguments against climate change but was stated as the last argument. I feel like this statement has a lot of validity, with a small dose of insanity, as an argument against climate change.
Let's break it down.
"Climate change is happening"
Yes. Climate change is happening. The opening statement of this argument is very true. The scientific data states it true. The methods used in the Arctic to pull data from the polar ice caps solidifies that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere 100 years ago is lower than it is today. The scientific data is there and it rings true to many other portions of evidence supporting climate change. By using science and observations, conclusions can be made. These conclusions in the scientific world all point to a changing climate. Climate models have simulated the results of our changing climate and help us to better understand the matter of the fact that it is happening and it is our power to change that.
"It is due to human activity"
Yes. This portion of the argument is also supported by scientific data and holds validity. The amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by human activities can be calculated and is shown to be massive amounts. The atmosphere is not designed to hold such large amounts of carbon dioxide. It is our efforts to make coal power and oil power so prominent for use in daily life. Exxon mobile as a company did much research to support this claim and found that the chemistry of the air was changing due to the burning of oil, coal, and other fuels containing carbon.
"But if we regulate CO2 emissions it would ruin society"
Yes. This claim as an argument against climate change is valid. It asserts that it is happening but also asserts what many humans used to today's lifestyle norms are all thinking. We are nervous to admit that climate change is happening because it will mean we have to change our way of life to be more environmentally friendly. Psychologically speaking, new social norms seem daunting and difficult to adapt to. This instigates the fight or flight response, flight being the instinct. We flee from this proposed lifestyle change knowing that there will be radical changes to society. "Ruin society" may be stated from the extremest point of view, but there will be major changes to society once political bodies finally accept and begin to acto on climate change regulations.
"That's what enviros want"
No. The final portion of this argument is invalid. Many individuals perceive supporters of climate change as those with radical ideas trying to ruin society. Many supporters are called names and unrightly are accused of being communist or socialist. This climate argument focuses on the anthropological viewpoint that the interaction between people is the main cause of climate discussion. These climate deniers attack the people, not the science. This is significant in climate change theory conversations because it points to the negative light shed on environmentalists. In reality, supporters of climate change want a society which is high functioning and is friendly to the environment. There is no underlying motive to push for radical change except the love for the earth and humanity.
10/4/15
Climate Denial
A quote from Merchants of Doubt: "Climate change is happening, it is due to human activity, but if we regulate CO2 emissions it would ruin society, that's what enviros want"
Let that sink in.
Climate change denial has taken on many different angles, arguments and perspectives, but this one expressed in the documentary Merchants of Doubt caught my attention. It was presented with a whole slew of other arguments against climate change but was stated as the last argument. I feel like this statement has a lot of validity, with a small dose of insanity, as an argument against climate change.
Let's break it down.
"Climate change is happening"
Yes. Climate change is happening. The opening statement of this argument is very true. The scientific data states it true. The methods used in the Arctic to pull data from the polar ice caps solidifies that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere 100 years ago is lower than it is today. The scientific data is there and it rings true to many other portions of evidence supporting climate change. By using science and observations, conclusions can be made. These conclusions in the scientific world all point to a changing climate. Climate models have simulated the results of our changing climate and help us to better understand the matter of the fact that it is happening and it is our power to change that.
"It is due to human activity"
Yes. This portion of the argument is also supported by scientific data and holds validity. The amounts of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by human activities can be calculated and is shown to be massive amounts. The atmosphere is not designed to hold such large amounts of carbon dioxide. It is our efforts to make coal power and oil power so prominent for use in daily life. Exxon mobile as a company did much research to support this claim and found that the chemistry of the air was changing due to the burning of oil, coal, and other fuels containing carbon.
"But if we regulate CO2 emissions it would ruin society"
Yes. This claim as an argument against climate change is valid. It asserts that it is happening but also asserts what many humans used to today's lifestyle norms are all thinking. We are nervous to admit that climate change is happening because it will mean we have to change our way of life to be more environmentally friendly. Psychologically speaking, new social norms seem daunting and difficult to adapt to. This instigates the fight or flight response, flight being the instinct. We flee from this proposed lifestyle change knowing that there will be radical changes to society. "Ruin society" may be stated from the extremest point of view, but there will be major changes to society once political bodies finally accept and begin to acto on climate change regulations.
"That's what enviros want"
No. The final portion of this argument is invalid. Many individuals perceive supporters of climate change as those with radical ideas trying to ruin society. Many supporters are called names and unrightly are accused of being communist or socialist. This climate argument focuses on the anthropological viewpoint that the interaction between people is the main cause of climate discussion. These climate deniers attack the people, not the science. This is significant in climate change theory conversations because it points to the negative light shed on environmentalists. In reality, supporters of climate change want a society which is high functioning and is friendly to the environment. There is no underlying motive to push for radical change except the love for the earth and humanity.
Friday, September 25, 2015
Eleanor Babcock
9/25/15
Climate and Theology
Theology, the study of the nature of god and biblical texts, is very closely related to nature and climate change. First of all, the pure definition of theology has the word nature included in it. This type of nature focuses on behavior and disposition, however, it is slightly ironic that nature as a word in a working definition links so closely to other aspects of theology. Theological study of climate change comes in many different forms. It can be linked through biblical text or through spiritual practices. For this blog, I'd like to focus on relating one of the Benedictine values to climate change. The Benedictine values are values which our school holds close. By comparing our values rooted in God to climate studies localizes the topic for me.
