Category: Uncategorized

For this final blog post, I plan on analyzing the differences in environmentalism claims within the LaDuke readings from week 6, and the Pearce readings from week 7. I find that both authors discuss, either blatant or subtle, a perception of environmentalism and potential solutions to addressing environmental hazards. I find their dichotomous backgrounds to be a perfect platform for comparison.

Winona LaDuke is a member of the Anishinaabeg tribe which resides in Canada and Minnesota. In the readings for week 6, she discusses how westernized industry and exploitation of reservation lands has led to decreases in populations of vital fish like sturgeon and salmon. She gives multiple examples of tribes across the U.S. fighting in small bands against large corporations like developers on the Columbia, Hanford Nuclear in Washington, and a multitude of dam developers all across the nation. “In January 1990, the Yakama Indian Nation enacted a resolution calling for an end to the use of the chlorine bleaching process by the pulp-and-paper industry” (61). This is only one example of tribal groups demanding tighter restrictions be placed on corporate allowances. She mentions in the same reading that any allowance of pollutants should be illegal; it is not a question of threshold.

Pearce is an English author, whose interests lie in climate change and water issues. In the reading of his for week 7 (which appears to be more like a few chapters from his book) he notes the shortcomings of dams across the globe. Many of the issues are complete dam failure, less economic output than promised, and unexpected environmental harm. A shocking statistic of his was, “reservoirs produce a fifth of all man-made methane in the atmosphere and make up 7 percent of the man-made greenhouse gas effect” (144). Its hard to say that dams, while often advertised as being environmentally friendly, are a clean source of energy. Pearce, while highlighting a multitude of negatives from dams, poses little solution to them other than breaching… especially when one fifth of the world’s energy is harvested from them. Particularly, what do we do with the civilizations who are well established in areas that would be floodplains without dams?

Both Pearce and LaDuke opposed the construction of dams, LaDuke offers direct tribal action and solution in the face of disruptive river tactics (pollution, damming, overfishing). While Pearce offers an in-depth analysis of the failures of dams worldwide, little advice is given on how to combat these tactics. Is this potentially where western culture/science fails to provide solution? In the last section of the Pearce reading, he mentions an interesting tactic to rival monsoon flooding. “Proposals for the large scale diversion of the monsoon floodwaters of the Ganges into the aquifer beneath its plain could make sense” (308). It is not to say that this book by Pearce does not offer good solutions to these issues, those of which just may not have been included in the selected chapters. It is however important to recognize the wide array of proposed solutions from varied environmental demographics, who view conservation, environmentalism, and nature through a different lens.

While at first glance we would assume that native and NGO environmental groups have the same goal in mind, and they may, their approaches and perspectives differ. Winona states that the, “Sierra Club has openly opposed transfers of public land to tribes on occasion. In addition, animal rights groups have opposed traditional harvesters of seal, beaver, fish and whales” (62). There are clearly struggles between the most historic environmentalist groups (native tribes) and the emerging ‘new age’ environmentalism, that can often be elitist, or too progressive. When I say too progressive, I imply that they are looking to the future, using westernized science, instead of looking to the past at techniques that have been used successfully for decades. So successfully, that our perception of natural is often how native populations have been altering the landscape for millennia.

While differences diverse perspectives can produce unique solutions, they can also result in differing needs or wants. Tribes, based on LaDuke’s experiences, butt heads with other environmental groups on a few issues. Perspectives on the role of humans in nature can explain these differences. Tribes, who in the face of modernization still hold to their cultural values, appear more aware of their connection to the natural world than most western groups. I think of comparisons such as:
-Veganism and Whole Foods vs. native fishing and plant harvesting techniques
-“Untouched wilderness” vs. tribes living in harmony with their “wild” environment
-National Parks/Public Land vs. Indian Reservations
-Ecotourism vs. regional recreation
-Urban vs. symbiotic development

I find that often western cultures, in an attempt to be environmental, we aim to build borders between ‘human’ environments and ‘wild’ or ‘natural’ environments. These ideas often separate us further from what our role in nature is. Environmentalist groups may shame native populations for harvesting salmon, yet encourage elitist use of National Parks. We’ve been encouraged to view ‘natural’ areas as a place to temporarily recreate, as opposed to coexist with.

