Memo 12: Urban Forestry, Street Trees & CPR's

Cristin A. Williams
Date: 4/19/11
Readings Discussed: Steed/Fisher, Tree City Stds, Urban Forest Sustainability, Tree Canopy Goals


SUMMARY:
The topic of urban forestry has always been interesting and appealing to me. The idea of integrating nature into human built environments is seems logical and attainable concept. The Steed/Fisher article addresses the issue of street trees. Street trees are loosely defined as natural space and trees located within the close vicinity of a street. Steed & Fisher point out that the original street trees were not planted, but existed before a road was built through a forest. Today, however, most street trees are planted and usually reside in sidewalk-embedded planters. If you've been to any major US city, you've likely seen street trees. They are important for a multitude of reasons. Street trees have the following ecological benefits:

• Provide a habitat for city-dwelling wildlife, like birds and squirrels
• Reduce storm water runoff
• Reduce flooding
• CO2 absorption
• Filtering of air pollutants
• Beautification of urban landscape

Street trees are also responsible for interesting psychobenefits, like:

• Increased property values
• Slower driving speeds
• Less auto accidents
• More robust commercial areas

It is clear that street trees and urban forestry are helpful notions. Why don't cities have hundreds of parks and widespread street tree planting? Steed & Fisher point out that the street tree agenda runs into complications with funding, maintenance confusion, and liability. Seeing as these trees need to be planted, someone has to provide funding for the trees and establishment of a planting location. Sometimes city governments fund street trees, but other times private companies and NGO's provide funding via grants. Steed and Fisher spend a great deal of time debating as to whether urban trees are a common pool resource or a public good. They state that, "Although the benefits associated with street trees can be considered a public good, the
trees themselves and the spaces on which they reside are seemingly better defined as CPRs." They go on to describe that access to street trees can also be rivalrous. Shared (perceived) ownership of tree space can result in excessive paving, driveway expansion, road expansion and sidewalk expansion. When these other interests are presented, they are often favored and viewed as more beneficial than the tree area. Lastly, the two authors present the interesting predicament of legal liability of street trees. They present cases where city governments have been sued over pedestrians being injured by falling branches, and motorists getting in accidents due to tree-obstructed street signs.

The other 3 articles echo the Steed/Fisher article by presenting specific programs and plans for urban tree development. The Tree City USA article outlines the requirements a city must achieve before it can be denoted a Tree City. They consist of an establishment of a tree board or department, a tree care ordinance, a community forestry program, and an Arbor Day observance and proclamation. The next article talks about the American Forests organizations plans for and explanation of tree canopy goals. It explains the importance of urban forestry. Lastly "A MODEL OF URBAN FOREST SUSTAINABILITY" is just that, a plan for how cities can develop sustainable tree areas. This plan's central themes are a healthy tree and forest resource, community-wide support and a comprehensive management approach.

COMPARISON
The major difference between the articles was their tone. The Steed/Fisher article was an academic article that sought to clarify why there was confusion about street trees. The Urban Forest Sustainability article was also academic in nature, but provided more of a sustainability outline than the Steed/Fisher article did. The other two articles were shorter and seemed to be more of reference-type documents. Both the Steed/Fisher and Sustainability articles agreed on the importance of monitoring and human intervention within the urban forestry realm. Both also thoroughly explained the benefits of urban forestry. I guess another difference would be that the Steed/Fisher article focused on exclusively "street trees" while the other articles talk about a wider notion of urban tree cover.

QUESTIONS
After reading the Tree City USA requirements, I wondered why exactly cities would want to carry that title. Does the Tree City organization offer grants to promote forestry? Or is it simply an honorable title for a city to hold? I can imagine it would be a pull factor for families searching for a city to call their home. I know Bloomington is a Tree City USA because I have seen signs posted around town. What has the Tree City designation done specifically for Bloomington?

Another notion I thought about was the concept of ownership. Though the Steed/Fisher article discussed it, I still wonder if it is better for urban trees to be publicly or privately owned. When I say publicly owned, I mean owned and maintained by the government. Other looser, community group and NGO owned options are possible, but probably lack funding to do an adequate job. I realize that you can apply the public/private question to many things, including utilities, military, healthcare, et cetera. Though the debate still rages on, which ownership option is better? The government collects funds through taxes, but is often burdened by the snails pace of bureaucracy. Many argue that privatization is the most efficient way to achieve progress, though I sometimes doubt its equity.

Memo 9: Climate, Religion & Change

Cristin Williams
4/11/11
Readings Discussed: Wilkinson, Sarewitz et al.

