Author: Colin Brustad (Page 1 of 2)

MDG is a relatively new political party in Norway focusing on environmental issues. Promoting an environmentally friendly lifestyle in Norway is the core of its politics. Therefore, MDG has been heavily invested in the Lofoten debate – the question whether Norway should open the island group for oil exploration and potential excavation – ever since it truly took center stage in the political sphere in 1994. MDG were naturally against the proposal but could not directly influence the larger Labor Party and Conservative Party, two parties who were for the proposal and have been battling for control of the Parliament over the past two and a half decades.

Lofoten. Link: https://res.cloudinary.com/simpleview/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,q_65,w_768/v1/clients/norway/bc58b5b7_2eee_49d2_925e_1a362e1e5f97_90c0e8e1-a9a0-4873-8b23-604249f90ca7.jpg

However, the environmental movement was growing in Norway. Public protests erupted in the years following the state-owned oil companies’ implementation of oil searches in the region, along with events organized by Norwegian environmental organizations. As Norway shifted towards a more environmental mindset, the government announced plans to cut carbon emissions in the future, and smaller green political parties such as MDG received an increase in vote in the midterm and national elections. As a result, MDG and the other small environmentally friendly parties formed a strong alliance that the larger parties needed for a coalition in the Parliament, which gave MDG a platform to directly influence the Lofoten debate. Thus, since 2006, Lofoten has been protected from oil excavation. And even though the debate is still in full swing today, it seems like MDG and the environmental movement has won. We can only hope that the future brings a continued protection of the island group, along with other measures to reduce the carbon footprint in Norway.

California has faced a host of environmental problems over the past couple of decades. Its monumental challenge of droughts causing a water shortage and lower crop yields have dominated news headlines as of late. However, it might not even be the state’s biggest environmental problem at hand, which is arguably air pollution.

Air pollution is not only a significant environmental health issue in California, but a global one. More than 3.2 million premature deaths per year are due to exposure to outdoor particulate matter known as PM_2.5. These are particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, which can penetrate deep into lungs, heart, and other vital organs, causing a wide range of diseases (Jerrett, 2015). Furthermore, California is notoriously known for high air pollution levels. In fact, eight out of ten Californians live in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution during some time of the year (Los Angeles Times, 2016).

Los Angeles in smog due to air pollution. Link: http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/files/2017/07/Los-Angeles.jpg

As a result, California introduced a market based approach, known as a cap and trade system, on carbon emissions in the state in 2013 (Bushnell, 2017). The concept is straight-forward; competitors can purchase allowances through auctions from the state, permitting them to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Furthermore, a market is created for allowances, as firms can purchase and sell shares based on their need to pollute (Hiltzik, 2018).

However, I believe that this program has too many risks that outweigh its benefits. Firstly, when introducing a cap and trade program, corporate consolidation may occur. For instance, catch shares, a cap and trade concept for the fishing industry, has experienced this both in the United States and internationally. Recently, Carlos Rafael pleaded guilty for fraud, which included falsifying catch shares. He is a prime example of corporate consolidation occurring due to catch shares. Carlos Rafael owned one of the largest commercial fishing fleets in the United States, and was able to obtain it through purchasing catch shares. Thus, as his fleet grew, he continued to purchase catch shares from smaller competitors, thus eliminating these entities from the market (Orlowski, 2017).

Additionally, there is growing unrest that firms in California are stocking up on the carbon emission allowances, and therefore not having to reduce their emissions. Since May 2017, every allowance that has been put up for auction has been bought. Moreover, the allowances do not expire, meaning that there is an incentive for firms to buy as many allowances as possible and store them for later use. Therefore, as the think tank Energy Innovation argues, there might be an oversupply of allowances, which in turn means that there might not be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the future (Hiltzik, 2018).

However, there are clear arguments supporting the cap and trade program in California that should be addressed. Firstly, the program has incentivized firms to reduce carbon emissions in past few years. According to data published by the state officials, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 5 % in 2016. This is a significant improvement from previous years, which saw reductions between 0.7 % and 2 % (Megerian, 2017). Moreover, the program can generate revenue for the state that can be spent on other environmental issues. Energy Innovation projects that between 2017 and 2020, the program will raise at least 1.3 billion dollars in revenue. The money is earmarked for the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which will invest the money in renewable energy and other greenhouse gas emission-reducing projects (Busch, 2017).

Despite these positive results, I believe that the program’s drawbacks are too large. However, we can either improve it, or replace it with a different policy that would be more effective. For instance, increasing monitoring of the cap and trade system could reduce or prevent corporate consolidation, and setting expiration dates on the allowances could combat the stockpiling of them. A regulatory approach could serve as an improved substitute to the current system, such as a carbon tax. Many economists favor a carbon tax due to the notion that it more stable and predictable (Bushnell, 2017).

