Annotated Bibliography on Sustainable Livelihoods for Conservation

Out of Canada.... http://community.eldis.org/?233@@.59e4dcda!enclosure=.59e4dcdb&ad=1

Resilience 2011 will be held in March, hosted by ASU

Arizona State University will host Resilience 2011, an international conference on the dynamics of interconnected social-ecological systems, March 11-16, 2011. The conference will bring together scholars from a broad spectrum of disciplinary backgrounds interested in the major science and policy challenges that face us all as a result of global change. Resilience 2011 is organized around intellectual themes that aim to integrate knowledge from multiple perspectives.

For more information, visit the conference website: http://resilience2011.org/

Call for Papers: "Climate, Knowledge, and Politics, XVIIIth-XXth centuries"

CALL FOR PROPOSALS
International Colloquium
“Climate, Knowledge and Politics, XVIIIth-XXth centuries”

Paris, 16th and 17th of September 2011.

Organizers: Jean-Baptiste Fressoz, Fabien Locher, Julien Vincent.
ANR project "Profutur", EHESS, CNRS


Global climate change is one of the most pressing questions of our time. It enrolls states, markets and civil society in a complex process mingling political deliberations, scientific expertise, ethics of the future, and government technologies. The recognition of a global climate threat is part of a growing environmental awareness that extends to issues of biodiversity, resources exhaustion, and pollution. This increasingly acute awareness is often described as a radical break from “modernity” and from its restrictive conception of the environmental consequences of human activities, and their “boomerang effects” on human life.

This international colloquium aims at replacing the contemporary linkages between Climate, Knowledge and Politics in a broader historical perspective encompassing the XVIIIth, XIXth and XXth Centuries. Was “climate” a category of modern political thought, and did it inform concrete forms of government since the eighteenth century? Did the emerging human sciences participate in contemporary debates and thinking
about the climate? Was “climate” part of the environmental awareness of the past? What were the terms of debates about human-induced climate change? To answer these questions we start from two assumptions: first, historical discourse needs to reject the ‘vulgar historicism’ that reduces past climate fears to an old tune, without trying to understand the deep logic at work. Second, great philosophical narratives about the supposed “exit of modernity”, by creating a straw man past, tend to blur our understanding of the historical dynamics and of the contemporary situation.

One aim of the conference is to bring together historians of “the climate” understood both as a philosophical concept, and as a practical concern for individuals and governments. One major theme is the transverse nature of the notion of climate. Because this concept was common to many forms of knowledge, academic and popular, including both the moral and the natural sciences, it was used to analyze a vast variety of facts. The issue of regional climatic differences, for example, brought together disciplines ranging from medicine, geography, botany, anthropology, and law. In the same way, studying the climate in evolution was equally relevant to geology, theology, and history. Were certain kinds of knowledge instrumental in the construction of this climatic paradigm? In which contexts did the transverse nature of climate play a structuring role? Did the constitution of a separate science of weather, put the climatic paradigm into question? Did other, including moral, sciences contribute to the erosion of this climatic paradigm?

Climate was also a practical issue for the government of environments and peoples. Since modern times, climate has been a category of political reflection. But was it involved in government practices? Climatic paradigm defined heterogeneous territories according to the North/South, Hot/Cold, Extreme/Temperate divides, but how were territories more finely described in climatic terms? Did these descriptions justify contrasted ways of governing peoples and environments in the metropolitan and colonial spaces? Some of the papers may focus on climate in relation to time and anticipation. To what extent was this category used so as to anticipate and shape futures? Besides many literary references, what kind of knowledge did governments
and administrations put into practice so as to anticipate the difficulties or the benefits that the evolution of climate could entail to human activity? How the impact of human action upon climate was conceived? How were anticipated the consequences its change upon bodies, societies, environments, or the planet as a whole? And more generally, what role did this notion play in the environmental reflexivity of past societies?

This colloquium aims at tackling these complex issues, by using perspectives inspired by political history, environmental history, and science studies.

We particularly encourage proposals for papers that explore the link between climate and government and can inform the long-term history of environmental concerns. Proposals focusing on the following themes are
more than welcome: climatic anticipation, climate in humboldtian sciences, neohippocratism, anthropology, acclimatization, climatic eugenics, climate and political economy/moral sciences.

Proposals can be made by both Phd students and established scholars. Financial assistance for travel and accommodation will be provided to all conference presenters.

Please email a 500-word abstract and a one-page CV to climateconferenceparis@gmail.com by the 15th of March 2011.

Paper: responses to climate change skeptics

Carr, M., Anderson, r., Brash, K. 2010. Climate change: addressing the major skeptic arguments. DB Climate Change Advisors. Deutsche Bank Group. 

