SOCI 041-304 Midterm Readings

"Our Water System: What a Waste" by Michael E. Webber

"to fix our water systems, we need prices that lead to more rational water use and invite needed investment, data to track water resources and usage, and much more research and development" water prices should rise and fall with supply and demand should be affordable for basic necessities but cost more for luxuries like lawns and swimming pools

"One Hundred Years of Solitude" by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

A banana company in a town called Macondo had been treating workers unfairly, they protested, the company took no responsibility, so there was a strike. The army massacred the workers but when the guy who survived came back to the town they told him there was no massacre, nothing happened, the conflict was resolved peacefully. The town collectively "forgot" the massacre. -->Connects to class as a fictional demonstration of bourgeoisie exploiting proletariat for profit and everyone turning a blind eye

"Hurricane Harvey and the Inevitable Question of Climate Change" by Ishaan Thoraar

Climate change may not have caused the hurricane but human greenhouse gas emissions exacerbated the storm's effects. Warmer ocean-->increase in atmospheric moisture-->massive rainfall. Rising sea levels-->stronger storm surge-->flooding. Warmer climate-->storms get more intense before hitting land. Weak prevailing winds failed to steer storm off to sea. Climate change will cause such extreme weather events to be more frequent. This is indicative of a global problem.

"A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption" by Stephen M. Gardiner

Climate change presents a particularly difficult ethical and policy making problem because of the perfect storm of global, intergeneration, and theoretical considerations. The three main characteristics of the climate change problem are dispersion of causes and effects, fragmentation of agency, and institutional inadequacy. The global storm is that there's no world government or centralized system of governance and this leads to the paradox of the tragedy of the commons with collectively rational versus individually rational thinking. The intergenerational storm is because the effects take a long time to set in motion and carbon dioxide stays in atmosphere for 5-200 years (25% of it stays forever) so it's not easily reversible, the consequences are backloaded, and the full effects of our emissions won't be felt for some time into the future. The theoretical storm is that climate change deals with issues that theory can't easily address. There is moral corruption and selective attention like each generation choosing one part of the issue to address which is not effective and doesn't actually solve it so it becomes the next generation's problem. •Three main problems that converge to form perfect storm: global, intergeneration, and theoretical •Convergence of global, intergenerational, and theoretical problems comes with climate change •Ethics plays a fundamental role in climate change because it's hard to discuss without invoking ethical considerations, ethics are fundamental to policy making •Thesis: "The peculiar features of the climate change problem pose substantial obstacles to our ability to make the hard choices necessary to address it. Climate change is a perfect moral storm. One consequence of this is that, even if the difficult ethical questions could be answered, we might still find it difficult to act. For the storm makes us extremely vulnerable to moral corruption." •Three main characteristics of climate change problem: dispersion of causes and effects, fragmentation of agency, institutional inadequacy •The Global Storm oNo world government or less centralized system of global governance oParadox of tragedy of the commons- they should all act together for their everyone's benefit but they know that they all should act in opposition to this for their own benefit (like a Prisoner's Dilemma with a common resource) (collectively rational vs. individually rational) oOverall the global storm is because of the spatial distribution of the three main characteristics of climate change •The Intergenerational Storm (402-407) oThe intergenerational storm lies in the temporal distribution of the three characteristics of climate change •Mechanisms set in motion by greenhouse effect like sea level rise take a long time to fully occur/be realized •Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas emitted by humans and once in the atmosphere it stays there for a long time (5-200 years generally), 25% of it sticks around forever •Three implications of this o1. Resilient phenomenon- not feasible right now to remove it from atmosphere or moderate its effects- not easily reversible o2. Climate change consequences are backloaded- what we're experiencing now is more due to past emissions than the current ones (difficult to connect cause and effect-less motivation to act, and democratic systems are generally short-horizoned) o3. Substantially deferred phenomenon- the full effects of our emissions today won't be felt until some time into the future •Problem because current generation doesn't add to problem linearly but instead quickly accelerates it due to substantial rate of increasing carbon emissions •If each generation makes one choice in self defense that makes the situation worse for the next generation, the next generation will have to do the same thing, and the problems keep compounding on each other •The Theoretical Storm (407) oIssues theories can't address well- scientific uncertainty, intergenerational equity, contingent people, animals, and nature oWhen these issues about theory here converge with global and intergenerational issues they present whole new problems with ethical action on climate change and moral corruption •Moral Corruption oStrategies that facilitate corruption- distraction, complacency, unreasonable doubt, selective attention, delusion, pandering, false witness, hypocrisy •Mechanisms in political debate over climate change oSelective attention •Because there is a convergence of so many problems at play, it is easy to engage in manipulative or self denying behavior by choosing to focus on only one or some aspects •I.e. current generation focuses on global storm part of problem and selectively ignores intergenerational, making it even more of a problem - facilitates delay of action •This is all convenient to us- the current generation- and those who will occupy this position next, and after that, and so on oBecause there is such a complexity in the issue the current generation can act as though they're taking it seriously through actions like weak and substance-less accords that don't actually require us to do a lot we don't want to

"What's Left of Macondo?" by Ericka Beckman

Argues that the "magic realism" Marquez uses represents capitalism (it is the supernatural and inscrutable magic). Says that company represents power: it has so much that it controls the weather in the town and convinces everyone to erase the massacre from their memory. Macondo represents the unequal incorporation of coastal Colombia into the world market. Represents imperialism and exploitation by domestic and foreign elites. Basically the whole 100 years story is about capitalism and its dangers.

"Leasing the Rain" by William Finnegan

Less than 3% of the world's water is fresh and less than 1% is in places we can access. A private company took over water in Cochabamba Bolivia, and when water bills came in some had doubled and some were more than 1/4 of the peoples' entire income. They protested in the water wars (la guerra del ague) and the British company Bechtel was told they weren't safe there anymore and withdrew so SEMAPA, the old public utility, took over. People didn't love this company but it at least was not foreign, and after water wars there was still no clear solution. Privatization is backfiring all over Latin America, but in Chile they are using innovative price structures like vouchers to ensure access to water for the poor. •Water wars- la Guerra del agua- Cochabamba Bolivia, protest over increase in water rates- began in February 2000 •Protestors wanted removed of the foreign consortium control of water supplies- but Bolivia had a contract with them and for them this was politically and economically detrimental to do •Less than 3% of the world's water is fresh and most of it is locked up in inaccessible places like ice caps and glaciers •Less than 1% are in places we can access and over half the runoff of these is being used •Water use is starting to exceed recharge supply ability in nature •Small water cooperatives were in existence in Cochabamba- one for example dug a well and provided water to over 200 families in a neighborhood relatively cheaply and plentifully •Neoliberalism= free market policies •Bolivia got really intense horrible "shock therapy" from "the Boys" who brought neoliberalism and essentially destroyed their economy so they were essentially taken over by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (like many countries in super deep debt) for the past 16 years •When water bills came in 2000 some had doubled and some workers had ones that were more than ¼ of their income •At first protest about 200 citizens were arrested, 70 injured, and 50 police injured oAfter the protest the government declared national state of siege which meant martial law and allowed for mass arrests oThe day this state of siege was declared a Bolivian army captain (trained in U.S.) opened fire at a crowd and shot a seventeen year old student on his way home from work in the face and killed him, and wounded many others •Bechtel company (the British company that was in charge of water in Bolivia) was told its executives weren't safe there anymore, they left, the company withdrew, and SEMAPA, the old public utility, took over water control and vowed to treat it as a social good and not an ordinary commodity oThis decreased corruption but there's a huge problem where the poor aren't connected to the network and pay ten times more for water than their wealthier neighbors who are hooked up to the network oThe Bolivian government has little interest in seeing SEMAPA succeed but is not likely to be helped by the World Bank (who were accused of not fulfilling their promise to help the poor) oSEMAPA still does not have a ton of support but is preferred because although it is a private water company, it is at least Bolivian and not foreign •The big issue in Bolivia with the Water War is that foreign investors now think they can't trust Bolivia •After Water Wars- no resolution to their water problem and it will be necessary to bring in private investment to develop water •Coordinadora is trying to find a solution out of the private or government binary of water control and promise to see water as a "human right" but they know it cannot be provided for free oIn Chile they are using innovative price structures like vouchers that assure poor people an adequate supply of clean water oWater privatizations were backfiring all over Latin America oOne company was mad they weren't making enough money because citizens of an area were good at water conservation and weren't using enough to be profitable for the company

"America's Pledge on Climate Change"

Bloomberg wrote a letter to the international community saying that americans would stick to the promises made in the paris climate accords despite Trumps revocation.