For my CCC, I served alongside a wonderful group of veteran volunteers in Hendricks Park. The group has been meeting every Tuesday morning to pull weeds/invasives, as well as general park maintenance; without these helpful people the park would not function nearly as well. We spent the morning (Logan, Maya, Eliza, Sean, and I) pulling weeds around the Rhododendron garden. Some of these weeds included stachys, buttercup, and a non-native wild strawberry (there are native wild strawberries too). The site looked incredibly different after the treatment.. but I think it is important to mention as well how we view a natural landscape, vs. a landscaped one, or one full of invasive species. To someone who is unaware of the types of “weeds” growing among the rhodies, it could appear that the pretty yellow flowers on the buttercups are just part of a healthy understory. Regardless, the ladies who were pulling around us were well aware of the different types of species, and nearly all had been avid gardeners.
Mission Statement: To provide stewardship to Hendricks Park through education, restoration, and community support.

As we were pulling weeds, Christina, the head of volunteer services, was talking about how removing these weeds would provide more room for the rhodies, and give them a greater share of water resources. In class we discussed how funding has become an issue for the park (further showing how important volunteer work is for Hendricks) meaning that in the face of water scarcity, the more water for native species (providing ecosystem services) the better. Especially following a spring/winter like this, were rainfall was minimal, and snowpack in the cascades is also low. Willamette Pass Ski Resort had a few attempts at opening in February, but otherwise did not open this season due to lack of snow. Invasive species thrive in conditions that may be more difficult for natives, so as we experience more extreme weather events, our diligence in caring for these sensitive areas is all the more important.

As far as the pillars, one I noticed immediately is the 2nd pillar, discussing the importance of scale in a spatial and temporal sense. There are many stakeholders involved when it comes to the health of the park, and I was lucky enough to meet a few of them Tuesday morning. A few of the volunteers I had met grew up outside of Eugene/Oregon, yet had still managed to find a sense of community and contribute to its health. All the volunteers made it apparent how much they benefited from helping the park, and basking in its health as well. As I pulled weeds, I noticed how many insects were living in the dirt. It was incredibly cool to zoom into another bustling environment, and to scale down to the micro level. I saw swarms of pill/potato bugs, as well as little beetles, and a very cool centipede.

The Shiva chapter for this week did a good job at giving a brief, but specific, set of water issues around the world that have occurred because of climate change. She touched on issues such as floods/drought, melting ice caps/water source loss, and the destruction of coastal mangroves, which leave island communities even more vulnerable to increased cyclones/hurricanes. Restoration of these mangroves would be an ideal mitigation/adaptation technique, as opposed to a potential sea wall.

The Clint Wilson III piece recommended we use ‘deep time’ to gain perspective on future, or current, events, in which clues to managing weather events may be found in past cases. He compares the historic flood of the Ohio River in 1937 (his hometown) to the flood that occurred in Houston following Harvey. Wilson has deep roots within water-based disasters, giving him a perfect platform to analyze climate change through a hydro lens. Using deep time to seek solutions, particularly based in indigenous procedures, could act as the best platform on which to analyze and perform restoration projects.

After our discussion today, I was particularly inspired by our talks on defining ‘man-made’, ‘natural’, and then ‘deep time’. I’ve pondered how we view the term ‘natural’, and it makes me wonder at what point, if at all, our influence and behavior on earth is unnatural. If I were to consider natural, (modern globalized man in particular, potentially excluding indigenous cultures of past and present) I would claim that we diverge from what the most common notion of natural is, in the way we’ve impacted the earth more so than any other species…. other than potentially when cyanobacteria contributed to the abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere. Man-made objects, while appearing less symbiotic with natural cycles than say a bee hive, can only be composed of materials originating in nature.

