Monday, May 17, 2010

Week 11: Post your Blog Entries as Comments to my Main Post Each Week

Post by Sunday at midnight.

1. China's political regime of choosing Genetically Modified Cotton being Challenged

2. This story continues our discussion of the politics of particular material choices and how institutional politics (combined with various forms of individual habit and organizational habit combined with laws and cultural legitimacy in an open ended way) create a contentious political arena of consumptive infrastructure of some choices, over others, supported (and defended and challenged) both politically and economically by institutions, cultural actors, and laws.

It seems that what I said in class was only part of the story. This story discusses Monsanto's GM-cotton in China and ignores that China has its own GM-patents for cotton.

I will put brackets ("[]"] around the words state, science, finance, and consumption to highlight institutional politics working together or against each other in any form of regime materials in their consumptive use category.

This article is about the politics within the category of textiles.

-----------------




Scientists call for GM review after surge in pests around cotton farms in China

Farmland struck by infestations of bugs following widespread adoption of Bt cotton made by biotech giant Monsanto

picture: Workers unload bags of picked cotton, Xinjiang, China

Workers unload bags of picked cotton from fields in Korla, China's far west Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. Photograph: Frederic J Brown/AFP/Getty Images



[SCIENCE] Scientists are calling for the long-term risks of GM crops to be reassessed after field studies revealed an explosion in pest numbers around farms growing modified strains of cotton.

The unexpected surge of infestations "highlights a critical need" for better [CHOICES OF] ways of predicting the impact of GM crops and spotting potentially damaging knock-on effects arising from their cultivation, researchers said.

Millions of hectares of farmland in northern China have been struck by infestations of bugs following the widespread adoption of Bt cotton, an engineered variety made by the US biotech giant, Monsanto.

Outbreaks of mirid bugs, which can devastate around 200 varieties of fruit, vegetable and corn crops, have risen dramatically in the past decade, as cotton farmers have shifted from traditional cotton crops to GM varieties, scientists said.

Traditional cotton farmers have to spray their crops with insecticides to combat destructive bollworm pests, but Bt cotton produces its own insecticide, meaning [LEGITIMATION STORY] farmers can save money by spraying it less. [However, testing that legitimation story of this material regime, farmers can spray even more in some studies I have seen reported on this.]

But a 10-year study across six major cotton-growing regions of China found that by spraying their crops less, farmers allowed mirid bugs to thrive and infest their own and neighbouring farms.

[CONSUMPTION, competition from other consumptive regime choices in food, politically challenging the GM-cotton regime] The infestations are potentially catastrophic for more than 10m small-scale farmers who cultivate 26m hectares of vulnerable crops in the region studied.

The findings mark the first confirmed report of mass infestations arising as an unintended consequence of farmers using less pesticide – a feature of Bt cotton that [LEGITIMATION STORY CONNECTED TO THE REGIME CHOICE] was supposed to save money and lessen the crops' environmental impact. The research, led by Kongming Wu at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing, is published in the US journal, Science.

"Our work highlights a critical need to do ecological assessments and monitoring at the landscape-level to better understand the impacts of GM crop adoption," Dr Wu told the Guardian.

[DELEGITIMATION STORY FROM OTHERS WANTING DIFFERENT MATERIAL CHOICES IN THE CATEGORY:] Environmental campaigners seized on the study as further evidence that GM crops are not the environmental saviour that manufacturers have led farmers to believe.

"This is a massive issue in terms of the environment, but also in terms of costs for the farmer. The plan with GM crops was to reduce costs and environmental impact, but neither of these things seem to be happening, because over time, nature takes its course, and that was bound to happen. The supposed benefits in yield can be cancelled out by unintended consequences like this," said Kirtana Chandrasekaran, a food campaigner at Friends of the Earth.

[SCIENCE / CONSUMPTION] In the past decade, farmers in India and elsewhere have noticed that herbicide-tolerant GM crops have developed resistance to pesticide sprays, again reducing the benefits of the crops, Chandrasekaran said. "Reliance on GM is not sustainable. We need to get back to using local varieties of crops that are adpted to the conditions, and develop an integrated system of pest management."