"The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place" by Harvey Molotch

Cities all prioritize growth and people involved in government are invested in growth. Growth coalition is the idea that you have to fundamentally organize together to attract growth. Growth only benefits a portion of the population and is a quality of life and financial liability to citizens. Key proposition of growth machine that gets people, especially working class, on board is that it creates jobs but data shows it doesn't actually improve local unemployment rates. Death of growth machine would lead to holding capacity for regions, population growth limitation, development planned to minimize environmental impacts and get people more representative of general population involved in government. Class notes: Definition of growth as population and everything that comes with it (economic etc.) Localities compete with one another for growth One of the most important ideas- growth coalition (have to fundamentally organize together to attract growth) Strong argument- People who are involved in government are the people invested in growth and will prioritize it over all else Rate of growth doesn't necessarily improve unemployment rate Use value and exchange value of land (use- what it does for people, exchange- value it can trade for in market)- cities prioritize exchange value Whether growth is good or bad is not central to argument here- just that all cities do prioritize it •Traditional definition of city focuses on "numbers, density, and heterogeneity" which causes urban planning that uses this to ignore the more important social and power hierarchy structure of cities today •"the desire for growth provides the key operative motivation toward consensus for members of politically mobilized local elites" •Government and private corporations make decisions and activity that affect land potential growth •Newspapers and quasi-public (universities, etc.) organizations become like statesmen rather than activists for a particular intra-local distribution of growth •People drawn to politics tend to be businessmen because the city is a growth machine •Suspicion that growth only benefits a portion of the population oAnd it causes pollution, traffic, and overtaxing of natural resources •Altogether- "conservative statement" to say growth is a liability in quality of life and financially for citizens •Key ideological prop of "growth machine" esp. that gets working class on board is that it "creates jobs"- doesn't really work •There are under populated areas in U.S. that don't have natural problems of lack of resources or ugliness etc.--> he argues that lack of population in an area results from the political/economic decisions to populate other areas instead •It is important to have people in leadership that are in government or not dependent directly or indirectly on local expansion for profit •Death of growth machine (if it happens)= holding capacity for regions, population growth limitation, development planned to minimize environmental impacts oBusiness and industry would therefore lose their power of holding a threat to move to another location oThis would change basis for why people get involved in government- business people would be replaced by more representative, less reactionary, more progressive on all issues people •Not supported by historical records, shows up in emerging political trends where people see problems with current urban living and suggest alternatives

"Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk" by Dan M. Kahan

Climate change denial isn't about lack of scientific knowledge, it's about perception of risk being based on your worldview, this is called cultural cognition theory. The four main cultural worldview categories are hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism, and solidarity. Individualism and hierarchy are weak group ways of life where you fend for yourself and these people tend to be dismissive of environmental risks. Egalitarianism and solidarity are strong group ways of life where they believe on depending on each other and generally dislike commerce/industry and take environmental risks seriously. Science comprehension theory expects that concern with climate change would be positively correlated with scientific literacy and numeracy, but it is not supported by data and CCT is. Main argument: climate change denial isn't about lack of scientific knowledge, it's about perception of risk being based on your worldview- mechanisms are tribalism and group social psychology and economic self-interest •Cultural theory- individuals should be expected to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce their commitment to one or another 'way of life' o Weak group way- fend for yourself o Strong group way- depend on each other •Individualistic and proponents of hierarchal society- dismissive of environmental risks •Strong group- dislike commerce and industry, not self-seeking, take environmental risks seriously •Measuring cultural worldviews- hierarchy, egalitarianism, individualism, solidarity •Cultural cognition put people as points between on grid that showed degree of orientation with each ideal instead of making them fit into one area •Science comprehension thesis vs. cultural cognition thesis o SCT expects that concern with climate change would be positively correlated with scientific literacy and numeracy o These results not supported- climate change concern decreased as scientific literacy increased (and same with numeracy)- supports CCT o Hierarchal individualistic according to CCT- see threat of taking environmental risks seriously on industry and commerce that they value o Egalitarian communitarian world view according to CCT is suspicious of commerce and industry for contributing to social inequity so finds environmental risks worthy to be concerned about and make restrictions to protect from o Data supports the two above bullets •Study shows risk perception is formed because of how the individual's opinion will affect their standing among their peers

"How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research" by Katie Jennings, Dino Grandoni, and Susanne Rust

Exxon in the 1980s was doing research and experiments in climate change but then in 1990s invested millions in a campaign to question climate change and take out ads about uncertainty. The "Exxon Position" on the Greenhouse effect was officially to emphasize the uncertainty of it, they said it was therefore unwise to make regulations. They gave a ton of money to spreading this message, then in 2007 admitted global warming was real and largely due to burning of fossil fuels. •1980s- workshops, research, experiments in the field of climate change led by Exxon •1990- invested millions in a campaign that questioned climate change, then took ads out in major news sources saying climate change science was uncertain and it was unwise to make any regulations according to it •Determined that impact on company of efforts to fight climate change would be worse and come before impact of climate change •The "Exxon Position" on the Greenhouse effect was officially to emphasize the uncertainty They were worried that 1988 drought would be scientific proof enough to get people to worry about climate change •"From 1998 to 2005, Exxon contributed almost $16 million to at least 43 organizations to wage a campaign raising questions about climate change" •2007- Exxon conceded that global warming was actually happening and was largely due to the burning of fossil fuels

"We Don't Really Want to Know" by Kari Marie Norgaard

Even if people believe climate change they may not do anything about it because of interpretive denial (framing it in a more positive light) and cultural denial (seeing it as the norm/just the way things are, something that you can't change). The community in Norway she discusses, Bygdaby, pretty much entirely believes in climate change yet they do nothing about it because of their economic interests. There are four main ways climate change is an environmental justice issue: wealthy industrialized nations contribute way more, low-lying geography and weak infrastructure places will suffer way more, climate treaty negotiations favor industrialized nations, and the intergenerational issue. Public apathy towards climate change, as exemplified by Bygdaby, is socially organized denial. Main takeaway: (from Norway community) Despite the fact that people believe climate change they deny doing anything about it due to economic interests (Norway is an industrialized nation) Mechanisms: interpretive denial, social denial via nonresponse, redirecting blame •As science supporting global warming goes up, U.S. citizens' concerns with it goes down •Two things critical to understanding climate change o 1. Due to increase in carbon dioxide in atmosphere o 2. Greatest source of this carbon dioxide is burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil •4 main ways it's an environmental justice issue o 1. Wealthy industrialized nations in northern hemisphere contribute way more to the problem (pollution, airshed) o 2. Low-lying geography and weak infrastructure mean consequences will be much worse for poorer nations in southern hemisphere o 3. Climate treaty negotiations favor industrialized nations in outcome and process o 4. Intergenerational equity: people alive today are ruining the ability of generations to come to live comfortably on Earth •"This article presents evidence that so-called public apathy, or no attention to global warming in Bygdaby was a matter of denial" o And denial is a socially organized process Class notes: community in Norway where people do for the most part believe in climate change but don't do anything about it

