Afghanistan

by: Hannah Small

It appears that the saying “things have to get worse before they get better” still holds true. Over the weekend we have learned of the eight U.S. soldiers that died in an east Afghan battle, this also happens to be the most U.S. causalities in single battle since July 2008. In July nine American soldiers were killed in the same province as the newest battle. This tragic even should be able to heat up the debate in Washington over the eight war in Afghanistan, as of now President Obama has been receiving flack for his antics concerning the war. Many consider him to be at fault for the increase in troops and not trying to draw ourselves out of the area, a columnist for National Times stated “Afghanistan is now Barack Obama’s war, a war other world leaders want to distance themselves from, and a war over which Obama is paralyzed.” In March President Obama had announced to send more U.S. troops over to Afghanistan, but now it seems that many think the plan should be reconsider and we are no longer fighting for the right reasons. Originally we had gone in after September 11 to gather control of the Taliban and reconstruct the country. Now eight years later, it appears we have steered away from the original attack and are looking more for control of the country and want to run it ourselves. At what points is the line drawn where we realize there is nothing more we can do and we are just hurting our own civilians. Plus it seems that our own country needs the most help right now, and our focus should be on getting our own country back on track. I would be interested to know who feels we should continue the battles in Afghanistan or is it time to bring all the troops home?

One-Stop Shop Society

Going to the grocery store used to mean just buying fruit, vegetables, meat and milk. Now, you can get a cup of coffee with free Wi-Fi, go to the bank, and obtain healthcare advice and treatments. Since when is it acceptable to add “doctor visit”, or “get immunization” to the bottom of your grocery list? With these super-convenient “retail clinics” not only has healthcare become more affordable, but now minor injuries and pains can be taken care of evenings and weekends. Though these “retail clinics” are easily accessible, is it really acceptable? What will happen to the traditional doctor’s office? To become competitive, Walmart and other grocery stores are offering prescriptions for less and even in store doctors, opticians, and pharmacies- is the public taking on healthcare reform? Is a line being crossed when fitting in a physical between the deli and produce? Especially now, with the semi-pandemic of the H1N1 virus, healthcare should not be such a public affair. Now, just like the rest of our world, healthcare has become a convenience and part of the mass-market merchandising.

Negative Impacts of Wind farms on Wildlife

There are many Policy issues surrounding climate change as well as species endangerment. Changes are trying to be made to the energy industry to address climate change. The main alternatives to fossil fuels include wind and solar energy. When it comes to species endangerment there have been many studies on effects of human impacts and much enthusiasm towards protecting species biodiversity. Although climate change has a direct effect on many of these species, I never thought that an alternative energy such as wind, which is geared toward lessening climate change, would affect species diversity just as much as fossil fuels were.

Looking at the decline of the lesser prairie chicken and its decline due to wind turbines is a perfect example of this paradox. This bird and other prairie species seem to avoid contact with any sort of building such as wind turbines, even if there is suitable habitat available. This inhibits movement of the species which correlates to poor genetic diversity. It also limits the habitat of the birds and according to the species area curve, decreased area results in decreased species richness.

Wind turbines are ideal in strong wind areas which are normally prairies, and ideal habitat for the prairie chicken. The policy question becomes: should we increase wind turbines to lessen our use of fossil fuels, or concern ourselves with a potentially threatened species. This, like all policy questions, is a tough one to answer. My suggestion would be, like the article "It’s Not Easy Being Green: Wind Energy and a Declining Grassland Bird," said, is to limit wind turbines to within 5 miles of prairie bird habitat. Although this will not be optimal for wind companies, it will be optimal for the environment as a whole. There will be less greenhouse gas emissions, less impact on prairie species and profits from wind energy.

Citation:
Pruett, Christin L., Michael A. Patten, and Donald H. Wolfe. "It’s Not Easy Being Green: Wind Energy and a Declining Grassland Bird." BioScience 59.3: 257-62. Print.

Policy relevance--big bucks.

At the Chronicle, here. This may be desirable or a problem.

Conflicts of Power in Environmental Issues

by: Cortney Owen

It seems justifiable that the original descendents from a particular land should have some input in attempts made to conserve it. Discussion of this issue has become controversial, however, in that many large-scale NGO’s feel they have the right to make decisions about conservation and preservation management strategies in areas where indigenous peoples reside. How is one to determine whether original descendents or environmentalists are more qualified in implementing these strategies?
NGO’s such as WWF and the Nature Conservancy, which are the main actors in these situations, have accumulated considerable wealth and influence in the past few decades. Attempts for alliance with aborigines and community based management plans have decreased considerably as NGO’s focus on large-scale conservation and rely on science, rather than social realities, in determining their agendas. This new focus has allowed large organizations to dominate policy and management in areas considered to have an environmental risk.