So… at what point did the activity of humans diverge so far from our symbiotic relationship with nature? We currently maintain coastal prairies on headlands in similar fashion to how native populations did for thousands of years. Why have we chosen to replicate their methods? Why do we categorize these methods as the most natural? This makes me question what time period should be referenced to when performing restoration projects. 100 to 200 centuries ago? 1,000? At what point in history can the effects of our advancement be undo or restored to? Have we crossed thresholds in which create climatic differences that cannot be undone.. at least not in our lifetime?

This weeks readings discuss rivers, and ultimately the unfortunate disruption of their flow due to the 1,000’s of dams constructed around the world.

Campbell discusses the ecological roll of rivers (their power and their services to nature), while also discussing the change brought upon them by human development. She also critiques human viewpoints of natural systems, particularly recognizing how our perception of efficiency or ‘natural’ affects our ability to properly judge restoration/river development. She discusses a perspective taken up along the Ohio, saying, “[to fix navigation problems] we thought, if we removed the jams, dredged the riverbed, confined the river to a single channel, built levees to contain floodwaters, and stored water behind locks and dams for release during dry periods. Between 1825 and 1930, we worked very hard to improve this river—to make it closer to what we thought it should be like” (p. 19). Ultimately, the ‘restoration’ of this river was a failure, and created more problems within the area such as reduced fish stock.

Pearce, in his piece When Rivers Run Dry, discusses the ultimate failure of dams to uphold their promised outputs. There were multiple cases of dams proving to be a money drain; essentially outweighing all the benefits to irrigation and energy production that were foretold. This poses an issue for environmentalism, where over 60 countries receive half their energy from hydroelectric dams, which has been marketed as clean energy. This is not the ultimate motivating factor to dam construction however. When the dam-building boom in the early 20th century took way, it was partially to put people to work, partially as a platform the modern man/nature dualism, and partially for providing water to booming industry and agriculture miles away from rivers. The construction of these dams fed the modern industrial western world, while leaving indigenous cultures and their water methods literally drowned.

LaDuke discusses the construction of dams systems in Canada, which will directly impact the native populations that rely on healthy ecosystems in the area. Historically, dam construction has displaced groups all over the world, either indigenous or just dispensable in the eyes of the state and the modern era. The Cree people experienced poverty and extreme levels of substance abuse following the flooding of their land. Suicide rates, at times reaching 10 times the national average, also plague these displaced peoples. With their land flooded, they are then resorting to purchasing food at the grocery store, as opposed to receiving it from the land which once provided a bounty.

IF we are to decide that dams ultimately provide no benefit that can outweigh the ecological, economic, and cultural toll to earths inhabitants (as all of the pieces this week highlight issues from all three of those categories) how do we prevent the continued production of them? The issue of dam construction at this point in time seems nearly redundant, but functions on the platform of neoliberalism, settler colonialism, and racist capitalism. A tyranny of water corporations, the World Bank, and the state function to silence many of those who speak against their construction.

If we do dismantle those powers, do we breach every dam in the world; which come first? Once the rivers are free to assume their uninterrupted course, how much work goes into aiding them back to what we have defined as ‘natural’ in an era that still function on dominion over nature.

What is natural?

Scale and temporality are important considerations when answering.

An issue may be viewed through many lens. Each stakeholder seeks different value in a resource, based on their background and motives. For example, the Columbia River is segmented by multiple locks, canals, and dams. In 1957, the Dalles Dam was constructed, and one of the consequences of its construction was the burial of Celilo Falls. The falls were a crucial fishing site for multiple native populations within the PNW. The construction of the dam benefited the economy in two ways: allowing easier passage of goods through the river, and producing electricity. It ultimately disadvantaged the tribal groups, as well as the sensitive ecological components affected by the dam. Who was addressed in the construction of the dam? If all players involved had a say, were their concerns valued equally? What level of public to private involvement do those differing groups think should be used?