Columbia University just released a comprehensive review of the major claims held by climate change skeptics and their responses. They outline three main categories of challenges:
1. The Earth is not warming.
2. The Earth may be warming, but human activity is not responsible for it.
3. The Earth may be warming, human activity may be responsible, but there is no need to stop it.
The authors give each category careful consideration and provide evidence to refute each one.

Some corrections of commonly held "facts" on the other side of the fence (climate change acceptors) are presented. For example, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has published that 55% of the country is below sea-level. They have recently issued a correction that in fact only 20% of the country is below sea-level and 55% of the country is at risk of flooding. (p21) Factual errors such as this one gives fodder for skeptics to challenge climate science. The authors maintain that despite mistakes, the bottom line (climate change) still holds true.

They conclude that scientific debate cannot be held in public media because journalists are not trained to interpret the findings and the public experiences whiplash from the clash of ideas. Instead, science should be debated within the expert community and translated to the public.

I have a copy of this paper if anyone is interested.
Melissa

Border Crossings: Preparing for and Adapting to Climate Change Effects in Northern Colorado

Jes, with the assistance of Karina, held this workshop on Nov 16 and 17, 2010 at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park. Many hotshots were in attendance who came together to build capacity and improve coordination of climate change management and adaptation efforts among management agencies in Northern Colorado. The workshop included panel discussions as well as break-out groups on Water, Wildlife, People and Vegetation. What I thought was unique about the conference was that the issues that were discussed the first day were followed up on the next day, allowing for processing and connectivity.

Kathleen Dean Moore's Moral Ground - Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril"

At the United Methodist Church on Sunday Nov. 14th, Kathleen Dean Moore and Michael Nelson spoke about their new anthology, "Moral Ground - Ethical Action for a Planet in Peril". Kathleen Moore is a professor of philosophy at Oregon State University and Micheal Nelson is a professor of environmental ethics at Michigan Sate University, as well as the resident philosopher for the Isle Royale Wolf and Moose project (sounds like an interesting gig). You can see where this is headed; they focus on the ethical side of climate change, perhaps a voice that is missing in the public discourse. As such, they are conducting a town hall meeting tour to raise awareness of the issue. Although the meeting was interactive at times, I couldn't tell if it felt any different than a book tour. What's the diff?

The book asks the question: Do we have a moral obligation to take action to protect future generations against environmental destruction? The answer comes in the form of 80 short essays from high profile leaders and thinkers like Barack Obama and the Dali Lama. The book is mainly focused on global climate change, but also umbrellas other destructive environmental forces.

Michael Nelson started by employing some very compelling rhetoric. What if Aliens were doing this to us? What if extra terrestrials were polluting our rivers, felling our forests, dumping soot into the atmosphere and cause unprecedented global temperature change through industrial combustion? We would probably do a little more than change our lightbulbs to cfls.

Then, Kathleen took a much needed jab at the IPCC with criticism that would have HDNR grad students smarting with vindication. She remarked that scientist provided amazing data that suggests the destructive force of climate change and then nothing happened. The scientists then reorganized their efforts, collaborated their research efforts to a global scale and again, nothing happened. Presently, she remarked, the scientists produce amazing work, fret about their communication skills, and sit back as resistance to climate change fades away. This brings us to the main thesis of their work. We need fact and morality to make change on a global scale. It goes like this:

Factual Premise: Environmental destruction is upon us and will leave future generations impoverished

Moral premise: If I allow this to happen I give up my moral standing

I am now compelled to act.

As you might guess, all of the essays answer in the affirmative: we do have a moral obligation to future generations. The editors arrange the responses into fourteen moral premises. Here they are:

Yes, for the survival of humankind.
Yes, for the sake of the children.
Yes, for the sake of the Earth itself.
Yes, for the sake of all forms of life on the planet.
Yes, to honor our duties of gratitude and reciprocity.
Yes, for the full expression of human virtue.
Yes, because all flourishing is mutual.
Yes, for the stewardship of God’s creation.
Yes, because compassion requires it.
Yes, because justice demands it.
Yes, because the world is beautiful.
Yes, because we love the world.
Yes, to honor and celebrate the Earth and Earth systems.
Yes, because our moral integrity requires us to do what is right.

There were two serious unanswered questions at the end of their presentation.

1) Did anyone respond yes, we have an obligation to future generations, but environmental destruction is not a cause for concern? Surely they must recognize the logical trap behind their question. One can reject the concern over environmental destruction as many public figures with decision making power do this often.