"Reason in a Dark Time Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed- And What it Means For Our Future" by Dale Jamieson

Explains the global attempts to address climate change and why they failed. In the 1992 Rio FCCC conference they used common but differentiated responsibilities to stabilize greenhouse gases in atmosphere at a safe level, but U.S. was opposed to mandatory targets and timetables so the goals ended up ambiguous. At the Montreal Protocol in 1987 countries agreed to phase out CFCs that were creating a hole in the ozone layer. In 1997 at the Kyoto Protocol the U.S. senate already declared it wouldn't approve anything where they had to do more emission reduction than developing countries, Clinton signed but never even sent it to senate to ratify, and the text was awkward and vague. Obama went to Copenhagen in 2009 wanting the U.S. to be a leader in emission reductions since they led in emissions but this was not well received and he ended up only being able to bring a tiny reduction goal to the table and overall the conference failed to bridge the gap between the two sides of the climate policy debate. Population, consumption, and land transformation are the drivers of climate change that we are irreversibly committed to. Common but differentiated responsibilities in theory are good because they get rich countries who are emitting the most to help poor countries who are suffering the most but they don't work because they assume goodwill and a common purpose from everyone. International climate diplomacy struggles with the balance of binding and non binding agreements because of the effectiveness and willingness of countries to sign each type. -"My task in this book is to explain why we have failed to address climate change and to provide some guidance about what we might learn from our failures that will help us to live well in the new world that we are creating." -Tyndall- guy who measured infrared radiation of carbon dioxide and water vapor and showed that slight changes in Earth's atmosphere could have big impacts on temperature -3 important climate change conferences: Rio 1992 FCCC, Kyoto Protocol 1997, Copenhagen 2009 (okay but also 1987 Montreal Protocol and later but not addressed in this reading Paris) -Rio 1992 FCCC: the goal was "... to achieve. .stabilization of greenhousegas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." using "common but differentiated responsibilities"- developed countries were to lead the way in reducing emissions while providing financial help to developing countries (U.S. was opposed to mandatory targets and timetables so goals ended up being ambiguous) -Cons: "The problem with this approach is that it assumed goodwill and a common pur- pose on all sides. However, not everyone wanted global action on climate change. Most of the oil-producing states were opposed, and so were many influential actors in the United States who were motivated by ideology, self-interest, or the calculus of political advantage" -Pros: rich countries giving to poor countries who contribute the least but suffer the most, helps when working with developing and developed countries w/ different abilities -International diplomacy on climate deals- binding vs. non-binding, effectiveness vs ability to get people to actually sign -Montreal Protocol 1987: regulating CFCs (international agreement to phase them out to stop ozone depletion they were causing), precedent to Kyoto (which is precedent to Paris) -Kyoto Protocol 1997: U.S. Senate said it wouldn't sign anything that gave more limitations and stricter deadlines to developed countries than developing ones, Clinton said he would agree to accomplish by 2008-2012 what U.S. had already agreed to do by 2000, Protocol got Clinton to sign to this but he never even sent it to the Senate to be ratified, overall the protocol had awkward and vague text and left important things out, was not successfully adopted/implemented -Copenhagen 2009: Obama wanted U.S. to be a leader in taking action to reduce emissions and combat climate change, it was not well received and he could only offer a super low emissions reduction, overall bridging the gap between the clashing sides of international CC policy didn't work well -Jamieson concludes that population, consumption, and land transformation are the drivers of climate change that we are irreversibly committed to

"Privatizing Water Governance Failure and the World's Urban Water Crisis" by Karen Bakker

Governance- a practice of coordination and decision making between different actors, which is invariably inflected with political culture and power Support for privatization says water companies will be more efficient, provide more financing, facilitate treatment of water as an economic good, and lead to more water conservation and reduction of waste. They say government has low coverage rates, low rates of cost recovery, underinvestment, bad infrastructure, bad management, and unresponsiveness to needs of poor, so it is more ethical to privatize water. Supporters for government control say if properly supported and resourced this would be more efficient, equitable, and have lower tariffs. They say it is unethical to privatize because it is a human right and beyond being a commodity it is important to religion, aesthetic, health, and other things. This comes down to a debate over capitalism and role of government according to classic ideas versus neoliberals. Bakker says we need to reframe issue as socioeconomic and environmental issue and integrate analysis with overlapping roles of government, private companies, and community actors. British company was supposed to supply water in Tanzania but left them largely without water so Tanzania cancelled the contract and badly damaged their status in international trade. Developing countries and urban environments have been on the frontier of privatization, how to best supply water to poor is a core of the debate. In the Dutch model private businesses operate commercially but have public owners and require subsidies. She concludes that at the end of 21st century the debate was at a stalemate and private companies failed some of their promises and were more limited than expected, she asserts we need to look at the issue not as a dichotomy between public and private. •World Water Forum held every three years to discuss world water crisis, protestors come and interrupt to protest privatization of water (they say this doesn't see it as a human right, which it is) •"water markets (and associated private water rights), private sector management, and commercial principles and practices have been introduced in the water sector worldwide over the past two decades." •Support for privatization oWater companies will be more efficient, provide more financing, facilitate broader reforms (like treatment of water as economic good) that would lead to more water conservation and reduction of waste (more so than governments) oGovernment has problems with water management because of "low coverage rates, low rates of cost recovery, low tariffs, underinvestment, deteriorating infrastructure, overstaffing, inefficient management, and unresponsiveness to the needs of the poor" oPeople say it is unethical not to privitize water if based on these arguments the companies can do better at providing water, especially to the poor •Support for government control of water oWhen properly supported and resourced people say they are more efficient, equitable, and can provide lower tariffs oPeople say it is unethical to privatize water because you are profiting form something essential to human life/survival oLots of protests against privatization because water is "an economic input, an aesthetic reference, a religious symbol, a public service, a private good, a cornerstone of public health, and a biophysical necessity for humans and ecosystems alike" •Protest debate is essentially related to capitalism debate with the ethics of markets and their pros/cons oDebate over privatization- classic government intervention vs neoliberals (selective regulation over direct state provision of public services) •Focus on urban- privatization of water happens vastly in urban settings and as urbanization is happening more and more, there are more and more people in these areas without access to clean water •Supporters of privatization represent free-market environmentalism which combines things that are good for the environment with economic growth - aka markets are the solution to environmental problems rather than cause of •Those against privatization say that environmental problems (which are a byproduct of capitalism) can offer a source of continued profit, but is bad because putting companies in charge will probably engage in cost-cutting behaviors that degrade environmental quality, health, dignity, and wellbeing •Reframing Privatization- main analysis of the part of the book we read o Two ways to reframe it • 1. Socioeconomic and environmental issue • 2. Integrate analysis with overlapping roles of government, private companies, and community actors •She argues that both models (government and private) have flaws, we need to pay more attention to the issue in the developing world, and we need to rethink the concepts of the terms private, public, and community •Environmental concerns on both sides: pro-privatization see it as good way to clean unsafe drinking water, anti are concerned about what impacts privatization of freshwater supply will have •"Market failure"- private companies are compromised in their management capacities by their drive for a profit •"State failure"- governments are characteristically unaccountable and unresponsive to the demands of citizens for public services oGovernance is coordination and decision making between different actors- political inflections •Over half the world's population lives in cities and those in poorer cities often lack access to clean water, most poor houses aren't connected to water supply network •Biwater in Tanzania- promised to solve water supply crisis, could not keep up with city growth, 2/3 of the 3 million city residents were left without water supply network reaching them oTanzania cancelled the contract and detained three men from the British Biwater company and they were sent back to Britain- sparked conflict and this eventual ruling in the international court case about it: "the Tanzanian government had indeed violated its trade treaty with the UK by expelling City Water, but no damages were to be awarded because the company's value was "nil" at the time of expropriation" oEnded up with some private water vending , some illegal connections to government's water network, lots of different little attempted solutions to problem oThis whole case just demonstrates the controversy that comes out of water privatization •Chapter that sets the stage for discussing alternative worldviews: debate over water privatization in urban areas in developing countries - developing countries have been at the frontier of privatization - most of world's water supply problems is now in urban areas: degraded water resources, inequitable access, scarcity of fresh, safe, reliable water •Debate over how to best provide water to the underserved poor oProponents of privatization: "more financing and greater efficiency should enable more of the (urban) poor to access water supply." •Water is simultaneously an economic good and a public good according to Bakkar- this is why universal privatization of world's urban water supply systems has not been and cannot be fully achieved •How proponents of privatization said it would help increase safe water access for the poor: "the extension of water networks to households without access would enable them to stop relying on expensive, poor quality alternatives (such as water vendors or private wells)" o1. Public vs private does not have a strong effect on management outcomes o2. It does have an effect on performance that is attributed to the operator •Dutch model- private businesses operating on commercial principles have public owners oSubsidies are necessary to extend the network and provide universal provision and this is why people support this type of model •New definition of private by end of reading: "It implies, in other words, that service provision is, in fact, a complex admixture of formal and informal, government and private sector activity" •Public-private dichotomy is lens through which this issue has been studied, Bakkar says they need to look more into the combinations of the two •Conclusion: at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the debate over water privatization was at a stalemate oPrivate companies had failed to meet their promises in developing countries oPeople found that private involvement would be more limited than expected