While many countries around the world have embraced GM crops, they have never taken root in Britain, where [SUBPOLITICS] multinational companies have faced protests and vandalism to crop trials in recent years. Britain's large-scale field trials of herbicide-tolerant GM crops in 2003 found changes in herbicide use had an impact on weeds and insects that might also affect country wildlife.

Dr Wu's team monitored insecticide use from 1992 to 2008 at 38 farms throughout the six northern Chinese provinces of Henan, Hebei, Jiangsu, Anhui, Shandong and Shanxi. They also kept records of mirid bug populations at the farms between 1997 and 2008.

Before switching to [THE CHOICE OF] GM cotton, farmers used more broad-spectrum insecticides to kill bollworms and other pests. But as more farmers began growing Bt cotton, their use of sprays declined, leading to a steady rise in pests, including mirid bugs.

Over the decade-long study, cotton farms flipped from being a grave for mirid bugs to a source of the pests, where populations grew rapidly and then spilled out to feed on a variety of flowering crops in neighbouring farms.

Bt cotton is modified to produce a natural insecticide that is made by a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis. The toxin specifically targets bollworms, which can devastate cotton yields.

Additional reporting by Celia Cole
BT cotton timeline

1990: Cotton plants genetically engineered to produce enough Bt toxin (derived from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium) to be protective against insects

1996: First Bt cotton varieties, known as Bollgard Cotton in US, introduced commercially by Monsanto, and Delta and Pine Land Company

1997: China begins cultivating Bt cotton, increasing area of the crop planted to 1.8m hectares worldwide

2003: Britain's large scale field trials of herbicide tolerant GM crops. Showed that changes in herbicide use had an impact on weeds and insects that might also affect country wildlife hectares worldwide

[REGIME] 2009: 49% of cotton production worldwide is Bt cotton, or 16m hectares [AND ONE CORPORATION OWNS MOST OF GM varieties, Monsanto]

[STATE VARIATION IN REGIME] 2010: No GM crops grown commercially in the UK. Spain is the biggest grower in Europe, but there are also significant amounts of crops grown in France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Portugal.

---
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/13/gm-crops-pests-cotton-china

Other stories where you can follow the "SSFC" (state, science, finance, and consumption) institutions in implementing or challenging a particular material regime choice:

[articles below show the importance of legitimacy/delegitimacy 'talk' around a regime as a common way groups maintain or undermine particular choices]

1.

GMO threat summary vs. USDA quick putsch to let GMO corps/crops do without ANY regulation!
author: repost, Center for Food Safety
Main GM crops are SOY, CORN, COTTONSEED, and CANOLA. DESPITE recent Austrian Government Study Confirming Genetically Modified (GM) Crops As a Threat to Human Fertility and Health Safety, Bush regime pressures a quick putsch in its waning days for COMPLETELY unregulated Frankencrops/GMOs that produce drugs and other pesticides/herbicides in your food without your consumer knowledge, without labels, etc. This is despite huge documented heath problems. A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to members of congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products, including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. .... US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn. India has documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, other serious health issues, including deaths, in buffaloes fed GM cottonseed.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/11/382690.shtml

2.

Monsanto Exerts Monopoly Control: Farmers Face 50% Roundup Glyphosate Price Hike
08:55 Apr-11 (2 comments)
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/04/374499.shtml


3.

France bans Monsanto GM-corn, Brazil allows GM-corn & peasants destroy greenhouse/fields
05:45 Mar-30
Asterisks (***) show how GM crops [can be] a criminal mafia enterprise. When it comes to health, their local economy, and the health of their environment ...the Brazilian state lost its legitimate jurisdiction when it makes an unsustainable decision to be bribed....Brazilian peasants knew it, taking back jurisdiction immediately:

[1] "On March 7th--International Women's Day--dozens of Brazilian women occupied a research site of the U.S.-based agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, destroying the greenhouse and experimental plots of genetically-modified (GM) corn. Participants, members of the international farmers' organization La Vía Campesina, stated in a note that the act was TO PROTEST the Brazilian government's decision in February to legalize Monsanto's GM Guardian® corn, which came JUST WEEKS AFTER the French government PROHIBITED THE CORN DUE TO ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH RISKS."

