Thanks for sharing this piece from the Globe, it could indeed be very
useful in class. It's interesting how the privileged few who can afford
to live in Vancouver can just shamelessly present their point of view as
that of humanity as a whole.
Vancouver is a "liveable place" only for the rich, not for the
indigenous folks whose lands and livelihoods got paved over, and the
abundance of grocery stores is only such for those who can afford it.
Truth is, this is about ecological privilege, the luxury a small
minority has to not see the impending doom. Everyone else sees it in
their own lives but them, and yet it's their worldview that prevails...
Best,
JP
Jean Philippe Sapinski
Professeur adjoint (assistant professor)
Maîtrise en études de l'environnement
Université de Moncton
Territoire Mi'kmaq
Nouveau-Brunswick, Canada
[email protected]
umoncton.academia.edu/JPSapinski
www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Philippe_Sapinski
www.corporatemapping.ca
On 19-04-07 09 h 59, Maniates, Michael Fields wrote:
Hello Beth and others,
The following isn’t exactly what you’re looking for, though maybe it
is. I’ve used it in class to good effect. I find that it nicely
highlights the nested paradoxes within which we live, and that seem to
shape Paul’s response below.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-things-have-never-been-so-good-for-humanity-nor-so-dire-for-the
All the best,
Michael
*Michael F MANIATES *
Yale-NUS College| Professor of Social Sciences, Environmental Studies|
Inaugural Head of Environmental Studies (2013-) |
Associate Editor, Journal of Environmental Studies and Science|
http://michaelmaniates.com <http://michaelmaniates.com/>|Twitter:
@michaelmaniates |
Senior Visiting Professor of Environmental Studies, Oberlin College,
Oberlin, OH, 2011 – 2013|
Professor of Environmental Science and Political Science, Allegheny
College, Meadville, PA, 1993 – 2013|
BS (University of California), MA, PhD (Energy and Resources,
University of California) |
/Most people are eagerly groping for some medium, some way in /
/which they can bridge the gap between their morals and their practices.
--Saul Alinsky/
*From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On Behalf
Of *Paul Wapner
*Sent:* Sunday, 7 April 2019 8:28 PM
*To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; 'GEP-Ed List'
<[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [gep-ed] Good environmental trends
Hi Beth,
Perhaps the challenge of finding such a list rests on interpretation.
Many thinkers see good news everywhere, especially with environmental
trends. Folks like Bjorn Lomborg, Johan Norberg, Ronald Bailey,
Deirdre McCloskey, and Anders Bolling are always presenting ‘facts’
that demonstrate environmental improvement. Their work is
controversial but persuasive to many. It is part of a broader
orientation that tends to be optimistic about humanity’s fate, seeing
‘progress’ everywhere. I would put people like Steven Pinker, Hans
Rosling, and the infamous Juliann Simon in this category. The New
York Times Book Review recently had a piece on Pinker and Rosling
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/02/07/pinker-rosling-progress-accentuate-positive/.
Aside from thinkers, there are a number of outfits that present ‘good’
environmental news, such as
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/category/news/environment/, although I
am unsure if they track broad trends.
All the best,
Paul
Paul Wapner
Professor, Global Environmental Politics
School of International Service
American University
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
--
*From: *Gepers <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of
"[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Reply-To: *"[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Date: *Saturday, April 6, 2019 at 3:14 PM
*To: *Beth DeSombre <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, Gepers <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject: *RE: [gep-ed] Good environmental trends
Hi Beth,
I have seen, at some point in the past ten years, some sort of good
news list. I cannot remember the source though I suspect it came over
the Canadian Association of Geographers discussion list (you could
post a query here: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> . However, like one of your suggestions
(better access to clean water), I remember finding at the time that
the list only hailed purely anthropocentric improvements. As far as
the state of the non-human world is concerned, I have the overwhelming
sense that things are, across the board, going from bad to worse.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong and look forward to your sharing your
findings.
Cheers,
Bill
*From:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> *On Behalf
Of *Beth DeSombre
*Sent:* April 6, 2019 11:31 AM
*To:* GEP-Ed List <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:* [gep-ed] Good environmental trends
Hi folks:
This seems like a no brainer, but I'm having a surprisingly difficult
time gathering a list of positive environmental trends (worldwide and
over history). Things that have -- because of human intervention --
unquestionably improved, with some specific details to hang on them.
Things like improved access to clean water, better air quality (of
various types) in many parts of the world, etc.
I'd like to not reinvent the wheel -- I could easily come up with a
list of things I think are better now environmentally than 50 (or 25)
years ago and go fetch the details of each, but I'm certain that one
or more sources has already outlined them, with specifics attached.
Can someone point me towards such lists/overviews/compilations? (Happy
to share suggestions with the group afterwards).
Thanks,
Beth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important: This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us
immediately; you should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor
disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"gep-ed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
