Conservation on the Front Line in Indonesia

As palm oil companies continue to expand into Indonesian forests, the indigenous people of the area are “calling for help from people everywhere in protecting [their] forests and ancestral land.” For the indigenous communities, this is a plea for the conservation of their natural resources. More specifically, palm oil companies have taken advantage of weak planning, and are determined to cut down the Muara Tae land area, which “has lost more than half of its land and forests during the past 20 years of mining companies.” This next land grab by the companies will be very detrimental to the local communities. Since Indonesia already deals with catastrophic levels of deforestation, protecting the greatly-diverse Maura Tae forests is crucial for the island’s continued well-being and for the greater fight for conservation. The indigenous people end by saying; “This is the last remaining forests that we have and the only land we have to survive. If my forests are gone, our lives will end.”

Environmental Politics: It's All in the Verbiage

When Al Gore first spoke out on behalf of global warming do to greenhouse gases which largely is a result of urbanization he was ridiculed. The information Gore presented in his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was viewed as a mix between conspiracy theory and a wasted rental fee. The critics blasted him by saying irrelevant comments like;

NEW YORK— The Al Gore-produced global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth is being panned by critics nationwide who claim the 90-plus minute environmental film is "too disturbingly realistic and well-researched to enjoy." "I found it difficult to suspend my disbelief in man-made climate change for the first half-hour—and utterly impossible after that—which makes for a movie-going experience that's far more educational than it is enjoyable," said New York Post film critic Skip Hack. "Gore's film overwhelms viewers with staggering amounts of scientific information until nothing about global warming is left to the imagination, and that's just not good entertainment. Two stars." Some critics have called the film's claims that sea levels could rise 20 feet somewhat sensationalistic, although most agree that this is not enough to save the film from being unwatchably factual.

The research and the potential ugly truth to his documentary was reduced to nothing more than an unsatisfactory movie experience. Due to Al's blemished social and political status after the election the environmental issue he was trying to expose took a non-existent backseat, and when it was acknowledged it became a ridiculed piece up for debate.

While in 2000 this debate created extreme controversy and sidetracked the intention of the documentary to images like the above cartoon. Now in 2012 there is a visible attempt to create awareness around polar bears and their disappearing homes they have made on glacial ice barriers. How is it that their homes are disappearing?...they ice sheets are melting due to polar warming. Is Gore right and is urbanization to blame with greenhouse gases, I'm not entirely sure I am qualified to say, but the National Wildlife Federation is on board with Gore claiming a trend of global warming. What the comparison of these two scenarios gives us is a highly problematic situation where politics destroys and creates images for political rallying points. It is obvious that the National Wildlife Federation isn't receiving the brutal ridiculing remarks that Gore did, nor is anyone laughing at images of polar bears stranded on floating ice sheets stranding them in freezing ocean waters. I imagine that it would be hard to maintain a likable political facade if you were opening expressing a lack of concern or care for this majestic animals existence.

The problem is that politicians work in coalition with the media, and issues of the enviornment are tools. These tools can destroy another political candidates image and make a mockery of them or in the case of polar bears it is an opportunity to be viewed as a humanitarian regardless of their legitimate feelings or action. When educated leaders of our country express opinions on topics there tends to be a bandwagon affect regardless of the public's initial perspective, and therefore environmental decisions are made by the people strategically creating its image.

-Jordan (I have no opinion about Gore it was just a great example of a scenario where politicians chose to tarnish the reputation of one of their own with environmental exposure)

Shareable Future Cities

This is a video of Alex Steffen discussing the possibility of the future with sharable cities. He also discuss that creating renewable energy is a bad idea due to the urbanization our world and how fast it's urbanizing. He states that, by having a more denser community, everything we need is close-by, which would eliminate driving somewhere or using transpiration. He also says the most sustainable trip is the trip that you never had to make in the first place.

Community Power Works: A Local Energy Upgrade Movement Based In Seattle

 

Seattle has been at the forefront of the environmental movement for several decades and the efforts of it's inhabitants have made great strides to create one of the most green urban environments around. One particular program that helps with energy conservation is the Community Power Works program. The CPW provides energy upgrades to businesses, homes, hospitals, and other sectors in Seattle to create a more energy efficient city and economy. The funding reaches into the millions of dollars and the site details their goals clearly, saying "energy efficiency affects all of us." Through their operations the CPW wishes to conserve energy and reduce Seattle's carbon footprint, while simultaneously creating jobs for the people of Seattle.

Conservation is a major concern and efforts such as this show the power and success of the environmental movement on a local level.

Here is the link: http://www.communitypowerworks.org/

The Nature of Politics in Environmental Justice

When it comes to energy politics, I think people have this misunderstanding about how it works. We always here in the media that the government is passing some new bill to promote conserving energy or using alternative energy; whether it’s passing some bill that gives people tax breaks for buying certain energy- saving machine or giving start-up businesses capital to get there company started. Also we see in the media that certain environmental issues do not exists like global warming for example.

The way that energy is used in politics is almost an arguing point for both parties. One party would say that this exists, but the other will not. I think people have to understand that the reason this disagreement happen is because of economic reasons. By giving tax breaks to people when the have energy- saving equipment causes the government to comprise on where the money they lose is worth it. But some politicians do not agree with that because it losses them money. Also some of the politicians have huge investments in certain companies that promote green energy and support it, so they would lobby to get certain bills pass so that they can make money for there company.

Energy politics overall, is a huge part of environmental justice due to the policies that surround it. By not having these policies in place, some organization and even communities will have difficulty portraying the things they want to do for the environment.