"A Storm Forces Houston, the Limitless City, to Consider Its Limits" By Manny Fernandez and Richard

Houston is a precarious place for such a developed town because it's on a flat coastal plain with clay soil that doesn't absorb water well. There is fast development and lax regulation to get affordable housing but this also leads to encroachment on wetlands and prairies that used to act as a sponge for water. 1980s law requires developers to put in retention ponds but there's debate over how effective this is, other water retaining spaces have been largely paved over, and half of developers (in 2015 study) failed to follow Army Corps regulations to mitigate destruction of wetland space. Experts propose government buying out some homeowners to create green space and stricter building regulations, but there is a lot of pushback and people don't want to hurt the affordable housing. •Breakneck development and lax regulation lead to affordable housing but also encroachment on wetlands and prairies that used to serve as sponges for Houston •They know how to build with enough open land/detention areas to soak up water but it costs developers more to do it so they don't •Greater Houston is a precarious place for a boomtown- on great flat coastal plain, crisscrossing bayous, and clay soil that doesn't absorb water well oSystem couldn't handle large rainfalls because green space that would have absorbed water got paved over for construction •"scientists have warned that climate change could produce rainier, more frequent and more damaging storms in the Gulf Coast region, turning what were once minor annoyances into major disasters." oStudy done in 2015 showed that half of developers failed to follow through on Army Corps of Engineers directives that were supposed to mitigate destruction of wetlands •Amount of groundwater pumped out of some land in Houston has made it more vulnerable to flooding and actually caused it to start sinking •Regulations dating back to 1980s requiring developers to build retention ponds for water- lots of debate over how effective this is •Experts say local governments will have to consider buying out homeowners in flood-prone areas and turning this land into green space to retain water- but this is prone to a lot of pushback •Stricter building regulations would mean getting rid of the big lure of Houston of affordable housing

"Hell and High Water" by Neena Satija, Kiah Collier, Al Shaw, and Jeff Larson

Hurricane Ike was supposed to be incredibly deadly and dangerous to Texas but it shifted course at the last second. The world's largest concentration of oil, gases, and chemicals are in a big cylindrical tank in ship channel, which is key to American economy and could be devastating disaster (like BP oil spill) if hit by hurricane. Neighborhood by Clear Lake is extremely susceptible to storm surges but half the people there weren't even aware they lived in a flood zone. Galveston is located so that it would bear the brunt of a storm and had a hurricane in 1900 that remains the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history, so right now 23% of citizens there are below poverty line because it's not a desirable place to live. Proposed solutions are mid bay series of barriers along Galveston Island and Galveston Bay w/ gate across the bay from Clear Lake to protect from storm surge (most effective) and spine seawalls (more expensive and less effective). Industry/businesses won't prepare now because they say it is too big of a financial burden for the chance of disaster, people think it will take a devastating deadly disaster to get people to take action. •Ike was warned to be super deadly to Texas- huge wall of water, very dangerous, but it shifted course at last second •World's largest concentration of oil, gases, and chemicals are in a big cylindrical tank in Ship Channel that is key to American economy but could be a huge devastating disaster if a hurricane hit it •Efforts to get businesses to protect their tanks (so nothing like spills from Katrina or the BP oil spill happens), businesses say "you can only plan so large" •Scientists hoped that after Ike Texas would take action to prepare for an event like that- Houston gets hit by a major storm on average every 15 years •Ship channel would intensify height and impact of storm surge •Clear Lake is a narrow body of water that feeds Galveston Bay and would cause a storm surge that could flood homes in a whole town and NASA's Johnson Space Center •Economic and population growth in region has made it more vulnerable to storms- moving backwards instead of forwards •Galveston will bear the brunt of the storm because of its location and it had a major hurricane in 1900 that remains the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history (killed like 12,000 people) •More than 23% of Galveston residents are at or below poverty line because it's dangerous and therefore not a desirable place to live •Scientists say that methods of calculating probability of storms won't be valid soon because of climate change oEvery 100 year storms could happen every few years and every 500 year events every few decades •Major storm like Ike in Houston could damage whole U.S. economy and national security o27% of gasoline and 60% of aviation fuel for whole nation produced along Ship Channel o150 chemical plants in region that are even more central to global and national manufacturing than the fuel o"Industry officials say building a system to guard against these types of events would be cost prohibitive, especially given their comparatively low likelihood. They say it's up to government to fund and execute such plans." •People think the best chance of anything getting done is for a devastating storm to bring national attention oPeople think that several years after the next disaster people will decide the risk level is too high and ask why did all this property/life/other loss have to happen Proposed solutions- mid bay series of barriers along Galveston Island and Galveston Bay w/ gate across the bay from Clear Lake to protect from storm surge is most effective, spine seawalls are more expensive and less effective

"The Vulnerable Communities in Harvey's Path, Mapped" by Tanvi Misra

Poor, immigrant, elderly, and disabled communities were in harm's way in this storm. Poor or disabled people might not have had the resources to evacuate. Many undocumented immigrants did not because border patrol would not suspend its checkpoints for evacuation. Poor communities of color are often in neighborhoods most vulnerable to flooding in cities.

"A Safe Operating Space for Humanity" by Johan Rockstrom

Reliance on fossil fuels+industrialized agriculture=human activity could damage the systems that keep Earth in stable state. Thresholds are set for climate change, rate of biodiversity loss, nitrogen cycle, phosphorous cycle, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, global freshwater use, change in land use, atmospheric aerosol loading, and chemical pollution. The thresholds are what we need to stay within to be in the "planetary boundaries" that define the safe operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth system. We are already past the boundaries for climate change, biodiversity loss, and nitrogen cycle. It is a balance because going over one boundary impacts the others. Staying within thresholds would allow humans long-term social and economic development.