[above, NOTE DIFFERENT STATE POLITICAL REGIMES AROUND THE SAME MATERIAL]

[2] La Vía Campesina held passive protests in several Brazilian cities against Swiss corporation Syngenta for ongoing impunity for murder of Valmir Mota de Oliveira. Mota was was assassinated last October during these the third occupation of Syngenta's ILLEGAL EXPERIMENTAL SITE for GM soybeans. Brazil already has a high number of land activist murders, THOUGH Mota's was THE FIRST during an occupation organized by La Vía Campesina, and the first in Brazil ON THE PROPERTY OF A MULTINATIONAL AGRIBUSINESS" where corporate hired thugs went out and killed him. ---- More news on criminal activities of GM corporations in asterisks, summarized at close of article.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/03/374059.shtml

14 comments:

  1. 1. Nestle Corporation's Material Choices Altered by questioning its Legitimacy over choosing palm oil for its foods

    2. In the model of "ILL" or institutions, legalization, and legitimacy, as different strategic requirements of any raw material regime, the article below is an example of the large leverage obtained from the 'cultural' side of the raw material regime, particularly in changing it.

    Even the powerless changed the policies of material choice of a big company like Nestle with a YouTube video, by altering the symbolic legitimacy of the corporation for choosing such a material. Nestle switched.


    --------------------

    YouTube hit gives Nestle the finger

    By Gemma Breen and staff

    Updated 2 hours 14 minutes ago

    Scene from a Greenpeace advertisement asking viewers to stop buying Nestle products

    The video highlights the link between orangutan habitat destruction and Nestle's Kit Kat (www.youtube.com)

    * Related [counter/ palm oil regime legitimation] Story: Palm oil boycott will hurt impoverished farmers
    * Related Story: Orangutans sacrificed in palm oil boom

    A gory YouTube video has prompted food giant Nestle to stop buying palm oil from companies that destroy Indonesian rainforests.

    The two-month-long campaign by Greenpeace harnessed social media, including Facebook and Twitter, but it was a YouTube advertisement that got everybody talking.

    The video highlights the link between orangutan habitat destruction for palm oil and Nestle's humble Kit Kat, showing an office worker reaching for the chocolate bar and opening it.

    Instead of chocolate he finds a bloody orangutan finger, but proceeds to eat it anyway.

    Some products sold by the food and drink giant, including Kit Kats, contain palm oil.

    Yesterday Nestle announced that its palm oil providers would have to identify and exclude companies managing or owning plantations or farms linked to deforestation.

    In a statement, Nestle said it had suspended all purchases from Indonesian company Sinar Mas after it "admitted to mistakes in the area of deforestation".

    "Nestle [is] determined to ensure that our suppliers do not buy palm oil from Sinar Mas, for all our factories," Nestle said in a statement.

    Greenpeace says Indonesia has the third highest level of CO2 emissions in the world because of the rate at which it is cutting down forests in order to source palm oil.

    Greenpeace campaign head Steve Campbell makes no apologies for the graphic nature of the video.

    "It's fairly confrontational, but this is a confrontational issue," he told ABC Radio National.

    "This is a crisis and a crucial issue, so we weren't resiling from the fact that we needed to convey that urgency."

    ***Nestle tried to get Greenpeace's video withdrawn from YouTube, but Mr Campbell says that only boosted the number of posts online worldwide.***

    "We ended up with 1.3 million views at last count of the video," he said.

    He says Greenpeace's campaign led to Nestle's swift policy change on palm oil.

    "It was extraordinary to see the amount of support we got through Facebook and Twitter and all the other new media tools," he said.

    "We're trying to shift the entire market by targeting the really big players.

    "When you have companies of this stature and size realising that their practices are not acceptable and the people that they're buying the palm oil are unacceptable suppliers, you're having a pretty major knock-on effect."