Indigenous people have been continuously invaded, conquered, and deprived of their rights throughout history, but recently there has been an attempt to disregard the native status and rights of these peoples in relation to their environmental influence. Once-traditional cultural practices have even been deemed illegal. Some argue that natives are destructive to their land causing environmental degradation and resource depletion and are particularly hostile to deal with.

Indigenous peoples argue on their behalf that as original descendents of particular lands, they have a greater knowledge of the environment, attempt to partake in respectful resource use, and are stewards of survival for future generations. Their agenda is to respect history, religion, and culture while making a living on land without destroying resources. Many conservationists argue that some native lands should be off limits to people for the sake of preserving biodiversity and resources. With obvious conflicting interests, conservationists and aborigines strive to impose their different agendas. This frequently leads to one agenda, particularly the native’s, not being accredited.

There lies a power conflict between indigenous peoples and conservationists in that conservationists have better access to fundraising and political support than do natives. Environmental issues have become dependent upon, and rooted in financial and political affiliations, thus creating a disadvantage to native peoples. Indigenous peoples are not as well connected with their government and do not have such means to support their causes. NGO’s have become so powerful and profitable that they often do not see the fault in a lack of cooperation with the natives.

Mountain Biking Regulations

By: Rand Shoaf

I have always wondered why exactly is it that mountain bikes are banned from designated wilderness areas within the U.S. Mountain bikes are a human powered, zero pollution, environmentally sustainable, outdoor recreation, so I decided to do some research to find an answer. Quite frankly, I didn’t find any strong arguments supporting the ban of mountain bikes, but I didn’t find a plethora of evidence supporting the lifting of it.

The most compelling evidence stems from a handful of diverse scientific studies regarding the environmental impacts of mountain bikes vs. hiking. I’m not going to go into detail of any particular studies, but what I found was that there are none that have proven mountain bike activity any more environmentally damaging than hiking. So why is it that mountain bikes are banned?

The mountain bike ban from the 1984 wilderness regulation act is a historical artifact. It is a remnant of early caution and the fear and hostility towards emerging recreational use and encroachment of mountain bikers on trails during that time. This 1984 ban is antiquated and clearly indicates the lack of accurate information and fear at that time.

Not only does it discriminate against and harm a significant number of cyclists, but it ultimately weakens the intactness of environmental and outdoor recreation communities; resulting in a less unified community to protect nature and wilderness lands. Creating multiple use guidelines and allowing mountain bikes to utilize some wilderness trails is the best policy.

The Embargo

And here, for those of you interested in agricultural subsidies/energy policy/the Cuba embargo, is a discussion by renowned political thinker Jorge Castañeda on Cuba.

Religious Imperialism?

Blattman (again) points out the irony of the Catholic church calling protestant evangelism "imperialism."

Seriously.

Thoughts?

Nonviolence and Authoritarianism

Chris Blattman comments on Gandhi and "Twitter Nonviolence" in non-democratic regimes here.

Smart Growth

Brian Filak
Smart Growth

As our population continues to grow, we need to adopt new sustainable
designs to accommodate future housing demands. Smart Growth is an approach
to addressing this issue. Smart Growth involves designing communities that are
well planned and remain sustainable with a large capacity of residents. A few of
the many principles that characterize Smart Growth include creating an
arrangement of housing opportunities and choices with walkable neighborhoods
and a variety of transportation options. Implementing mixed land uses,
preserving open space, and directing development towards existing
communities using compact building design area also at the top of the list. A
key goal of smart growth is to reduce our dependence on automobiles and
pollute less. This happens when homes and businesses are evenly dispersed
amongst one-another and an hour commute to work is not necessary. Rather
than spreading further out from industrialized centers, smart growth
incorporates urban growth boundaries and focuses on building up areas that are
already inhabited. Consequently, this means smaller houses and increased
multi-family housing.
Many organizations have collaborated to research smart growth and create
growth policies. Currently, 11 states have voluntarily adopted smart growth
principles and guidelines for development projects. In order for this
development to become more wide-spread, local, state, and federal
governments need to adjust zoning laws and create more incentives and
regulations.
Opponents of smart growth argue that it impedes individual privatization
rights and could have adverse effects. Since smart growth involves packing
more people into less space, more individuals who desire, and can afford, their
own space may push further into rural areas, resulting in more developed land.
Those who challenge smart growth say that condensing communities will make
housing prices rise and hinder the American Dream of owning your own house.
Also, the diversification of smart neighborhoods has the possibility to generate
more crime.
What do you think? Is Smart Growth the answer to dealing with resource
management and pollution from population growth, or can our environment
sustain current trends of sprawl? Are our values regarding the environment
great enough to make us lighten our values for individual homes and yards?