"The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature? by Will Steffen, Paul J. Crutzen and John R. McNeill

Stage 1 of the Anthropocene started at around 1800 with the onset of industrialization and the enormous expansion in the use of fossil fuels. Human driven changes to biological fabric of Earth, stocks and flows of major elements, and energy balance are defining Anthropocene. Pre-industrial changes (use of fire, domestication of animals, deforestation and agricultural development) had an impact but not on a big enough scale to start Anthropocene. Stage 2, the Great Acceleration, starts in 1945 with a huge boom in economic and population growth, urbanization, and use of petroleum. Stage 3 "Stewards of Earth's system?" starts in 2015 and is defined by which approach we take: business as usual, mitigation, or geo-engineering options. •"The Anthropocene began around 1800 with the onset of industrialization, the central feature of which was the enormous expansion in the use of fossil fuels" •Human driven changes to these things in Anthropocene: "i) the biological fabric of the Earth; ii) the stocks and flows of major elements in the planetary machinery such as nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, and silicon; and iii) the energy balance at the Earth's surface" •This reading examines the trajectory of the human enterprise throughout time to track the evolution of humans from hunter gatherers to geophysical forces and look at these three questions: o 1. Is the impact of human activity on the environment discernable on a global scale? How has the imprint evolved throughout time? o 2. How does the magnitude and rate of human impact compare with the natural variability of the Earth's environment? Are human effects similar to or greater than the great forces of nature in terms of their influence on Earth System functioning? o 3. What are the socioeconomic, cultural, political, and technological developments that change the relationship between human society and the rest of nature and lead to accelerating impacts on the Earth system? •Pre-industrial changes- use of fire, domestication of animals, deforestation and agricultural development (released CH4 and CO2) •China in the Song Dynasty (960-1279) was the first significant human use of fossil fuels- coal mining for the iron industry •"Preindustrial societies could and did modify coastal and terrestrial ecosystems but they did not have the numbers, social and economic organisation, or technologies needed to equal or dominate the great forces of Nature in magnitude or rate." •Industrialization (started in 1700s in Europe then was big by 1850) was impactful on Earth's systems because of the huge expansion of use of fossil fuels, first coal then oil and gas too •Huge growth of population, economy, and energy use between 1800 and 2000 •Anthropocene starts at industrial time, first stage ends in 1945 •The Great Acceleration (1945-2015)- huge growth in population, economic, and petroleum use right after WWII, big growth of cities and movement to urban living •Almost ¾ of the anthropegenic rise in CO2 levels has happened since 1950 •Stage 3 of anthropocene (2015---) is Stewards of the Earth system? oWill we be able to ensure sustainability of Earth's life systems against human stresses? oThere is a growing awareness of human influence on Earth's systems oThree conceptualizations of possible next stage of anthropocene •1. Business as usual •2. Mitigation: control technology and management, use of Earth's resources, human and domestic population •3. Geo-engineering options: mitigation is not effectual enough and much more drastic measures need to be taken, underground sequestration of CO2 (this has big ethical concerns and raises questions about big unintended and unanticipated side effects)

"Capitalism a Very Short Introduction What is Capitalism?"

Summary: Capitalism is the investment of money to make money. There are three phases/types of it- commercial (high profits from monopoly and control of market), industrial (competition, worker dependence, leisure emergence), and financial (derivatives, futures, options). Capitalism depends on exploitation of wage labor, which fuels consumption of the goods and services it produces Capitalism is essentially the investment of $ with the expectation of receiving profit Commercial capitalism- High profits come from monopolies, exclusion of competitors, and control of market Industrial capitalism- lots of competition, dependence on labor force and low wages, created leisure by separating work and home, leisure led to expansion of industry for this Investment of capital with expectation of profit drove industrial revolution Financial capitalism- derivatives (derive values from things like shares, bonds or commodities), futures are contracts to buy these derivatives for their current price at some point in the future, options are like future deals but don't commit you to them Capital- money available for investment or asset that can readily be turned into money Characteristic of capitalist society to have institutions that convert assets into capital Capitalism depends on exploration of wage labor, which fuels consumption of the goods and services it produces

"The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

Summary: Class struggles (Bourgeoisie exploiting proletariat labor) drive all history. Capitalism is unstable and development will disrupt class relations and lead to revolution and a new ruling class emerging. Bourgeoisie is a product of development, production, and exchange (capitalism things), they value money over interpersonal relationships and keep finding new wants. Production has to be constantly changing and revolutionizing. Everyone is part of this system and getting out of it requires revolution. Bourgeoisie is a product of development, production, and exchange and the modern industry that America paved the way for Money valued over interpersonal relationships Keep finding new wants and have constant revolutions of industry to produce them Marx predicted how the world would be transformed by capitalism (constantly changing production, etc.) based on how it was already changing We are all part of the system (whether proletariat or bourgeoisie)- bourgeoisie have to keep doing things over and over again to stay this class and same happens to proletariat Marx suggests whole revolution to break system- abolish property heavy tax abolish inheritance centralize credit in state w/ national bank free education a bunch of other things

"Pathways of Human Development and Carbon Emissions Embodied in Trade" by Julia K. Steinberger, J. Timmons Roberts, Glen P. Peters, and Giovanni Baiocchi

Summary: Consumption-based accounting of carbon emissions is emissions generated to produce important goods and services minus emissions generated to produce exports. Humans want low-carbon emissions, high life expectancy, and thriving economies- can get the first two together but it would involve lowering income a little bit. •Core of international debate over addressing climate change- what emission reductions would do to national economies and human development •Nations not only benefit from carbon emissions that happen within their own country, but also within the countries from which they import their goods •Emissions generated to produce important goods and services-emissions generated to produce exports=consumption-based accounting •"Our hypothesis is that consumption-based emissions, which include the carbon embodied in all goods and services consumed in a country, should reflect the socio-economic benefits (measured by life expectancy and income) accruing from these emission processes better than territorial emissions." •Higher emission levels generally go with stronger economies and with higher life expectancy until a point, then it stops increasing life expectancy •Low income levels require higher carbon emissions than previously thought when you take trade into consideration •Last thing to do- see if countries with more sustainable economic/social development still seem sustainable when emissions from imports are counted too oUK has decreased per capita emissions but when trade is taken into account it grows •3 things humans want- low carbon emissions, high life expectancy, thriving economies oCan get the first two together, but it would lower per capita income

"The German Ideology" by Karl Marx

Summary: Not ideas that drive the world- but economics, nature, etc. Links materialism with conscious thought/decisions- resources are a driving source of humanity and the way we look at the world depends therefore on materialism and not our own thoughts/ideas "history of humanity must always be studied and treated in relation to the history of industry and exchange" three moments/aspects common to humanity all throughout time and still today- forces of production, state of society, consciousness

"Field Notes From A Catastrophe" by Elizabeth Kolbert Part II Man

Summary: Other civilizations (like Akkadian and Mayan) fell because of climate change problems, we now have technology to predict and prepare for them. Melting ice--> rising sea levels, town in Netherlands built amphibious homes to prepare. Stabilization wedges proposed to tackle problem- we would need to do a ton. U.S. rejected Kyoto because it asked more of them than developing nations and instead focused on science 'uncertainty' and "greenhouse gas intensity." Burlington has 10% challenge, other mayors signed to try to reach goals of Kyoto, China's huge and inefficient economic growth cancels these efforts. CFCs-->ozone hole--> Montreal protocol to phase them out. We're a technologically advanced society ignoring risks and going towards self destruction. ch5-Akkadian empire, Mayan civilization, Tiwanaku civilization, Old Kingdom of Egypt- all fell because of climate change (things like drought). we now have technology (like from GISS models) to know and prepare for these things. ch6-rising sea levels caused by melting ice sheets. Dura Vermeer (netherlands) prepared with amphibious homes. ice core shows highest concentrations of CO2 in human history now. ch7- 15 stabilization wedges proposed to limit emissions, 12/15 would be needed to just keep current trajectory of increase (ideas- photovoltaic cells, nuclear energy, less automobiles, etc.). other more extreme ideas are carbon capture and storage and space based solar power. ch8-At FCCC Annex I countries were supposed to reduce their emissions, other countries just to mitigate, U.S. senate approved it. Kyoto asked European nations, U.S., and Japan to reduce the most but the senate stood by not agreeing to anything where developing countries didn't have to have the same emission reductions as U.S. Bush administration decided to focus on "greenhouse gas intensity" the ratio of emissions to economic output (bs) and emphasized climate science uncertainty. ch9- Burlington and the 10% challenge (aim to reduce city's greenhouse gas emissions by 10%) using renewable sources for energy, community gardens, Climo Dino, etc. U.S. Mayors Climate Protection agreement got over 100 mayoral signatures to reach Kyoto protocol goals. China's huge economic growth with inefficient energy sources cancels this effort out. ch10- discovered that CFCs were unstable in stratosphere and causing hole in ozone. Montreal protocol of 1987 agreed to phase out CFCs. concludes by saying that risks are everywhere and apparent and it seems weird that a technologically advanced society is choosing self destruction but it's what we're doing right now.