    ---
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/18/2902503.htm?section=justin

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Greenpeace 'delegitimation advertisement' campaign about palm oil that altered Nestle's institutional and legal frameworks of support around their material choice:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8TZqQrp9zc

    In other words, the cultural construction of the legitimacy matters for the regime, it's hardly just an issue of material flows--it's culturally legitimated material flows. And Nestle tried very hard to keep its choice intact, though in the end did change their flow. A company with a large brandname is far more capable of being changed in this way, I would argue.

    I nstitutionalization

    L egalization

    L egitimation

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another video of the Greenpeace 'delegitimation advertisement' about palm oil, that is attempting to alter Unilever's product line of DoveTM foods and lotions.

    The short film really does take you down the whole 'raw material substrate path' of social institutions, from the extraction site to the consumer in a well-edited montage:

    Greenpeace delegitimates another corporation's material choice of palm oil, Unilever's Dove lotion
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odI7pQFyjso&feature=related

    "UPDATE: Thanks to the staggering public support for our international Dove campaign in April 2008, Unilever has now agreed to play their part in saving the Paradise Forests of South East Asia. As the biggest single buyer of palm oil in the world, Unilever has a special responsibility to help clean up the industry that's behind so much forest destruction."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just to show that there are alternatives, an ecological modernization story.

    Willie Smits restores a rainforest [and (orangutans) | Video on TED.com

    "...a complex ecological puzzle, biologist Willie Smits has found a way to re-grow clearcut rainforest in Borneo, saving local orangutans -- and creating a thrilling blueprint for restoring fragile ecosystem."

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/willie_smits_restores_a_rainforest.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1. Hyo Jin, CHO
    2. What is the problem with selfishness in buying green?
    3. Currently, I got interested in consumptive mechanism, especially inconspicuous consumption we have learned in class. Inconspicuous consumption mechanism well shows how people’s consumption achieved according to individual’s desire but in the way that they cannot recognize. Relate this article to ‘inconspicuous consumption mechanism theory’; firstly the article is saying ‘social comparison’ mechanism in consumption is problem when it comes to green consumption. Because without knowing green’s value and pursuing it, green consumption effect would not be organized in specific attitudes and behavior.
    I wonder how and how much we can lower the selfishness in buying green. People buy things in foremost according to their selfishness and it is inevitable since even people themselves hardly conceive they are buy things according to their selfishness. It is inevitable that selfishness goes into motives for green consumption. Rather than criticizing low moral status of green consumption, I think we have to device ways of green consumption that can utilize consumers’ selfishness. Especially, using socio-technical mechanism, we can device structural changes so that people cannot but achieve green consumption.
    What researchers in the article worry is if the green consumption is achieved only or mainly based on selfish motives, the effect of green consumption will not be sustainable. It might be true, but if the green’s value spreads wildly, wouldn’t it be better since green becomes general value? Here, we should device ways that value of green takes its seat as a general value for example through advertisements or education.
    -------------------------------
    4. The bulk of our motives for buying green are selfish, say psychologists. So would appealing to social positioning help shift behaviours better than moralising? We might all like to think that our green purchases reflect a genuine concern for the environment, but psychological studies have found this rarely to be true.(..)But are non-environmental motives necessarily a bad thing? After all, if they end up producing the desired effect, does it matter how we got there?(..)'Lasting and ambitious change will only be achieved through engagement with values and life goals. This is because, as research demonstrates, values and life goals organise the more specific attitudes and behaviours that make up people's day-to-day lives,' says Crompton.(..) 'While green products may often offer less luxury, convenience and performance than conventional goods, they offer an important status-enhancing reputational benefit. Such goods enable people to appear pro-social rather than pro-self,' concludes the study. Study co-author Dr Bram Van den Bergh from the Rotterdam School of Management, says knowing that a desire for status can spur self-sacrifice presents a 'powerful tool' for motivating pro-social and pro-environmental action. He advocates, like Townsend, playing on people's desire for status and, in effect, 'nudging them in the right direction'.
    'Playing on extrinsic values like money is not enough. Once the financial incentive is gone people will return to their old behaviour very quickly. Social motives like status, on the other hand, can last long-term because social environments will always be there,' says Van den Bergh. Townsend agrees and says environmentalists need to get to grips with the reality of human psychological needs. there is also an important argument against 'over-moralising' green acts. 'The key is to make people feel good about buying green and making a sacrifice, whether that is by not flying, eating meat or having a big, shiny, fast car.'
    -------------------
    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/470617/seeking_status_embracing_our_selfish_motives_for_buying_green.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1. Hye Jung, Choi
    2. Paper Bags or Plastic Bags? New Proposals Like Neither
    3.
     When I see the article, I think about the rainy days. I always have considered using disposal goods especially on raining day. On raining day, all students use plastic (vinyl) umbrella’s covers when we are going into buildings. It keeping the water dropping on the floor, so the risk that the student may slip on the floor can be prevented. However, what about using the plastic cover?
     I don’t know exactly the fact that the cover may be recycled, but the plastic cover is used extensively on the university as well as on any other place. The tremendous amount of vinyl is used on rainy days. Moreover, most students who I have seen use it only one time. If they come to a building, they use it, and if they come out, they throw it. And, if they go into another building they consume another one, and they throw it again when they out. The using the umbrella covers is wasteful.
     I want that this condition will be changed. Like some of married use shopping bag(not single-use bag) when they go to market, our behavior in rainy day is also changed. Instead of using plastic covers, it is better to use umbrella covers which can be used steadily.
     In order to change the situation, we need to change our thinking. But the cognitive fix is very difficult as Heberlein’s claim. Therefore, the structure fix which may lead to cognitive fix must be provided. However, as the article point out an important perspective, the structure fix has to focus on ‘reducing the disposal goods’, not ‘using another (more environmental friendly) single use disposal’.