2) If the response to their question is so unanimous in favor of environmental protection, why do we see such continuing degradation? Surely the Earth is not flooded with moral deviants, but with people just trying to do their level best. Kathleen Moore describes the future moral environmental movement akin to woman's suffrage or the civil rights movement, but it is perhaps the disparity, rather than the likeness, of environmental challenges that have mired progress. Instead of marching to gain one central change, like the right to vote, the environmental movement seeks to change a whole suite of practices that range from personal consumption to global policy. Seeking to address the current problems in a new light rather than drumming up dusty examples of change may be more productive.


A final skeptical voice of mine picked up on the rhetoric of luxury within the text of many of the selected readings. The author's, including Moore's own entry, present painful lamentation about the loss of bird and frog song. They cry over the loss of encounters with vivid wildlife somewhere on Cape Cod. These experiences are certainly valuable and legitimate. In fact, anyone who has spent time in wilderness will empathize with these sentiments. But does it represent how the majority of the population interacts with nature? The major source of degradation, at least in contributions to global climate change will come from the developing world. Instead of:

Yes, because we love the world ..... how about

Yes, because I need timber to cook for my family or

Yes, because I need bushmeat to sell to the market or

Yes, because without a good fish catch I will have to move to the city or immigrate to a foreign country.



Overall, the addition of morality into mainstream environmental thought is much needed, but comes with its own risks. Hey, see for yourself below. - AC

U.N.’s Decade for Deserts and the Fight against Desertification

The U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification Executive Secretary Luc Gnacadja began the meeting with an overview, signing of the document and obligatory handshakes. Apparently, there is a similar announcement on each continent. Colorado State University is the first university in the world to host one of the U.N.’s “decade” announcements. The US speakers took the opportunity to explain the history of desertification catastrophe in the US with stories of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s, and allusions to future Dust Bowls in response to climate change.

Thomas Reinsch made the connection that desertification is about soil health. You can have all the water in the world, but if the soil can't absorb it, then you are going to have floods and soil erosion. Malnutritioned soil = less food security and also = less carbon sequestration. Dr. Reinsch went through the US policy response to the Dust Bowl with the 1932 Department of Chemicals and something classification of land and the National Grasslands, the 1935 USDA Soil Conservation Service to combat desertification in the US and the NRCS and FDR's bottom up approach of conservation districts. He also mentioned that it takes 1000 lbs of water to grow 1 lb of corn, and this should be included in water allocation calculations.

Gary Peterson argued that the Dust Bowl in the Great Plains was a failure to understand the ecosystem, in particular, a failure of the writers of the Homestead Act to realize that farmers from the "East" (like Illinois) would not be familiar with appropriate farming practices in the arid lands of the Great Plains. Daniel Freeman was the first homesteader who settled in Gage County, Nebraska on the cusp of where wetter lands meet dry. Other farmers who settled in the more western, drier areas left unintended consequences. Plowing bared the surfaces and stimulated oxidation, which reduced the nitrogen supply capacity and lowered productivity. Steam tractors came along and were able to change more surfaces at a faster rate than animal powered vehicles. In contrast to the Midwest, cover is the key to sustainable farming practices in the Great Plains. Mr. Peterson experiments to grow corn in wheat stubble, for example so that the residue slows runoff and the rough surfaces slows evaporation. Both strategies protect the soil from raindrop impact and maintains water infiltration.

We are just now beginning to realize how livestock have historically played this role in roughing up ag surfaces. Shannon Horst from the Savory Institute explained how they are using these techniques in Africa and the US. She noted that the drylands are the largest terrestrial carbon sink but are neglected as such. She argued against the traditional climate change discourse that focuses on adaptation. An example she gave was planning that was happening in Tunisia, that a group that lost their grasslands were trying monocropping of prickly pear to teach the cattle to eat that. Unfortunately, they had no plan of what would happen when the unsustainable prickly pear eventually disappeared too. Instead, she thought that they could restore the grasslands to their original state and that would be a more sustainable resource for farmers.

But what is "the original state"? Jurgen Hoth pointed out that nature is socially constructed and showed three photos of three different times where we could potentially point to as the "original state" of the Chihuahauan Desert. Nature changes, so people need to agree on how they want to construct the past. Dr. Hoth also conducted a content analysis of several international documents on climate change and noted that the word 'desertification' was not used, or if it was, was only used in the title. He searched for other synonyms, and could not find them either. He realized that while in theory we know desertification and climate change are linked, we haven't been able to make a strong connection in application.

The room was full for the signing of the document, but only about 11 audience members held out until the end (only three hours). Scones and beverages were served, and next door was a student-run restaurant that serves food from a student run garden!