© 2010 Joshua Stark
Via Env-Econ., a paper on consumers' choices and subsequent impacts on their moral decisions.
For those who aren't so familiar with the field, behavioral economics is exactly what it sounds like: Studies on folks' economic behaviors. It is a very interesting field, and my favorite radio show, Marketplace, usually has a weekly segment about it.
This research indicates that students who participated in a lab experiment, after being merely shown "green" products, were less inclined to do bad things to others (lie, cheat, and steal, basically). However, if they purchased these products, students became much more likely to do bad things to others.
You really have to read the study to get the whole idea, but it is fascinating. These researchers were trying to identify yet another place where humans (it is believed) give themselves a kind of moral credit from one behavior, and then spend it on another (even similar) behavior. My take is a little different - I believe that humans take their moral action to make themselves feel superior to others, and then are able to treat the other inferior individuals in a worse fashion. But, I'm no psychologist.
Either way, it opens up a new notion about using moral grounds to get people to buy green... maybe.
On a related note, I guess when you are around me, you should probably keep a tight grip on your wallet.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
A good article on the Delta, but something's missing
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Like most articles and expertise claimed about the Delta, local voices are missing from this story at the Oakalnd Tribune.
I find especially distasteful the "rural vs. urban" battle which the city-slicker farmers in the Central Valley have fed to the media, and which the media is happy to portray. Dichotomies are easier to write about, especially when they lack the nuance of reality.
Not to mention I think the whole urban-rural-wild distinction is an unhealthy myth.
Like most articles and expertise claimed about the Delta, local voices are missing from this story at the Oakalnd Tribune.
I find especially distasteful the "rural vs. urban" battle which the city-slicker farmers in the Central Valley have fed to the media, and which the media is happy to portray. Dichotomies are easier to write about, especially when they lack the nuance of reality.
Not to mention I think the whole urban-rural-wild distinction is an unhealthy myth.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Jamie Oliver's newest TV show - I'm impressed.
© 2010 Joshua Stark
My wife and I stayed up last night to watch "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" on ABC last night, and I must say we were very happy with it.
Yeah, it's got the typical reality-TV production quality, but the people in this one seem real, (if you've never met a lunchroom lady, you have not lived life) and the concept is fascinating. And relevant to this blog.
Since I'm from a small town in rural Northern California (and one that gets pretty crappy media, when it gets it at all), I completely understand the suspicion that the residents of Huntington, W.Va. showed to Mr. Oliver. But it really does look like he just wants these people to eat better.
The saddest to me is that these folks come from a vibrant food culture. My guess is that this city is made up of the progeny of folks who left the hills of Appalachia, came into the city, and hungered to embrace a modern world. When packaged food came along, it made people's lives easier, and it came with a stigma for people who still lived in the old ways, I'd bet. Now, cities like Huntington are full of people who don't have the tradition of taking a little more time to do for themselves.
I look forward to watching his program, but I have no idea where it's going.
For a very interesting, schizophrenic review, read the Washington Post's job here. And, don't let the title scare you off - the author ends by saying they are going to keep watching.
My wife and I stayed up last night to watch "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution" on ABC last night, and I must say we were very happy with it.
Yeah, it's got the typical reality-TV production quality, but the people in this one seem real, (if you've never met a lunchroom lady, you have not lived life) and the concept is fascinating. And relevant to this blog.
Since I'm from a small town in rural Northern California (and one that gets pretty crappy media, when it gets it at all), I completely understand the suspicion that the residents of Huntington, W.Va. showed to Mr. Oliver. But it really does look like he just wants these people to eat better.
The saddest to me is that these folks come from a vibrant food culture. My guess is that this city is made up of the progeny of folks who left the hills of Appalachia, came into the city, and hungered to embrace a modern world. When packaged food came along, it made people's lives easier, and it came with a stigma for people who still lived in the old ways, I'd bet. Now, cities like Huntington are full of people who don't have the tradition of taking a little more time to do for themselves.
I look forward to watching his program, but I have no idea where it's going.
For a very interesting, schizophrenic review, read the Washington Post's job here. And, don't let the title scare you off - the author ends by saying they are going to keep watching.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sushi restaurant serving whale meat in Los Angeles is closing
© 2010 Joshua Stark
I'm sorry you missed out on the Sei whale special, but if you didn't get down there for it, the L.A. Times reports that you are too late.
flx1247rg
This is just another example of the truth of the world, that we do need laws to protect the environment, even when we think that the laws are superfluous due to public pressure.
A few years ago, I was privileged to sit in on a discussion about access on our public lands. The forum, organized by the National Park Service, housed a fine number of some of very thoughtful land managers, rangers, and professors concerned with the subject, and much of the conversation was wonderful and enlightening.
