Topic 1: Urban-demographic growth and resource-intensive industrialism
Rapid urban-demographic growth and resource-intensive industrialism have become large-scale biogeophysical forces on earth. What does this mean? Does this trend impact you directly (including your plans for a certain career and lifestyle), or is this merely a long term concern for future generations? What evidence do you see and/or read about that fits with this observation? Share you thoughts here about USP2's assigned readings on this topic.
4 Comments:
As I have been reading about the horrific loss of life in the tsunami this week and the global response (or lack thereof), I have been thinking about how natural disasters and their aftermath can reveal much about elements of social structure and social processes that are usually invisible. Bush’s initial offer of $15 million in aid was derided as “stingy,” and later upped to $35 and then $350 million, as of today (December 31st). For the sake of comparison, a New York Times editorial on December 30th noted that the cost of the inauguration in January is $40 million. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html)
In reference to this week’s readings and the last week’s news coverage, how does the tsunami affect our understanding of ecosystem services and ecosystem valuation? Looking ahead, how does the response to the tsunami reveal global ecological and economic interdependence? How does a comparison of the capacity for response in the hardest hit countries demonstrate the uneven distribution of costs and benefits in globalization, particularly for isolated places? What does the concentration of tourists from certain European countries reveal about the quality and intensity of transnational connections?
P.S. Course members may also be interested in a December 28th New York Times article by Celia Dugger regarding farmers’ cooperatives and multinational megastores, “Supermarket Giants Crush Central American Farmers.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/28/international/americas/28guatemala.html)
Looking forward to meeting everyone on Tuesday. Best, Caroline
By Caroline L. (TA), at 12:49 PM
The Global Planning Educators Interest Group (GPEIG) has created a blog dedicated to concerns about the Tsunami. It is a place for globally-minded planning academics to ponder what they (we) can do in the face of such a devastating event : http://gpeig.org/blognews/
By Keith Pezzoli, at 9:02 PM
Hi everyone: Regarding biogeophysical forces, two articles on invasive species and toxin accumulation in the food chain, and an opinion piece on biotech foods:
The first, from the Charleston (SC) Post & Courier (accessible with a guest username and password), regarding a mysterious die-off of bald eagles from a brain-wasting disease:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/Default.aspx?newsID=6849§ion=localnews
The second, from the NY Times on Sunday, regarding toxins in breast milk:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/09/magazine/09TOXIC.html
The third, from the NY Times on Tuesday, regarding biotech foods:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/health/11brod.html
Do you agree with Brody? Why or why not?
By Caroline L. (TA), at 11:58 AM
I think the statement that "rapid urban-demographic growth and resource-intensive industrialism have become large-scale biogeophysical forces on earth" is largely true especially in Los Angeles. Take the twin ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach. They are the busiest ports in the United States yet are also the single largest contributor to air pollution in the Southland. An interesting question that this raises is at what point do environmental problems take precedent over economic growth and competitiveness? Dr. Stephan Eire makes a good case in "Globalizing L.A." that Los Angeles may have to make a decision to be more environmentally oriented and risk losing business to Oakland or Seattle, or go ahead with port expansion which would increase traffic, profits, and pollution. Obviously this presents the immediate challenge of an already overused freeway and rail system, not to mention the environmental costs they produce. Yet this also involves a long term concern for future generations, since they will ultimately have to pay not only the financial, but environmental costs of such expansions. I commend the Ports for instituting "green" policies, such as running the ships' engines on electricity instead of oil or coal, but the reality this is only a band aid approach to a serious problem.
By Steven Mateer, at 2:22 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home