In conclusion, I believe the cap and trade system in California is flawed. Threats such as corporate consolidation and stockpiling of allowances are risks that compromise the program, despite the improved reduction in carbon emissions and revenue generated. However, I believe that the solutions such as improving the program itself through increased monitoring or setting expiration dates on allowances, or replacing it with a carbon tax, can combat carbon emissions and reduce air pollution in California more effectively. Therefore, I urge you, the reader to spread awareness on this matter. It could entail telling your friends about it, organizing a local event encouraging the state the improve the policy, or even contacting a branch of the Government of California. In fact, a specific measure you can take is contacting the California Air Resources Board, which has a hotline specifically for the cap and trade program (California Air Resources Board, 2018). There, you can explain that we should improve or replace the cap and trade program. Overall, it is critical that we take immediate measures to combat air pollution in California, and improving or replacing the cap and trade program for carbon emissions should be our first step.

Sources:

Bushnell, J. (2017, December). (Overly) Great Expectations: Carbon Pricing and Great Revenue Uncertainty in California. National Tax Journal. 70 (4), 837-845. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/70/4/ntj-v70n04p837-854.html

Busch, C. (2017, July 12). California’s Cap-And-Trade Compromise Is A Big Step Forward, Not A Win For Polluters. Forbes. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2017/07/12/californias-cap-and-trade-compromise-is-a-big-step-forward-not-a-win-for-polluters/

California Air Resources Board. (2018). Contact Us. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/contact-us

Hiltzik, M. (2018, January 12). No longer termed a “failure,” California’s cap-and-trade program faces a new critique: Is it too successful?. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-captrade-20180111-story.html

Jerrett, M. (2015). Atmospheric science: The death toll from air-pollution sources. Nature, 525 (7569), 330–331. Retrieved April 21, 2018, from https://doi.org/10.1038/525330a

Los Angeles Times. (2016, April 20). Los Angeles and Bakersfield top list of worst air pollution in the nation. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-air-pollution-report-20160420-story.html

Megerian, C. (2017, November 8). Emissions fall under California’s cap-and-trade program. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 22, 2018, from /politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-emissions-fall-under-california-s-1510182816-htmlstory.html

Orlowski, A. (2017, April 30). Did catch shares enable the Codfather’s fishing fraud?. SeafoodSource. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://www.seafoodsource.com/commentary/did-catch-shares-enable-the-codfather-s-fishing-fraud

I believe environmental art can be a powerful tool when sending the message of the urgency of climate change and other environmental issues. In a time where news is illegitimatized, and research and statistics feels like it is thrown out the window, I feel that art can be particularly effective.

The main reason for this is that environmental art is a form of storytelling. The expression “a picture is worth a thousand words” is applicable in this situation, as the art itself can share a powerful experience.

For instance, take the use of plastics as art. Plastics have become a global issue over the past couple of decades. We dump an unfathomable amount of plastic in the ocean. In fact, if we continue dumping plastic at the same rate as we currently are, there will be more plastic than fish pound for pound by 2050.

The prevalence of plastics in the ocean has a severe effect on the environment, particularly species residing in or in close proximity of the oceans. A fish or bird may unknowingly eat a piece of plastic and die as a result. Microplastics can also bioaccumulate, from microscopic levels all the way to the top of the food chain, which is often us since we are consuming seafood.

Plastics as art. Link: http://i.vimeocdn.com/video/317397122_1280x720.jpg

Thus, taking plastics from the ocean and creating art from it tells an important story of the issue. It can show how pressing of a problem it is, how we are directly involved and affected by it, and how me must take steps to improve the situation.

I believe the mindset of permaculture is essential to adopt when it comes to combatting climate change. Permaculture emphasizes that we should not live sustainably, but instead embrace a lifestyle that is regenerative. We should leave the place we are living on better than it was before we settled there, whether it is our backyard, forest, or our planet.

This mindset goes back to being in touch with our nature, something that Masanobu Fukuoka points out in The One-Straw Revolution. We are a part of nature, and we must integrate with it, instead of continuing to act like we own it. Fostering the idea that nature is valuable and we must take care of it boils down to exposure. We must experience nature, whether it is taking trips, hiking, or living in nature.

It is important to spend time in nature, such as hiking. Link: http://besseggen.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Memurubu_lr_27-1024×576.jpg

In times where urban population accounts for the majority of the global population – 54 percent of the total global population in 2014 – we are less exposed to nature than ever. And I believe it can be hard to care about the immense environmental problem at our hand when it seems like it doesn’t even affect us as urban citizens.

That is why it is vital that we spread awareness, particularly through education. We must educate others about environmental practices and principals, such as Fukuoka did with the students he took in, or create videos, such as the one about permaculture we watched in class.