    --
    4.
     Three years ago, San Francisco was the first city in the country to ban the ubiquitous plastic shopping bag, but it was quickly followed by Palo Alto and Oakland. These cities, and the Bay Area generally, were at the forefront of the movement to keep single-use, filmy carry-out bags out of landfills, out of the bay and out of the innards of marine mammals.

    But now cities are reconsidering, in part because of lawsuits filed by opponents, but also because too many shoppers in San Francisco and Palo Alto simply shifted their carry-out purchases to paper sacks, which have environmental costs of their own. Plastic bags are still a target, but the bulls-eye is now widening to cover paper bags, too.

    The ultimate goal is to compel people to carry reusable bags.
    But experts say it is too soon to accurately measure whether municipal crackdowns on bags are changing individual behavior. Monique Turner.. said that behavioral changes, like wearing seat belts, can require “policy changes,” when the behavior is harmful enough. In this case, she said, “it’s debatable whether this behavior falls into that category.”

    Critics say the petroleum-based bags deplete natural resources, consume energy to manufacture, threaten marine life, generate litter and pile up in landfills. Save the Bay, which is leading the campaign to ban plastic bags, estimates that of the 3.8 billion plastic bags used each year in the Bay Area, about one million end up in the waters of the San Francisco Bay.

    But lingering questions remain about paper bags’ ultimate cost in raw materials, energy, pollution, and to the environment.

    “We need to make a transition from single-use bags to re-usable bags,” said Mr. Liccardo “and not a transition from one kind of single-use bag to another kind of single-use bag.”

    --
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/21sfplastic.html?pagewanted=1&ref=earth

    ReplyDelete
  7. Short comment to the article "Paper Bags or Plastic Bags?" posted by Hye Jung, Choi.

    I was also shocked when I saw in March the first times these bags for the umbrellas. I can remember that I even asked my Korean friend how Koreans can do such a wasteful thing. Nowaday I even use it by my own sometimes. The fact that everybody in my environment do it gives my the feeling using this umbrella bags is "OK". This is my very personal experience for social construction.

