Political Ecology, An Intro To

Political Ecology, especially defined by Robbins, really excites me. While perhaps it isn’t the purest of sciences (if you could call it that) with its open and upfront admission about being normative, it seems that this aspect is more a result of being realistic than it is about having “the right’ opinion. It seems that being normative frees up the field from the criticism that would result automatically if any of its studies were published on the basis of being completely unbiased.

Furthermore, I think that Political Ecology’s goal is about understanding and describing the reality in ecological issues across the globe. I like that Robbins uses examples like the Kenyan and Tanzanian parts of the Serengeti ecosystem as an example. It is important to understand how this ecosystem is viewed in a culture that is very detached from it, especially as it is glorified the way Robbins points out. The existence of political ecology allows us to see human impact in this glorified habitat as it is, not as Disney portrays it.

Something else that excites me are they varying theses that Robbins mentions. I like that there are a number varying goals and that within each of the goals there is a whole variation on the field of Political Ecology. These are clear and stated goals, though they allow for extensive and varied research.

Perhaps one concern of mine though, would be communicating this material to people who do not automatically sympathize with an environmentally progressive attitude, or at least whatever/however a given political ecologist sees their work. Because this is taken out the realm of attempting to be unbiased in research and because this is overtly political, there needs to be some consideration about how to target audiences that need to hear or understand the results of research the most without alienating them on that principle….it’s always particularly hard to change close-minded disbelievers when it comes to the environment (harder and harder as the evidence to support the very immediate changes that need to be address become clearer and clearer to more…non-believers have to hold onto some pretty entrenched ideas).

Speth and Kraft on the Stalling on Environmentalism

Looking around me on a college campus, I start to see a lot of promise in the actions of some students as passions about sustainability and environmentally friendly living in general become more mainstream. I think about my hometown (Northampton, MA) and the locally oriented -and regionally famous- restaurant scene, about our flourishing community gardens, and all the farms and maple sugar shacks that provide Western Mass with its delicious local food. I think about land preservation that is brought about by locals working with municipalities and businesses and particularly about one neighborhood that fought a local developer to preserve their tract of wetlands.

All these efforts are individual or localized with communal impact, but while some of us seem to be doing our part and more to be conscious, Kraft and Speth together this week begin to point to an overarching problem which remains a monstrous blemish on the environmentalist record, particularly here in the US: the failure of effective environmental policy to push both the national and international communities toward sustainable practices. Speth's chapter lines up right with Kraft and his epochs:

1970s: Massive shift in policy as environmental issues push to the forefront of the national political agenda and the EPA is created. (1st epoch)

1980s-late 90s: Market incentives dramatically change the intent and direction of environmental problems, deriving more economic profit and development than progress towards sustainability.

2000s-present: Environmentalism in total, on the coat-tails of Global Climate Change, jockeys for international concern alongside other major issues (i.e. terrorism and oil), while sustainable practices begin to pop up locally.

Speth and Kraft both point out the shortcomings of environmental policy in Kraft's third epoch (or the last decade or so). Sure, sustainable practices at local levels by citizens who care are great, but what is being done to change the way policy is structured or implemented. Speth particularly finds many problems with the inefficiency of the system, calling it out on its principles and the neglecting of root causes by policy makers. Kraft focuses more on the specifics of policy faliure, particularly with projects that are underfunded, underdeveloped, and poorly managed (see the Endangered Species Act). Kraft's greater point is that even beyond the failure of the system to establish legislation with teeth, the lack of attention and resources for environmental issues in the US suffers many malfunctions with program evaluation.

What's important here is not that many local victories are beginning to occur. While that is important, what Speth and Kraft demonstrate this week is that there are a number of great contradictions in the US (and world) governmental system in regards to progress towards a more sustainable world.

Open Space, Green Space, and Land Conservation

The readings tie in well together this week to bring up a very important point. In Mazmanian and Kraft, we read about movements across the country to improve, expand, and manage our open spaces. Furthermore, we also learn that all tasks concerning the sustainability of these spaces fluctuates, often in accordance with population density, urban vs. rural areas, and socioeconomic levels in communities.

In Kraft, we explored the various missing components that leave many evaluations of environmental policies incomplete or unreliable. Some policies (like Clean Air) have easily measured progress since their enactment, while others (like those concerning park usage and sustainability) suffer from loopholes where measurements provided still do not accurately demonstrate progress.

So, as proposed by Mazmanian and Kraft, I began to understand that many places across the country are working towards preserving their current open/green spaces and making sure that further development is discouraged or highly monitored. Yet, the success of many policies concerning these open spaces are on the local level. Herein lies what seems to be the most salient point in this week's readings: Top-down policy from Federal to local has become extremely difficult. As Kraft points out in chapter 7, there are an abundance of studies/evaluations the recommend new regulations on all sorts of environmental threats, with conclusions that are widely supported. They are hung up, however, in Congress, where legislators cannot agree on how to rewrite statutes.

So, we are left with encouragement for action on a local level, because it works and works almost immediately whereas federal legislation concerning the environment these days is often far too overarching and overachieving to be realistically passed with its original intent. What irks me about this though, is that the combination of readings in my perspective begin to suggest that federal legislation is near worthless (at least in the present) and it really shouldn't be. Government should be responsible for setting a good example in environmental policy. It is good that local governments have been effective (as have many private/public partnerships), but the government needs to take a hint from the actions occurring across the country.

Where the government can step in, is in more densely populated areas that do not have the same level of affluence that many towns and small cities achieve in suburban areas. Following the lead of the towns that have taken it upon themselves to preserve open/green space, the federal and state governments could help facilitate the same sorts of partnerships. Thus policy would be dictated by the people and not by the people in power, but perhaps here this is a necessary step for this particular issue.