And the key is that environmental sustainability is not enough. We must leave our planet a better place for our future generations, and therefore we must live environmentally regeneratively.

Hope is vital when it comes to spurring action in any situation, including environmentalism. Without hope, there would be no incentive to take measures, as they would only feel pointless. And in a time where fossil fuel corporations, capitalism, the Trump administration, and climate change deniers seem to have a firm grip on policy, our efforts can feel futile.

I think it boils down to the question we briefly covered at the end of our last class: are Americans, particularly environmentalists, hopeful? Do we still believe that our future is bright? I believe the answer is yes. In fact, I believe one can argue that hope has become stronger after Trump was elected president. Just look at the American people’s response after Trump announced that the United States would pull out of the Paris Agreement. In the days after the statement, more than 1000 companies and institutions, including more than a dozen Fortune 500 businesses, over 200 cities and even states committed to the Paris Agreement. In fact, the most ironic moment for Trump following his speech that included the infamous quote “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris”, came when the mayor of Pittsburgh quickly retaliated, noting that Hillary Clinton received 80 % of the vote in the city, and Pittsburgh pledged to the Paris Agreement.

Protest in Chicago days after Trump announced the US would be pulling out from the Paris Agreement. Link: https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/chicago-climate-rally-trump-ap-img.jpg

This is only one of countless of examples showing that there is hope in our society. Social movements are still going strong, research in the field is still being conducted, and companies, institutions and grassroots groups are still exploring how to become greener, all of this despite the steps taken backwards by our current administration. And our persistence is because of hope; we believe we can make change even though the conditions are especially hard in today’s society, and we believe there is a future after Trump’s presidency that will present a greater opportunity.

After hearing Catherine Flowers speak last semester, I was struck by the lack of environmental justice in today’s USA. She covered a few deeply disturbing developments, including the reemergence of hookworm in impoverished areas such as Lowndes County, Alabama.

Hookworm, a parasite connotated with developing countries, enters the body through the skin and finds its way to the small intestine where it consumes blood from the host. Symptoms range from abdominal pain, nausea, and fever, to developing anemia. The disease was claimed to be gone in 1980 in the United States. However, it may have never been completely eradicated. In fact, a staggering 34 % of people in Lowndes County tested positive for genetic traces of hookworm.

It is clear that the lack of environmental justice is one of the main drivers behind this disease. As Catherine Flowers illustrated, the lack of infrastructure, particularly septic systems, in areas such as Lowndes County combined rainfalls and occasional floods have created a suitable environment for hookworm.

However, listening to her speak again made me feel a sense of hope in solving these issues. She underlined that we have the power to make change, referring to national and worldwide movements started by high school and college students, and the power of social media.

It is crucial that we recognize the injustice occurring in our society and make an effort to change it for the better. As Catherine Flowers stated, it all starts locally, from the ground up. And we have to keep that in mind as we are working on our group projects in this class, spreading awareness about divestment and reducing the use of plastics here at Duke.

Although I like the idea of mapping social movements, protests, and organization as a means of activism itself, I remain skeptical on the effectiveness of the tool.

I realize that there are compelling arguments supporting the use of maps, such as for a clear visualization of connections and patterns, or as a storytelling medium. Maps are particularly adept at these abilities since are in a gray zone between facts and fiction; they are often perceived as facts, although they can often include mistakes or lies. For instance, Sebastian Münster’s map of the “New World” in 1540 looks nothing like modern maps, but it was accepted as true at the time. Even today we take it for granted that our maps are accurate, even though the scale and area of countries are off.

Sebastian Münster’s Map of the “New World”. Link: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/95/d3/f2/95d3f28651694e96e07b1d2cb4c27cbf.jpg

However, although the notion that maps are statements and facts can be used to tell powerful stories or draw striking connections as we saw this past week, I believe that they can be exploited as well. As we mentioned in class, no maps are biased. Where we might analyze data tied to locations and map the results, opposers may dismiss it as invalid or even create a counterargument through a map.

Furthermore, I feel that there are more effective alternatives when it comes to sparking a social movement or change, in particular social media. We have seen countless of movements, protests, and marches stem from online activity, such as the Arab Spring, #MeToo, or even this weekend’s March for Our Lives.

All in all, I agree that we have do voice our opinions in today’s society, especially when it comes to environmental issues. I just don’t know if mapping social movements is the best way to do so.

My key takeaway from this week’s guest speaker, readings, and discussion, is the importance of leading by example, including when addressing environmental issues. For instance, Robin Kirk mentioned how being a persuasive American human rights advocates intervening in foreign affairs is incredibly challenging, not only because countries have their own values, beliefs, and interests, but also due to the valid perception that human rights are violated in the United States as well. This is particularly exemplified through “enhanced interrogation”, also known as torture. As John Oliver put it: “There is no proof that torture does any good, but there is real proof that it does serious harm to America’s image overseas. References to American torture show up everywhere; from terrorist recruiting tools to statements from North Korea who have called out techniques ‘brutal medieval’”. With the rest of the world viewing the United States as a nation who has significant human rights issues, there is no wonder that other countries such as Colombia and Peru in the 1980s and 1990s referenced by Kirk interpreted America’s advice as ironic.