"Field Notes From A Catastrophe" by Elizabeth Kolbert Part 1 Nature

Summary: There are positive feedback loops like melting of Arctic permafrost, ice-albedo, and oceanic conveyor belt. Three important climate scientists are Tyndall (first to find atmospheric composition affects Earth's temperature a lot), Arrhenius (predicted doubled CO2 would cause 11 degree F increase in temp), and Keeling (made curve from Hawaii that shows steady increase in CO2). Climate change is beginning to drive evolution because animals have to change behavior (mating time, alt/lat location, etc.) to survive. Melting of Arctic permafrost feedback loop- ground that has been frozen for a substantial period of time- Greenhouse gas effect contributes to additional global warming and in turn speeds up permafrost depletion (permafrost releases organic materials that break down as greenhouse gases in atmosphere and contribute to warming that causes more melting) Ice-albedo feedback loop Differences in the reflective capabilities of ice and water, as another contributor to the melting of the Arctic's perennial sea ice. Oceanic conveyer belt Melting ice into water not only introduces more freshwater into the oceans at the poles, but also raises the temperature of the oceans. This prevents saltwater from sinking from the poles and flowing to the tropics, and tropic water from cooling down enough to flow to the Arctic. Paradoxically, this could make countries like Britain and those in upper North America much colder.- may lead to misconceptions about climate change, regarding how the globe isn't warming. ch1- Shishmaref Alaska had to be relocated because of increasing vulnerability to storm surges, major organizations (like NASA's GISS) have been saying warming is a serious threat for a long time now. warning signs include the warming and increasing acidity of the oceans, the growing similarity between daytime and nighttime temperatures, the Northward shifting of animal ranges, and the melting of the Arctic. melting icecaps are bad because snow covered ice is one of the best reflectors of heat and getting rid of it creates a positive feedback cycle. albedo is reflected light/incident light, water has very low albedo and ice has very high so melting lowers albedo and more positive feedback. ch2- Tyndall determined that nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor are responsible for planet's climate because they transmit radiation from sun and block radiation from Earth. Arrhenius found that doubling carbon dioxide would raise the temperature around the amount many modern scientists say. Keeling curve from Mauna Loa Hawaii shows steady increase in global carbon dioxide. ch3-Ice records can be read to find important things like past temperatures and chemical compositions and melting is making these disappear. Greenland ice sheet melting alone will raise sea levels 23 ft and could be worsened by things like conveyer belts- ocean currents bring warm tropical waters north. ch4- climate change causing change in animal behavior. migration to higher altitudes and latitudes, shift in timing of mating and reproduction. some of these changes are genetic—> global warming is beginning to drive evolution (but cause extinction in those that can't evolve quickly enough)

"Defining the Anthropocene" By Simon L. Lewis and Mark A. Maslin

Summary: there's debate over when the anthropocene started, it can either be defined by GSSP which is preferred and requires a specific type of geological marker or GSSA which is a committee agreeing on it, the two best suggestions now are the 1610 Orbis Spike and the 1964 bomb and if one was chosen it would have social implications about attitudes towards climate change. Implications of 1610 would be colonialism, global trade, and coal brought on anthropocene- also highlights long-term and large-scale example of human actions releasing effects that are difficult to predict or manage. Implications of 1964 would be elite driven technological development threatens planet-wide destruction, the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty demonstrates collective ability to manage a global threat to humans and the environment •Geologists have no formal agreement on the start of this period- if a date was agreed on it would have implications beyond geology oIf it was put as far back as the earliest proposed time, it would normalize global climate change as a natural process and not human caused oIf it was put at the industrial revolution it would lead to blame on certain nations for the changes •This reading does this: o1. Summary of geologically important human induced impacts o2. Review history of naming epoch modern human societies live within o3. Assess human caused changes that left global geological markers consistent with the criteria for defining an epoch o4. Highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the few global markers that may indicate a date to date the beginning of the anthropocene. •"an orthodox Marxist view of the inevitability of global collective human agency transforming the world politically and economically requires only a modest conceptual leap to collective human agency as a driver of environmental transformation" •Ways to define anthropocene as formal geological time oGlobal Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP)- requires the location of a global marker of an event in stratigraphic material, such as rock, sediment, or glacier ice (known as golden spikes, preferred method over GSSA) oGlobal Standard Stratographic Age (GSSA)- after geologically survey, date is agreed on by a committee •Approaches to defining beginning of anthropocene: impact of fire, pre-industrial farming, sociometabolism, and industrial technologies •"We conclude that most proposed Anthropocene start dates, including the earliest detectable human impacts, earliest widespread impacts, and historic events such as the Industrial Revolution, can probably be rejected because they are not derived from a globally synchronous marker." •Possible GSSP dates: o1610 Orbis spike •Advantage- geological and historical importance, changes in climate, chemistry, and paleontology (like other epochs) •Main disadvantage- it won't show large changes from around 1600, specifically in terms of biological material in transport of species to new continents or oceans because there would be a time lag before this would show up in deposits o1964 bomb spike •Biggest advantage- the variety of human impacts recorded during Great Acceleration •Disadvantages- nuclear bomb caused a spike but no Earth-changing events, some deposits don't accumulate over a time span as short as 50 years- clear datable changes and correlation among stratotypes hard to discern •Possible GSSA dates oIndustrial revolution •Clearly a time of big change •Hard to choose an early date in the revolution over a later one or vice versa oGreat Acceleration •Diachronous and has several different proposed years too •Overall- GSSAs have difficulties, GSSPs are preferred and there are some→ 1610 tends to be preferred because transoceanic movement of species is clear and permanent alteration of Earth's systems and this is more in line with the original historic proposal of the anthropocene •Implications of two GSSP dates if chosen o1610 Orbis spike- colonialism, global trade, and coal brought on anthropocene- also highlights long-term and large-scale example of human actions releasing effects that are difficult to predict or manage o1964 bomb- elite driven technological development threatens planet-wide destruction, the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty demonstrates collective ability to manage a global threat to humans and the environment