    As you may know we have a strong recycle culture in Germany. Not only concerning plastic bags, which we collect at home and reuse. But there is also a law which makes a refound for plastic bottles mandatory.
    You could argue this is caused by he Green movement for which is Germany famous for. But I also think it is related to the culture. So let's have a look to the food culture: In German kitchens their is always the aim to cook "as much as needed". So e.g. my mother tries to estimate how much food is necessary to feed all people having the meal. If there is no leftover and nobody is hungry anymore, she succeded. Same for Germans in restaurant: We order a portion in relation to our current level of hunger. Throwing away food we paid for is seen as a very wasteful behavior.
    We even tell our kids "You have to eat your meal until the plate is clean - otherwise the sun won't shine tomorrow and there will be rain!"
    In Korea (or maybe Asia - I really don't know) it seems to be the oposite. If there is girl eating her whole meal it is sometimes even supposed to be too greedy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1. Sung Yeon Lee

    2. Eco-fashion-our choice

    3. After all the talks about cotton in class, I decided to search for an article dealing with ecological apparel, which has been one of my interests in the past few years too. The fashion and beauty industry is a massive industry which produces a substantial amount of waste in the process. I remembered the subject of cotton which we talked about in class, as them having infrastructures solely tailored to produce only cotton and nothing else and that these textile industries were choosing materials already for us, out of the many alternatives which were possible. I remember that the cotton industries waste a lot of water by not growing it in a sustainable environment but through technological amenity in an artificial environment. I also remember hearing that state politics, corporate actors and scientific companies have created a political regime of cotton to their interests. Personally I have always wanted to purchase organically made textile clothes but again I realized that these clothes were either not fashionable or not available, or too costly. The people from San Francisco however, seem to have less worries on that, according to this article. They are supposedly abundant with different choices on what kind of clothes to buy and wear thanks to the eco-friendly shops which have started to grow in this region. I thought this could be a form of commodity ecology as eco-minded locals and grassroots demand a sustainable and ethical production methods of making clothes. I have a friend who works in an eco-friendly fashion line called ISAE in Korea, and she is planning to use here skills she learned while working for this company to use it in the U.S. later on. She claims that the U.S. is still taking baby steps toward this issue, being limited to vintage and second-hand clothes shops. I hope Korea and many other states in the U.S. catch up with this trend soon too.

    4.

    "A lot of people don't know the difference between regular fashion and eco-fashion," Siddiqui said while shopping at Eco Citizen, one of San Francisco's pioneer eco-friendly boutiques located in Russian Hill. "It's a great thing that I can go to a number of San Francisco shops and buy clothing that makes a difference to the world."
    With a growing number of eco-friendly fashion boutiques opening, an abundance of green fashion designers emerging and a surge of consumers shopping ethically, San Francisco is fast becoming the center of all things eco-fashion.
    "San Francisco is the epicenter of the green environmental movement, so it makes sense that it would also be the epicenter of eco-fashion," said Domenica Peterson, co-founder of the Bay Area nonprofit organization Global Action Through Fashion. "With eco-minded consumers all over, it was only sooner or later that eco-fashion would make it to the mainstream and make it to the mainstream in a big way."

    GATF's mission is to create consumer awareness of how the fashion industry makes a negative impact on the world and how they can change it with their purchases. It further describes ethical fashion as providing improved working conditions and ensuring products have as little negative impact on the environment as possible by using natural and organic fibers or minimizing office waste and using sustainable shipping.

    According to Peterson, the first step in becoming eco-friendly and shopping ethically is gaining awareness and making the right choices.
    http://xpress.sfsu.edu/archives/arts/015060.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. Franziska Mittelstädt
    2. Oil, risk and technology: Choices we need to make
    3. This article deals with the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and its potential effect as wake-up call.

    Furthermore it describes the human addiction to the oil. In my opinion the oil issue is probably the most complicated environmental issue. Even if we would ever be able to have (unrealistical) 100% safe technologies which can prevent all environmental pollution, there is still the issue of the infinite supply and the shaping of nature by building up oil infrastructure.
    I think it is e.g. hard to increase the fish stocks - but nevertheless it is a relatively "simple" problem from the consumer side. There are fishers who need the catch because its determining their income. Then the catch will be prepared for the consumer market as (mainly) food. But the oil industry is different. Oil is everywhere. It is hard to find any item of your belongings which is produced in a 100% oil-free way. Even if it is not containing oil directly like plastics, its possible that oil is needed for the production materials.