The same principal can be applied to combatting climate change. The United States is the second largest emitter of CO2, releasing 15 % of the world’s total CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. However, despite being one of the main contributors, the United States have taken several steps back when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, with the most publicized one being Trump’s announcement of pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Not only has the U.S. lost a lot of influence in international policy regarding climate change, America has lost respect and influence in general. Countries such as China have seized the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of the world, declaring combatting climate change “an international responsibility”. Thus, an authoritarian government run by the Communist Party for 68 years has come on top as the moral champion.

Fortunately, cities, states, companies, and universities have also lead by example through pushing back on Trump’s statement. In fact, a group of 30 mayors, three governors, more than 80 universities, and more than 100 businesses have pledged to meet the greenhouse gas emission targets under the Paris Agreement.

The latter illustrates how leading by example, although done by a smaller entity, can still have a significant positive impact in the grand scheme of things. And this boils down to the individual; we must look at how we can take measures ourselves to fight climate change. Because as we stated in class; combatting climate change starts locally.

Oil on Water’s overarching message is a powerful and realistic one, portraying the oil exploitation of foreign companies in developing countries such as Nigeria. These companies enter the African market with one goal in mind: profits. Thus, the welfare of the Nigerian citizens and the environment suffer the consequences, which Oil on Water paints a vivid and powerful picture of.

It is critical to keep the African oil drilling situation in mind, especially as other nations look to expand their oil excavation projects. For instance, back home in Norway, the debate of opening for oil drilling in Lofoten, a group of islands known for its breathtaking nature, midnight sun, and northern lights, dominated politics last year in the wake of the Norwegian election. Lofoten heavily depends on tourism and fishing, and the latter might take a hit if oil drilling takes place off the coast of the islands. Furthermore, an oil spill would have a devastating effect on the community, with fish, birds, and humans in harms way. And this is not even mentioning the fact that Norway will export the oil worldwide, contributing to climate change.

Lofoten. Link: https://honeythatsok.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/moskenes_lofoten_northern_norway.jpg

But once again, profits are the motive behind the proposed project. Norway has experienced a huge success and economic boom following oil discoveries in the 1960s and 70s, prompting the nation to become one of the largest oil exporters in the world. And it has transformed Norway into one of the wealthiest and economically stable countries in the world. In fact, the government has a money reserve intended for the Norwegian citizens in case of an economic crisis; and the entire reserve is generated by oil export profits. Thus, expanding oil drilling projects to Lofoten makes sense for politicians wanting to protect the nation’s economic future.

The debate boils down to an important question; do we as a nation want to protect ourselves economically on the expense of the environment and potentially the rest of the world? It is a polarizing topic, but it is critical that we consider cases such as Oil on Water effectively portrays when finalizing a decision.

When reading Spider the Artist by Nnedi Okorafor, I was confused at first. The story felt almost like a stream of consciousness, or elements added in a chaotic fashion. But after the class discussion, I left with clarity. We spent a significant amount of time debating on who the enemy was in the short story; the villagers, the abusive husband, or artificial intelligence. But I believe the true enemy in Spider the Artist is the one in the background – the corporations drilling for oil and protecting the pipeline running through the small village in Nigeria. They are the ones ultimately responsible for the controversy and violence that ensues.

What I find particularly interesting about the short story is the parallels we can draw to the real world today. Africa is potentially the most vulnerable continent to climate change and environmental injustice, and yet dominating superpowers take advantage. A prime example illustrating this is China’s increased involvement in Africa over the past decade. China’s booming economy and expanding middle-class has translated to an increased demand for most goods, including oil. And as it turns out, Africa is the second-largest exporter of oil to China, just behind the Middle East. China has invested heavily in the continent, boosting the oil and mining sectors in exchange for favorable trade agreements. And China’s deepening involvement in African affairs has not come without controversy. Several African leaders and organizations have openly spoken out against China, stating that China has exploited resources without stimulating local economies and taking environmental consequences into consideration.

Oil pipeline in Nigeria, Africa. Link: http://www.africareview.com/image/view/-/3326858/highRes/1233068/-/pfxr4c/-/Pipeline+PIX.jpg

This is what I believe is happening in Spider the Artist. The Nigerian government has approved drilling projects by foreign corporations, disregarding the local population’s suffering. Thus, the story provides a powerful message, criticizing the exploitative methods of corporations and governments, despite the seemingly disorienting twists and turns and surprising inclusions in it.