The article by Robinson, part of our week 5 readings, discusses the commodification/privatization of water that furthers unequal distribution of the resource, but which is typically used in the face of the ‘incompetent state’. “Multinational corporations also target municipal governments for lucrative and relatively risk-free infrastructure contracts, because local governments are often unable to resist the pressures from both corporate lobbyists and federal governments pushing private sector investment” (Robinson, 2013, p. 6). This quote is highly representative of the view points in the recent articles we’ve read for this week, as well as week 4. Pellow even addresses the failure of the state in the third pillar of his CEJ framework, for it inherently produces environmental injustices. He states that, “the EJ movement continues to seek justice through a system that was never intended to provide justice for marginalized peoples and nonhuman nature” (Pellow, p. 23). And then follows that belief by saying later in the section that the EJ movement would succeed by, “developing, and supporting practices, relationships, and institutions that deepen direct democracy – without strict concern over whether the location of such practices and relationships is inside or outside of state institutions” (Pellow, p. 24). His claim is that ultimately, the EJ movement can benefit from practices in all fields, public, private, or grassroots. Each type of ‘instituition’ can benefit the movement by providing different aspects, or being the most efficient platform for environmental/social aid.

Not all articles we’ve read have provided much more than criticism of the failure of the state, compounded by the failure of private organizations attempting to provide solutions. The Inwood article, Neoliberal racism: the Southern Strategy and the expanding geographies of white supremacy, recognizes the inherent components of the state similar to Pellow’s third pillar, but provides little alternative or solution. He criticizes the state, which allowed market deregulation and globalization to take over, ultimately disadvantaging disenfranchised and vulnerable groups. “The Southern Strategy thus has the effect of distracting attention away from the broader underlying economic causes of the crisis (the failures of Keynesianism/capitalism to deliver on its promises), and places the blame for the economic decline on ‘urban dwellers of color who had seized a portion of public resources’ through hard fought civil rights battles” (Inwood, p. 9). Again, noting the failures of the state, and which then shifted much of its projects to the private sector. This shift has been noted by many of the authors and articles we’ve read so far, however, mainly fail to highlight where we see successes. Shiva may have been the only one to recognize the potential of a community based approach, and provide examples of how that tactic ensures the success of the movement. She mentioned in Water Wars, Chapter 5, that India granted rights to small communities along the coast to operate according to the methods and cultures they have abided by for centuries. This method may prove to be the best, not only for water allocation reform, but for other environmental issues. It allows all stakeholders to have a louder voice, avoids a
one size fits all’ approach, and allows for a more ecocentric/bioregional approach.

I was the provocateur for Wednesday this week, with the two pieces for part two of this week being the Mansfield article, and the Veronica Strange podcast. I’d like to talk about the readings from the first part of the week, and then start to address briefly my questions I came up with, my inspiration behind them, and thoughts.

For the first portion of this week’s readings, we had an article by Laura Pulido, our first chapter in Shiva’s Water Wars, and an article by Joshua Inwood on neoliberalism. All three of these pieces were centered on the commodification of water, and how capitalism, privatization, and the state affect the distribution and sanctity of water.

The Inwood article, I believe, brought up the most interesting discussion out of all three pieces we read. His main argument, that neoliberalism drives the modern U.S. economy through free-market ideals, results in racist capitalism and inequalites on a global, national, and local scale. He argues, following the civil rights movement, the taboo associated with blatant racism spurred the need for politicians to repackaged their appeals to white supremacist values. They used more obscure language, which promoted deregulation, and denounced social welfare programs. All of which ultimately disadvantaged black and other POC communities over whites, which in turn creates the neoliberal U.S. identity. A product of this identity is racist capitalism (or capitalism, as it inherently disadvantages minority groups) which Pulido dissects in her article about Flint, MI. Historically abandoned by GM as the auto industry diverged from Michigan, the state did the same thing by allowing the city to use water polluted by industry from the Flint River. GM later filed complaints that the water from Flint was corroded they machinery, and were permitted to switch water sources, however, the citizens of Flint were still using water from the Flint river.

This situation results in a conundrum. Much of the economy in Flint was based on GM, but at the same time their water is being polluted by the same industry that provides much of the job market. My question for the provocateurship centered on the concessions that must obviously be made between the most overarching stakeholders for the issue: state, industry, and people. Common in much conservative rhetoric, is the notion that regulation kills small business and drives industry out of the U.S. At what point is allowing small amounts of pollutants in water ways acceptable, if at all? I wonder the extent of necessary run off from industry that simply cannot be filtered entirely out of water. And where would the waste contained from those industries go, if not into the water? Containment similar to nuclear waste could be possible, but placing it into a landfill could result in ground water contamination.