    This is maybe the one environmental issue I cannot find any potentially solution for. The problem seems to be too complex in my opinion. In my schooltime we dicussed this issue a lot in class, I am also sure it was a famous topic in media. But nowadays it seems to pushed into the backround - by "more current" environmental issues.
    This is probably one of the most dangerous examples of social construction: Once the spotlight lightens the problem anymore, the people start to think the problem was solved by itslef.

    Also the article refers to the "real" ecological costs which are hard to account and therefore never will paid by BP.

    4.The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico should be a wake-up call to governments and energy companies, argues William Jackson, raising deep questions about our addiction to oil. Compensation may be paid for immediate damages - but what about the wider environmental harm?
    The world changed one summer's day in 1858.In a field in Pennsylvania, in the United States, the world's first specially constructed deep well struck oil.The trickle of oil from the Earth, long extracted by humans in small amounts, became a torrent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Relatively easy to find, extract, process, store and transport - and above all cheap - liquid oil quickly became our most important energy source to cook, heat, cool and transport things.
    From plastics to supermarkets, and from globalised industry supply chains to the layout of our towns and cities, almost every aspect of human life has been radically altered over the past 150 years by oil.
    Although cheap and plentiful oil has given many people choices and freedoms that never existed before, our addiction has been costly, measured in increased air and water pollution, rampant land use change, overharvesting of our seas, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and consequent climate change, acid rain and urban sprawl.
    After 150 years, and with the Gulf of Mexico being the latest place where a major oil spill threatens nature and people in predictable and unpredictable ways, it is time to look again at the technologies and risks involved in getting the oil to which our societies are addicted.

    The days of easy access to oil are over.
    Humans are inventing ever more ingenious ways to find and extract more difficult to access oil reserves in more extreme and generally more ecologically pristine regions.

    But getting oil from places such as the Arctic or deep under the ocean is not only technically difficult; it increases the risk of environmental damage, as we're currently seeing in the Gulf of Mexico.
    BP will pay to clean the water in the Gulf of Mexico, but cleaning the water and restoring ecosystem function is not the same thing.

    (...)
    What is happening now in the Gulf of Mexico should be a wakeup call to governments, regulatory authorities and energy companies.
    It should spur them to provide safeguards, improve technology to minimise the potential of environmental disasters, adequately and rapidly deal with the environmental and social consequences when disasters occur - and re-examine and improve the way we factor cost into energy investment decisions.
    ----
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8689201.stm

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1.Dingyuan Hou
    2.Scientists: emissions-based climate deal 'not possible'
    3.As a current climate policy of emission targets, the idea behind carbon tradeis quite similar to the trading of securities or commodities in a marketplace. Although the industrialized nations signed on the Kyoto Protocol to reduce their emissions by certain level, some of them who found it a daunting task just buy the emission credits from another nation whose industries do not produce as much of these gases. It seems to be a good way to cap the emissions; however, according to the following article, carbon trade won’t succeed in achieving its goal. On the one hand, carbon trading seems like a win-win situation: greenhouse gas emissions may be reduced while some countries get economic benefit. On the other hand, some countries may exploit the trading system and the consequences may be negative. Now that the goal of Kyoto Protocol is to reduce emissions as a collective, countries/companies that cannot easily reduce emissions assigned can just pay someone else to lower emissions on its behalf. So does it mean that instead of taking actual action to reduce carbon emissions, the nation is buying the rights to burn them? As a response to it, the article calls for a change of non-carbon energy innovation. And the ultimate goal should be to make green energy cheaper than fossil fuels. I agree with it a lot because the global rise of ecological concern can’t meet its demand if there’s still a huge technology and price gap between green energy and fossil fuels. The carbon market might serve as a temporary way to decelerate the greenhouse gas, but countries trading carbon offsets instead of reducing it is not what we want to see. We do need a more “politically attractive” system to reduce emissions by using non-carbon energy.
    ---------------------------------

    4.Current climate policy of emissions targets and trading will not succeed and should be replaced by a 'politically attractive' one based on providing cheap, non-carbon energy, says new paper
    An international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is doomed to failure and must be replaced by a drive towards low-cost green energy, says a group of academics and lobbyists.