One professor, however, did stray into unfortunate territory on the topic of how to increase lackluster visitation. He said, effectively, that fewer boots on the ground meant fewer impacts on the resource.
This is a comforting fallacy, but devastating in its falsehood.
I stood up and immediately commented that these resources are always going to be "used" for one thing or another. There are companies who would be more than happy to log protected sequoias (just like they are logging unprotected ones), or mine El Capitan. It sounds preposterous, but if folks will sell and eat endangered whales in downtown Los Angeles, then know for certain that nothing in this world is safe unless we declare it so and protect it.
Remember, there are people in this world who buy and sell people. What is a mountain top to them? What is a bird?
The only counter to these ills is to declare things protected and valuable in and of themselves. And the only way to get people to agree to that is to let them experience the beauty and awe of these places.
Experience. That means access.
At the same conference, I heard a story about a person wanting to keep Yosemite Valley completely pristine, arguing to seriously restrict access to it. She argued, "how will we create the next John Muirs of the world?" if Yosemite Valley weren't pristine?
She had forgotten that John Muir was made precisely by being in Yosemite Valley. If he hadn't had those experiences, there would have been no Muir in the sense that she knows him.
She had also forgotten that John Muir spent thousands of hours in Yosemite Valley... logging it.
Of course we need to manage access in a way that minimizes the negative impacts of our presence while enhancing our positive impacts, but if we don't get folks into these places, they won't care about them.
And when that happens, the whale-eaters move in.
I'm sorry you missed out on the Sei whale special, but if you didn't get down there for it, the L.A. Times reports that you are too late.
flx1247rg
This is just another example of the truth of the world, that we do need laws to protect the environment, even when we think that the laws are superfluous due to public pressure.
A few years ago, I was privileged to sit in on a discussion about access on our public lands. The forum, organized by the National Park Service, housed a fine number of some of very thoughtful land managers, rangers, and professors concerned with the subject, and much of the conversation was wonderful and enlightening.
One professor, however, did stray into unfortunate territory on the topic of how to increase lackluster visitation. He said, effectively, that fewer boots on the ground meant fewer impacts on the resource.
This is a comforting fallacy, but devastating in its falsehood.
I stood up and immediately commented that these resources are always going to be "used" for one thing or another. There are companies who would be more than happy to log protected sequoias (just like they are logging unprotected ones), or mine El Capitan. It sounds preposterous, but if folks will sell and eat endangered whales in downtown Los Angeles, then know for certain that nothing in this world is safe unless we declare it so and protect it.
Remember, there are people in this world who buy and sell people. What is a mountain top to them? What is a bird?
The only counter to these ills is to declare things protected and valuable in and of themselves. And the only way to get people to agree to that is to let them experience the beauty and awe of these places.
Experience. That means access.
At the same conference, I heard a story about a person wanting to keep Yosemite Valley completely pristine, arguing to seriously restrict access to it. She argued, "how will we create the next John Muirs of the world?" if Yosemite Valley weren't pristine?
She had forgotten that John Muir was made precisely by being in Yosemite Valley. If he hadn't had those experiences, there would have been no Muir in the sense that she knows him.
She had also forgotten that John Muir spent thousands of hours in Yosemite Valley... logging it.
Of course we need to manage access in a way that minimizes the negative impacts of our presence while enhancing our positive impacts, but if we don't get folks into these places, they won't care about them.
And when that happens, the whale-eaters move in.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Proposed Solar on the Westlands, Feinstein gets good science, and the RNC throws vote-trading accusations
© 2010 Joshua Stark
Here is a great, short document on the value of the Westlands Irrigation District to California... as a solar generator.
flx1247rg
The author, Bill Powers of Powers Engineering, explained in these comments to the California Energy Commission that 5% of the Westlands could provide 5,000 MW of solar energy to the state.
Wouldn't it be great if we converted, say, 1/3rd of the Westlands to solar, 1/3rd we restored to native habitat (for water and air quality improvements, too), and kept 1/3rd in ag. production?
Meanwhile, the L.A. Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences has weighed in on the California Delta issue, per Feinstein's request, and found that water export cuts are completely justified.
I hope this settles the issue for our senator, but based on this conversation (including Feinstein telling a reporter that Lake Shasta is spilling over the top right now), I doubt it.
Meanwhile, California Watch reports that the Republican National Committee is accusing San Joaquin Valley Democrats and the Obama Administration of trading a "yes" vote on health care for more water. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but it doesn't look like it from my vantage point right now. Here is a link to the DOI statement of water allocation increases. Note that everybody is getting increases, because of the amount of water currently in the mountains. The important number is for flows South of the Delta to secondary water rights' holders, which DOI is increasing from 5% of allocation to 25%. I fully expected this increase, so again, the accusation seems flimsy to me right now.