This brings me to an issue that arises in India, where conflict of interest occur in the economic sector, the cultural one, and ultimately the health of the Ganges. A popular industry in India is the dyeing of textiles, however, hazardous chemicals from that process are release into the Ganges, or its tributaries. However, when livelihoods are on the line, or generations long businesses, should these people stop their production in order to prevent pollution? The income from this industry may outweigh their concern about run-off. The need for more established treatment facilities is imperative. Funding and bureaucratic red tape may prevent a comprehensive plan for updated infrastructure however.

Quotes and Questions for Provocateurship…
“The EPA, in contrast, focuses on variability in consumption, identifying who eats a lot of fish and why. They find that variability is racial: people who eat a lot of fish are disproportionately people of color. Seen in this light, the FDA’s race-neutral focus on the average is
also racial, in that it posits ‘white’ diets as ‘normal'” (Mansfield, 2012. p. 10).

Q: When the FDA addresses its issues in a ‘colorblind’ manner, it ultimately ends up harming the populations which fall in deviations outside of the norm, resulting in ‘white-washing’. Are attempts to view issues with a colorblind lens ever beneficial, do they even truly exist, and what are examples of those cases? Does this spur eventual cultural assimilation, or push marginalized groups ever further towards the fringe?

“the EPA has amassed significant evidence that there are racial disparities in quantities and types of fish consumption, especially because for some people fish is neither a luxury nor a sport, but is an inexpensive component of their livelihoods and/or a longstanding part of their cultural identity.” (Mansfield, 2012. p. 7).

Q: There are obvious cultural differences among the many ethnic groups, or ‘races’, within the U.S., with diet varying greatly among those groups. At which point, if at all, can concessions be made between industry, the state, and culture to prevent environmental injustice? Can industry exist without producing injustice, and ultimately should cultures adapt to the inevitability of industry and globalization? How much power should be given to the state to impose regulation and interfere with the market?

This week is where we formulate our topics for our story maps, so I’d like to start tying my future, and current, posts (at least to some small degree) to that topic. Currently I’m planning on exploring the industries leading to heavy pollution within the Ganges in India, as well as any political, social, and cultural aspects that are blockades to a comprehensive clean up plan. These aspects may include the disconnect between levels of government that prevent updated waste treatment/sewer lines, or the cultural practice of placing the dead into the river… followed by the cultural practice of bathing in the river.

The reading for Monday this week, Water, Waste, and Disease, centers around the incorporation of modern sewer and water systems during the late 19th/early 20th centuries that led to a reduction in black mortality rates, particularly urban black populations. Typhoid was the most commonly referenced disease arising from fecal waste entering drinking water. Often the connection was more obscure than directly consuming the water, particularly through ground water, contamination in cooking, or doctors transmitting the disease from infected patients. Often the deadly affects from the disease weren’t direct, but resulted in compromised immune systems that led to disease susceptibility later in life.

The Ganges, the lifeblood of India, originates in the Himalayas. As it courses through India, it picks up waste water from agriculture, industry, and human waste… which reminds me of the quote in the H2O today exhibit at the Natural History museum, “There is always someone downstream.”. While the article mentioned that the introduction of water and waste infrastructure benefited urban blacks over rural populations, even the most densely populated cities in India fail to provide adequate waste management. This results in direct dumping of practically all waste water from industry and direct dumping of human waste. The lack of plumbing systems in the major cities, in addition to wide spread poverty, results in lack of toilets or showers… turning the Ganges into those facilities for much of the population in India.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/what-it-takes-to-clean-the-ganges this is a great article by the New Yorker (who always puts out amazing essays) about the politics of cleaning the Ganges. Reading this about a year ago spurred my interest in the area, and provided some of my generic info I talk about in the above paragraph. A good read, highly recommended.