"Extreme Carbon Inequality" Oxfam

The Paris Accord must put poorest countries first because climate change is inextricably linked to carbon inequality. 50% of carbon emissions by richest people in world and only 10% from poorest half who are most vulnerable to climate change. Women face greater risks than men (their livelihoods are more dependent on things like agriculture and water collection), rural communities often more exposed than urban ones and groups marginalized because of race, ethnicity or other factors likely to be disproportionately affected. Rich countries are least vulnerable but most prepared, number of Forbes billionaires invested in fossil fuels and their personal fortunes increased a lot between Copenhagen and Paris. Article says Paris Accord should get fair emissions reductions that keep the chance of limiting temp rising below 1.5 degrees C, addresses loss and damage from impacts of climate change, and recognize human rights and social justice as central to agreement. •Prop: Paris Accord must put poorest countries first •Climate change is inextricably linked to carbon inequality •50% of carbon emissions by richest people in world and only 10% from poorest half who are most vulnerable to climate change •Between Copenhagen and Paris, number of billionaires on Forbes list invested in fossil fuels rose by a lot and their combined personal fortunes went up 100% •"But such inequalities are horizontal as well as vertical - with women facing greater risks than men, rural communities often more exposed than urban ones and groups marginalized because of race, ethnicity or other factors likely to be disproportionately affected." •Women are generally more dependent on climate sensitive livelihoods (agriculture, water collection, etc.) •In U.S. underprivileged groups are hit the worst too oPoorest residents in gulf states are exposed to disproportionate levels of sea rising oGovernment assisted and public living housing people in NY hit the worst by Sandy •Richer countries are least vulnerable but also most prepared (more irrigation, insurance, etc.) •Looks at emissions in terms of consumption and lifestyle, not production and government •Most of the world's 10% highest emitters are from OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries and one third from the U.S. •Argument- no cutting down on emissions from G20 countries, very difficult to eliminate extreme poverty and impossible to stop the predicted rise in temperature by the end of the century •Richest most carbon contributing countries also have been suffering from climate change problems especially recently, a weak Paris agreement is therefore not in their best interest either •Big tax deductions for oil companies in U.S.- Obama tried to eliminate some- Congress stopped it because a lot of the members have economic investments in oil companies •Recommendations from article for Paris accord: pass these four litmus tests o1. Does it deliver fair emissions reductions that will keep open the chance of limiting warming below 1.5C? o2. Does it deliver a major increase in adaptation finance? o3. Does it recognize the need to address loss and damage from the impacts of climate change to which it is not possible to adapt as a formal part of the new regime, distinct from adaptation? o4. Does it recognize the need to respect the principles of human rights, gender equality and the need for a just transition for workers in the implementation of climate policies at the core of the agreement?

"Merchants of Doubt How A Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway

The strategies developed by the tobacco industry a long time ago to mislead the public about cancer risks were re-appropriated by the climate lobby. Santer was a scientist who proved a lot about humans causing climate change but was attacked baldy for it and accused of doctoring his reports. Sietz and Singer used power and influence they had with background of working in U.S. weapons program in Cold War to attack science and make it seem too uncertain to instate policy/regulation for tobacco and climate change. Singer coauthored a book with Revelle (who helped Keeling of Keeling curve) but took advantage of the fact that Revelle was incredibly sick and in the hospital throughout the process and made it seem like he too doubted climate science. This debate was about politics of government's role in regulation, not science. There was a lot of information bias that the Bush administration supported where more denial than real science was published. •Key fact of Merchants of Doubt according to Prof. Cohen's email: "the strategies developed by the tobacco industry a shockingly long time ago to mislead the public about cancer risks were re-appropriated by the climate lobby" •Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of the world's leading authorities on climate change- declared in 1995 it was human caused by didn't get a lot of attention •Ben Santer proved a lot about humans causing global warming, was attacked saying that he doctored his reports to make the science seem more solid/convincing than it was--- the only changes he actually made were in response to peer review comments •Frederick Sietz and S. Fred Singer were retired physicists that used the same strategy of attacking science and making it seem too uncertain to instate policy/regulation for health risks from tobacco and for humans causing climate change oHad background of work in U.S. weapons program during the Cold War so they had publicity/attention/respect enough for people to listen to them and gave them authority to discredit science they didn't like •Counter strategy blamed the sun for warming and manipulated graphs showing warming and cooling trends did not follow exactly when the highest emissions of carbon dioxide were to make it seem scientific •Singer and Revelle (guy who helped Keeling of Keeling curve) "coauthored" a book except Revelle was super sick and in the hospital and barely functioning at the time so that's fake and it was saying to look before you leap when it comes to dealing with fossil fuels/global warming •Information bias- much more denial science was published than real (Bush administration took this seriously over real science) -Not about science- about a political debate of role of government and regulation

"Climate Wars 2011 What People Will Be Killed For in the 21st Century" by Harald Welzer

There is a connection between climate change and violence that is direct and indirect because the impact of climate change on global inequalities and living conditions can lead to civil wars, conflicts, reigns of terror, illegal migration, border disputes, unrest, and insurgency. Mass migration leads to violent responses to refugee problems and other things can result in wars of belief and resource wars. Sudan is an example of a country where climate change is one of the causes of the civil war. Climate change problems like precipitation change, water availability, and shrinking farmland will lead to mass migration and the response to this will determine the violence caused. •Violence happens under the pressure to produce results •Violence today "involve[s] long chains of agency, in which violence is delegated, reshaped and invisible" as opposed to old violence of genocides like the Holocaust •Fossil fuel use can't continue forever- Welzer asserts it will be due to the disastrous climactic effects and not just because they will run out •Connections between climate change and violence oIndirect- impact of climate change on global inequalities and living conditions can lead to civil wars, conflicts, reigns of terror, illegal migration, border disputes, unrest, and insurgency oMass migration and violent solutions to refugee problems oResource wars and wars of belief •This book analyses past and present violence to predict the nature of future violence since more exact predictions of it are hard to make due to unpredictability of level and timing of climate effects and human response •Problems push for solutions when they are perceived as threatening (7) •Frontex- regulates border entrance in EU •Climate change--> precipitation and lack of water availability (emigration), shrinking farmland (undernourishment) Climate change will cause mass migration and the question of how people will respond to these refugees will determine the violence caused •Sudan: "the first case of a war-torn country where climate change is unquestionably one cause of violence and civil war." oIndication of future according to Welzer •Men justifying murder- conflate it with the right thing to do- afterwards take no personal blame but talk about the effects they were put under that forced them to do this--> people will only take responsibility for their actions if the time within which the consequences occur causes them to be held responsible •Consequences of climate change stretch beyond people's lifetimes and could not have been predicted generations and generations ago- makes blame harder to place, social consequences less likely to be seen, and makes possible solutions difficult (does one person even have the ability to make up for the actions causing the consequences?)

"Consumption Based Accounting of CO2 Emissions" by Stephen J. Davis and Ken Caldeira

This strategy allocates CO2 emissions to countries and industries based on the demand of consumers for finished goods. 23% of carbon dioxide emissions come from international trade (esp. China to developed countries) and U.S. has most consumption based emissions. Import and export emissions map shows most exports in Russia, China, Middle East, etc. and most import ants in U.S., Japan, U.K, Germany, etc.. Per-capita import emissions highest in Luxembourg and the U.S. and lowest in developing nations in Africa and Asia. The net effect of trade is export emissions from China and other developing countries to U.S., western Europe, and Japan. Consumption based accounting provides ethical grounds that more developed countries are the main contributors to emissions and therefore should lead mitigation efforts. •CO2 emissions with consumption of goods and services (imports and exports either directly or indirectly) •23% of carbon dioxide emissions are from international trade (esp. from China to developed countries) •They are allocating CO2 emissions to countries and industries based on the demand of consumers for finished goods •U.S. has most emissions based on these from these things •Net effect of EET (shows import and export emissions) shows geographic correlation- most export emissions in China, Russia, Middle East, South Africa, so on. Most import emissions in United States, Japan, U.K., Germany, France, and Italy •Per-capita import emissions highest in Luxembourg and the U.S. and lowest in developing nations in Africa and Asia •"net effect of trade is the export of emissions from China and other emerging markets to consumers in the United States, Japan, and Western Europe." •More developed countries should lead mitigation effort (more emissions and more money) "consumption-based accounting of emissions provides grounding for ethical arguments that the most developed countries—as the primary beneficiaries of emissions and with greater ability to pay—should lead the global mitigation effort (19, 20)."