Here is a great, short document on the value of the Westlands Irrigation District to California... as a solar generator.
flx1247rg
The author, Bill Powers of Powers Engineering, explained in these comments to the California Energy Commission that 5% of the Westlands could provide 5,000 MW of solar energy to the state.
Wouldn't it be great if we converted, say, 1/3rd of the Westlands to solar, 1/3rd we restored to native habitat (for water and air quality improvements, too), and kept 1/3rd in ag. production?
Meanwhile, the L.A. Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences has weighed in on the California Delta issue, per Feinstein's request, and found that water export cuts are completely justified.
I hope this settles the issue for our senator, but based on this conversation (including Feinstein telling a reporter that Lake Shasta is spilling over the top right now), I doubt it.
Meanwhile, California Watch reports that the Republican National Committee is accusing San Joaquin Valley Democrats and the Obama Administration of trading a "yes" vote on health care for more water. It's not outside the realm of possibility, but it doesn't look like it from my vantage point right now. Here is a link to the DOI statement of water allocation increases. Note that everybody is getting increases, because of the amount of water currently in the mountains. The important number is for flows South of the Delta to secondary water rights' holders, which DOI is increasing from 5% of allocation to 25%. I fully expected this increase, so again, the accusation seems flimsy to me right now.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Kern county defends its poop ban
© 2010 Joshua Stark
The L.A. Times reports that L.A. and Orange counties are appealing a voter-approved Kern county ban on their biosolids being trucked onto its county.
I think it's time that local governments work out local solutions to their own messes. Go, Kern county!
The L.A. Times reports that L.A. and Orange counties are appealing a voter-approved Kern county ban on their biosolids being trucked onto its county.
I think it's time that local governments work out local solutions to their own messes. Go, Kern county!
Friday, March 12, 2010
A wonderful, contemplative post on environmental ethics
© 2010 Joshua Stark
But, not from me. Chad Love at the Mallard of Discontent has a great post on the loss of our amazing, native prairie birds.
flx1247rg
One criticism often thrown at the hunting side of the environmental community is that they only care about their specific issues, places, or species. And judging by the way we've organized ourselves in that community, there is little doubt that this criticism contains a grain of truth. Consider the following hunting organizations' names:
Ducks Unlimited
California Waterfowl Association
Mule Deer Foundation
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Pheasants forever
Quail Unlimited
Snipe United for Free Worms for All
Okay, I threw that last one in there, but I believe my point stands: although we've stressed the importance of habitat - watersheds, plants, other species - we maintain a focus on particular species, and sometimes this means that we leave out others, to our detriment.
One problem is, of course, the time dedicated to supporting individual species means that less time gets devoted to understanding the complex systems in which they thrive, and also that we may tend to overemphasize artificial "restoration" of populations, rather than supporting self-sustaining systems. But, Chad points out another problem: the potential for trends to ignore species, which may cause a sort of vicious cycle - as hunters stop hunting them, the species declines from a lack of funding or care. They fall all the way until somebody notices that they may need protection, if they are lucky.
Unfortunately, right now we don't seem to have any consistent mechanism for catching species before they hit that last stop on the way to oblivion, the Endangered Species Act. Thank goodness for that act, too, because it does express our desire to understand our negative impacts before we lose all the pieces (see Leopold's First Rule of Intelligent Tinkering).
But, not from me. Chad Love at the Mallard of Discontent has a great post on the loss of our amazing, native prairie birds.
flx1247rg
One criticism often thrown at the hunting side of the environmental community is that they only care about their specific issues, places, or species. And judging by the way we've organized ourselves in that community, there is little doubt that this criticism contains a grain of truth. Consider the following hunting organizations' names:
Ducks Unlimited
California Waterfowl Association
Mule Deer Foundation
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Pheasants forever
Quail Unlimited
Snipe United for Free Worms for All
Okay, I threw that last one in there, but I believe my point stands: although we've stressed the importance of habitat - watersheds, plants, other species - we maintain a focus on particular species, and sometimes this means that we leave out others, to our detriment.
One problem is, of course, the time dedicated to supporting individual species means that less time gets devoted to understanding the complex systems in which they thrive, and also that we may tend to overemphasize artificial "restoration" of populations, rather than supporting self-sustaining systems. But, Chad points out another problem: the potential for trends to ignore species, which may cause a sort of vicious cycle - as hunters stop hunting them, the species declines from a lack of funding or care. They fall all the way until somebody notices that they may need protection, if they are lucky.
Unfortunately, right now we don't seem to have any consistent mechanism for catching species before they hit that last stop on the way to oblivion, the Endangered Species Act. Thank goodness for that act, too, because it does express our desire to understand our negative impacts before we lose all the pieces (see Leopold's First Rule of Intelligent Tinkering).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)