    Writing in a paper funded in part by the London School of Economics (LSE), the authors, who included University of East Anglia professor Mike Hulme and 'sceptical environmentalist' Ted Nordhaus, said the collapse of the Copenhagen talks showed that it was not possible to have a 'climate policy that has emissions reductions as the all encompassing goal'.

    The paper argues for a change of tack based on government investment in non-carbon energy innovation, such as more efficient solar technology, funded by a 'small' hypothecation tax - where the revenue is dedicated to a specific purpose. The ultimate aim, say the authors, is to make green energy cheaper than using fossil fuels.

    'As long as the technology and price gap between fossil fuels and low-carbon energy remains so wide, those parts of the world experiencing rapid economic growth will deepen their reliance on fossil fuels,' says the paper, pointing out that both India and China had made clear they would not accept externally imposed constraints on their rate of economic growth, and most of this growth continues to be driven by expansion in the use of fossil fuels.

    'The bottom line is that there will be little progress in accelerating the decarbonisation of the global economy until low carbon energy supply becomes reliably cheaper and provides reliability of supply,' says the paper.


    *continued*

    ReplyDelete
  13. *continued*

    Copenhagen failed

    Lead author Professor Gynn Prins, who is an adviser to a charity chaired by climate change sceptic Lord Lawson, said environmentalists had to accept the current top-down climate policy of targets and trading was not working and that the Mexico summit later this year would only compound the failure.

    'Rather than being a discrete problem to be solved, climate change is better understood as a persistent condition that must be coped with and can only be partially managed more – or less – well. It is just one part of a larger complex of such conditions encompassing population, technology, wealth disparities, resource use, etc.

    'Hence it is not straightforwardly an ‘environmental’ problem either. It is axiomatically as much an energy problem, an economic development problem or a land-use problem, and may be better approached through these avenues than as a problem of managing the behaviour of the Earth’s climate by changing the way that humans use energy.'

    The authors argue a policy of investment in low-cost green energy would be politically attractive and have the contingent benefit of decarbonisation.

    'It is now plain that it is not possible to have a ‘climate policy’ that has emissions reductions as the all-encompassing goal. However, there are many other reasons why the decarbonisation of the global economy is highly desirable.

    'Therefore, the Paper advocates a radical reframing – an inverting – of approach: accepting that decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.'

    ------------------------
    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/483282/scientists_emissionsbased_climate_deal_not_possible.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1. Ye Eun Cho

    2. Paper Bags or Plastic Bags? New Proposals Like Neither

    3. This article is about 2007, San Franciso's policy of reducing plastic bags. The goal was to ban plastic shopping bag and use paper bags. However after 3 years, it turns out that paper shopping bags have far worse problem than plastic bags. Using paper bags increases consumption of trees moreover uses unnecessary water, energy and natural resources involved in production. I have always believed paper bags were more eco-friendly than plastic bags. However, neither are positive to the environment. San Franciso' new policy direction is pricing paper bags, however I believe people will keep on buying and using paper bags.

    ---------------------------------------
    “We saw in the experience of San Francisco and other cities that a plastic-bag ordinance pushes consumers to use paper,” explained a San Jose City Council member, Sam Liccardo, “which in many instances is as bad or worse than plastic, when you consider the water, energy and natural resources involved in production, and the transportation costs, and of course, consuming trees.”

    The ultimate goal is to compel people to carry reusable bags.

    Critics say the petroleum-based bags deplete natural resources, consume energy to manufacture, threaten marine life, generate litter and pile up in landfills. Save the Bay, which is leading the campaign to ban plastic bags, estimates that of the 3.8 billion plastic bags used each year in the Bay Area, about one million end up in the waters of the San Francisco Bay.

    The proposed laws do not eliminate check-out bags entirely, or mandate that people carry reusable bags. Limited types of paper bags are allowed, for a price — up to 25 cents a bag — intended to deter people from making them a habit.

    “We need to make a transition from single-use bags to re-usable bags,” said Mr. Liccardo “and not a transition from one kind of single-use bag to another kind of single-use bag.”

    -----------------------------------

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/21sfplastic.html?pagewanted=2&ref=earth

    ReplyDelete