The Benedictine value of stewardship states that "we value all creation." This value stems from the story of creation found in Genesis. This means that everything given to us in finite and must be used in a valued way. Nature, our families, and resources have been given to us to use but not destroy. Humanity has developed a keen mind which has allowed for development. Our development of society today has exceeded our planetary limits and is beginning to see destruction in many aspects of life. We are using the resources given to us, however, our use is beginning to decrease and we are seeing many negative environmental impacts. One of these impacts is climate change.
Climate change is causing out planet to warm. We as a community of stewards have not fulfilled the benedictine value of stewardship. Because this value rings true to the CSB/SJU community there are things we can do to be good stewards and fulfill this value. We can use more sustainable transportation, using the Link instead of driving personal vehicles between campuses. This would save energy and lower carbon emissions thus making a more positive impact on our earth's climate. Other means of ecologically friendly activities which would help us to be good stewards of creation can be recycling, composting and sustainably growing crops. If our campus teams together to instigate change in a healthy way, then our relationship with theological practices through being good stewards will reduce the negative, harmful impacts of climate change.
9/25/15
Climate and Theology
Theology, the study of the nature of god and biblical texts, is very closely related to nature and climate change. First of all, the pure definition of theology has the word nature included in it. This type of nature focuses on behavior and disposition, however, it is slightly ironic that nature as a word in a working definition links so closely to other aspects of theology. Theological study of climate change comes in many different forms. It can be linked through biblical text or through spiritual practices. For this blog, I'd like to focus on relating one of the Benedictine values to climate change. The Benedictine values are values which our school holds close. By comparing our values rooted in God to climate studies localizes the topic for me.
The Benedictine value of stewardship states that "we value all creation." This value stems from the story of creation found in Genesis. This means that everything given to us in finite and must be used in a valued way. Nature, our families, and resources have been given to us to use but not destroy. Humanity has developed a keen mind which has allowed for development. Our development of society today has exceeded our planetary limits and is beginning to see destruction in many aspects of life. We are using the resources given to us, however, our use is beginning to decrease and we are seeing many negative environmental impacts. One of these impacts is climate change.
Climate change is causing out planet to warm. We as a community of stewards have not fulfilled the benedictine value of stewardship. Because this value rings true to the CSB/SJU community there are things we can do to be good stewards and fulfill this value. We can use more sustainable transportation, using the Link instead of driving personal vehicles between campuses. This would save energy and lower carbon emissions thus making a more positive impact on our earth's climate. Other means of ecologically friendly activities which would help us to be good stewards of creation can be recycling, composting and sustainably growing crops. If our campus teams together to instigate change in a healthy way, then our relationship with theological practices through being good stewards will reduce the negative, harmful impacts of climate change.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Eleanor Babcock
9/18/15
Climate Science
Reading the IPCC report and listening to our guest speaker in class, Troy Knight, discussing climate change put a perspective between anthropomorphic climate change and the earth's natural cooling and warming systems. The science behind climate change is truly the root of all discussions taking place, whether it be climate denial, assertion of its presence, or research surrounding green house gas emissions, the science is the underlying argument for all discussions. It is the scientific evidence which also validates that our emission of carbon dioxide into the air is the cause of the period of warming on our earth.
Understanding the earth's natural cycle of weather patterns, temperatures and atmosphere helped me establish an understanding of how important it is to fight climate change. We are in an era of the melting of the most recent glacial ice sheet. the Earth goes through periods of ice ages with glacial formation and reduction. Between these ice sheets melting, the climate has been observed in the past to be very stable with no dramatic increases or decreases in temperature. Observations in recent global average temperature and sea level rise, there is an unnatural rise in temperature going against the normal stable temperature observed in the past from climate periods between glaciers. This is attributed to the amount of green house gases being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.
The reason for the sped up process of carbon being emitted back into the atmosphere is because us humans have found ways to mine it out of the earth then pump it into the atmosphere. Coal in the ground is a result of dead decayed organic matter breaking down in the soil . While it was alive it up took CO2 from the atmosphere and stored it in its tissues. these decayed trees stayed under the soil and rock for millions of years. When we burn coal, we are burning the remnants of these decayed trees and putting that stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. Humans are causing global warming by consciously emitting more carbon into the atmosphere than it was meant to hold, thus resulting in increasing global temperatures.
9/18/15
Climate Science
Reading the IPCC report and listening to our guest speaker in class, Troy Knight, discussing climate change put a perspective between anthropomorphic climate change and the earth's natural cooling and warming systems. The science behind climate change is truly the root of all discussions taking place, whether it be climate denial, assertion of its presence, or research surrounding green house gas emissions, the science is the underlying argument for all discussions. It is the scientific evidence which also validates that our emission of carbon dioxide into the air is the cause of the period of warming on our earth.
Understanding the earth's natural cycle of weather patterns, temperatures and atmosphere helped me establish an understanding of how important it is to fight climate change. We are in an era of the melting of the most recent glacial ice sheet. the Earth goes through periods of ice ages with glacial formation and reduction. Between these ice sheets melting, the climate has been observed in the past to be very stable with no dramatic increases or decreases in temperature. Observations in recent global average temperature and sea level rise, there is an unnatural rise in temperature going against the normal stable temperature observed in the past from climate periods between glaciers. This is attributed to the amount of green house gases being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity.
The reason for the sped up process of carbon being emitted back into the atmosphere is because us humans have found ways to mine it out of the earth then pump it into the atmosphere. Coal in the ground is a result of dead decayed organic matter breaking down in the soil . While it was alive it up took CO2 from the atmosphere and stored it in its tissues. these decayed trees stayed under the soil and rock for millions of years. When we burn coal, we are burning the remnants of these decayed trees and putting that stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. Humans are causing global warming by consciously emitting more carbon into the atmosphere than it was meant to hold, thus resulting in increasing global temperatures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)