"The Big Thirst The Secret Life and Turbulent Future of Water" by Charles Fishman

Water is not disappearing (it can't be created or destroyed), we just soon won't have safe, abundant, and cheap water. Barcelona had a drought and brought ships of water from France and Orme TN brought firetrucks of water for their drought. Over 1 billion people don't have access to clean, safe water or have it really far from them, almost 2 million children die from lack or water or disease from water each year. Water poverty relates to idea that many women/girls in developing nations can't get an education because they spend all day lugging water. Patricia Mulroy is in charge of water in Las Vegas and is the head of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Vegas has a lot of luxurious use of water in fountains, she determines how much they can use based on economic value. There is use of recycled wastewater in laundry and golf courses, citizens get 3 lawn watering days a week, and new construction have lawn restrictions. Chapter 1 •Human use of water oBiologically/geologically necessary for us to live •Humans are made of water •In the last hundred years in the U.S. our water has largely been abundant, safe, and cheap •We don't think about water enough even though we are so connected to it and you can't appreciate what you don't understand •Major uses in U.S.- toilet flushing, power plants, pipe leakage •Clean water cut child mortality in half and filtration and chlorination of city water reduced mortality by 13% •Soon- Water will be abundant and cheap but it will be reuse water that can't be used for drinking or it will be abundant and clean but not cheap to get for drinking- we're soon not going to have all 3 things •Barcelona in 18 month drought in spring 2008 decided to ship in water from France on boats but entire boatfuls of water lasted the city around half an hour and an hour- rescued eventually by a ton of rainfall •Orme, TN had big drought and they brought in water from firetrucks and could use 3 hours of water every day- rescued eventually by building a new pipeline •Over 1 billion people don't have access to clean, safe water or have it really far from them, almost 2 million children die from lack or water or disease from water each year •Water increase even outgrows population increase •Mayan civilization downfall and Dust Bowl caused by droughts •Economic development is third factor (with pop growth and climate change) that's putting pressure on water supplies- factories and businesses use a ton of it and people with higher incomes want more access to it •No water on Earth is created or destroyed •Water can always be cleaned and you can't use up water (this second one is misleading the way it sounds- where it reappears and how long this takes is not always well controlled so we do have a lot of water scarcity that is mostly due to poor management by people) •Water isn't becoming more scarce, just not able to find it in places where we're used to- water scarcity is a local problem (but consequences, damages, and costs are not local) •Water poverty- women and girls in developing countries sometimes can't get education because they have to spend their time every day fetching water •2/3 of water is used in agriculture and in developing nations half of this is wasted which hurts global food production •Water is indispensible and can't be replaced with anything else in most of the situations in which we use it but we don't use the cost of it to reflect this value •Water won't be urgently visible to us until it disappears- ironic Chapter 3- Las Vegas and Patricia Mulroy •Vegas strip- water walk- fountains and waterfalls and canals and tons of ways to flaunt water and show it off as luxurious- "ostentatious water" •Las Vegas gets 4% of Lake Mead legally, its population has nearly tripled between 1990 and 2009 and rainfall fell off dramatically and the largest reservoir in the U.S. (Mead) became less than half full •Las Vegas is actually far more advanced in water consciousness and management than the rest of the country is according to Fishman •Economic value of fountains in Vegas is how woman in charge of water use there determines what they can use •Agreed they could keep fountains if they took out enough grass to save 50 time the amount of water the fountain uses •Patricia Mulroy also heads the Southern Nevada Water Authority •Mission starting a water recycling program to use reused water (in laundry) that saves money on water bill, water heating bill, and natural gas bill •Angel Park (golf course) switched to irrigate with recycled wastewater •Vegas residences have mandatory watering days and get like 3 days a week •Newly built homes cannot have front lawns and only half of the backyard can be covered in grass •Vegas reuses or recycles almost every gallon of water that is used indoors for any purpose Class notes: Most profound idea of chapter 1 is that we're not running out of water, just safe and clean water Single most important idea of chapter/water is that soon we will not be able to get all 3 of safe, cheap, and abundant water Patricia Mulroy is gr8 and represents thinking about pricing, economic growth, and public intervention as ways to think about water

"Trump is pulling the US out of the Paris climate agreement. Some men just want to watch the world burn." by Brain Resnick

Trump is withdrawing U.S. from accord because he says he wants a deal more "fair" to the U.S. Withdrawal is a four year process He doesn't like that it would put limitations on coal industry and allows some countries higher emissions than others Dumb because there's no legal binding in this agreement so there is no "better deal for him," the majority of Americans support being in this agreement, and ya know he's killing the Earth

"New York's Two Sandys" by Daniel Aldana Cohen and Max Liboiron

Two Sandys 1. One time indiscriminate catastrophe 2. Inequality (social and economic) and exacerbation of systemic inequalities Storm 1 idea was popular with governing and elite institutions and responds with just technical fix solutions like evacuations and power outages. Storm 2 idea is popular with community groups and grassroots political networks and focuses on vulnerabilities like income insecurity, education access, unaffordable housing, and widespread debt. Storm 2 is seen in housing where there was a disproportionate struggle for working class (especially tenants, immigrants, and PO) to rebuild and storm worsened mold problems which lead to health issues. To address the inequality locally there were community groups and resource organization and Bill de Blasio was elected mayor. In the long term NYC needs to deal with carbon inequality for contributions and effects and broaden disaster definition to long term crises. Environmental disasters sharpen (short term) and exacerbate (long term) preexisting inequalities.

"The world just agreed to a major climate deal in Paris. Now comes the hard part" by Brad Plumer

What the climate deal really does: no legal requirement to cut back on emissions, every country decided for itself a plan of how to tackle greenhouse gas emissions that are politically and technologically feasible, but insufficient to combat climate change Structure of accord: 1. overall temperature goal 2. overall emissions goal 3. pledges reviewed every 5 years 4. financing for poor countries 5. loss and damage compensation (doesn't provide a basis for it but sets up committees) 6. transparency measures (reporting and monitoring of emission cuts) 7. legal status- no binding legal agreement for countries constructive ambiguity- only way to get countries to agree to it, but will likely prove ineffective

"The Growing Movement to Protect the Global Water Commons" by Maude Barlow

extremely anti privatization- it is a natural resource central to our existence and is therefore a common good that shouldn't be used for private gain governments should invest in groundwater supply research and regulation and water and wastewater infrastructure

"The Anthropocene Myth" by Andreas Malm

•"Blaming all of humanity for climate change lets capitalism off the hook" •Claim that the thing driving us toward disaster is the reliance of capitalists on the extraction and use of fossil fuels •"We are stuck because the actions that would give us the best chance of averting catastrophe — and would benefit the vast majority — are extremely threatening to an elite minority that has a stranglehold over our economy, our political process, and most of our major media outlets." •Other argument/view of why this is happening- the clash between expanding humans and a finite world •The top percent are the most responsible for climate change o1. Steam engine and combustion of coal→capitalist commodity production o2. British desperately wanted coal from mines Indians knew about but left alone to run their steamboats- invented indentured labor to get fuel to exploit India o3. Most of the 21st century emissions explosions come from China where manufacturing industry was implanted by foreign capital to get cheap labor o4. Oil and gas industry gets huge population opposition wherever it tries to set up shop o5. Advanced capitalist states relentlessly enlarge and deepen their fossil infrastructures (growth machine!), interest in capital over what the people want o6. Hugely unequal consumption of energy in the world •Focus on the destructiveness of capital because the fossil economy is coextensive with the capitalist mode of production, now on a global scale •Anthropocene advocates according to Malm steer clear of challenging fossil capital and champion "false" solutions like geoengineering because they're looking at all human impact as the species universally •Antagonism is necessarily for change- species thinking does not work- if everyone is to blame, no one is