Summary:
For today's class I read the Wilkinson and Sarewitz et al articles. The Wilkinson article I found rather interesting. The article focused on the relationship between evangelical christians and climate change, an unlikely pairing. As Christianity has always had a rather uncomfortable relationship with science, it is interesting to see modern-day Christians opening up to the possibility of climate change. Though the evangelicals aren't exactly citing purely scientific reasons for climate change, they are agreeing that humans are to blame. From a Christian standpoint, we should help remedy climate change because God's Earth is a beautiful place that he gave to us. Bible passages emphasize that God gave us the Earth and expects us to rule it and care for it. The Christian concept of assisting the less-fortunate also plays into global warming, as the poorest nations are struggling the most with climate change effects. Conflicts arise with the fact that evangelicals are traditionally Republican, a political group that generally tends to favor business over environmentalism. Wilkinson highlights a new breed of moderate and liberal evangelicals, who are open to the ideas of climate change but still retain a resistance to ideas like gay marriage. Alliances of environmentally concerned Christians have formed in recent years, including the ECI. These groups are important because they can rally their followers start living more sustainably.

The Sarewitz et al article, to me, seemed like an overview of the basics of global warming. This article was likely very informative and mildly revolutionary in the year of its publication (2000). An Inconvenient Truth was released six years later in 2006, and gave many Americans (including myself) their first lesson in Climate Change 101. The Sarewitz article provides an interesting history of climate change, from the scientists of the 1920's that first postulated about the effects of carbon dioxide and industry upon the atmosphere, to the 1997 meeting at Kyoto. Sarewitz then also outlines the problems that arise with creating predictions and projections concerning climate change. The article also discusses the increasing severity of hurricanes and severe storms, almost an ominous prediciton of 2005's Hurricane Katrina. The point that Sarewitz drives home is that he perceives the need for a "re-framing" of climate change. Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty 95-0, so clearly new conversations needed to be held on the topic of global warming.

Compare/Contrast
Both articles, rather obviously, address the topic of change. The most important difference between the articles, in my opinion, lies in when they were written. The Sarewitz et al was published in 2000, while Wilkinson was published in 2010. Such an incredible amount of research, discussion, and progress has been made on the subject of climate change in these 10 short years. The Sarewitz article more so introduces the reader to the idea of climate change, its origins, its implications, etc. Since the Wilkinson article was written 10 years later, it is capable of addressing a very specific topic within the subject of climate change. Not many scholars are currently writing pieces that introduce the reader to the basics of climate change; the discussion has moved on to recent developments and niche arguments. Both articles essentially address the subject of climate change "believers" and "non-believers." Both use facts to support climate change, and the Wilkinson article even cites Bible verses in support of climate change.

Questions
Most of my questions and interests lie in the Wilkinson article. Without sounding overly secular, I have a difficult time understanding why Evangelicals use a mixture of science and scripture to rationalize climate change, but they refuse to use it to rationalize other liberal ideas like homosexuality and abortion. I guess these ideals like more in tradition, whereas climate change is a new "problem," one that can be addressed by modern religious leaders in modern ways. Also I disagree that the idea that environmentally concerned evangelicals can mix with conservative republicans. The notions of environment and the economy are very contradictory in the minds of many Republicans. From how I see things, I don't think nature is a remotely partisan idea. We share the Earth and we're all entitled to its beauty and responsible for its health. Religious people all over the world are in the position to adopt a progressive viewpoint toward climate change. History doesn't dictate how we should handle this environmental matter. No "tackling climate change" tradition exists, so we need not feel inclined to follow any pre-determined path. Our generation will effectively write the gospel of "slowing climate change." Let's hope it has a happy ending.

Memo 8: REDD, PES and other Economically Driven Environmental Incentives

Cristin Williams
April 5, 2011
Readings Discussed: Bapna (2010), Wunder (2006)

Summary
For this memo, I will be discussing the Bapna and Wunder readings. The Bapna reading was about an incentive mechanism called REDD. REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. Most people are aware that logging can be profitable. Trees provide wood for many different types of products, from hardwood floors to paper cups However, many people are unaware that when trees are cut down they release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. When you cut down a tree, that tree can also no longer absorb C02 from the air. REDD seeks to provide an alternative profit motive concerning forests. REDD would provide incentives for governments and nations that limited forest destruction past a pre-established level. Where would funding for REDD come from? Some suggest that we should link a program like REDD with the carbon market, allowing companies to offset their carbon footprint by paying into REDD. The article also points out that weak governments within these tropical countries are much of the reason that deforestation was continued. We should strive to support forest governance in these countries.

The Wunder article talks about a similar aspect of economically driven environmental preservation. In the article, PES's are discussed. PES stands for Payments for Environmental Services. PES's are a broad spectrum of environmental preservation techniques that can be traded and economically funded. Many people have heard of carbon credit trading by now, which is right along the lines of PES. A PES scheme involves a "seller of environmental services" and a "buyer," just like any market transaction. The drawbacks for PES come from the fact that they a very new idea. Buyers of credits will want explicit proof of how their money is being utilized. How much is 3 hours of river clean up worth? How much does it cost to plant a new forest? PES could be very successful in the future because they are economically driven, though the author doubts that they will take over in place of traditional conservation methods.
Comparing & Contrasting
Both articles are about economically driven environmental conservation. After taking Microeconomics and Macroeconomics, I feel like I have a fairly strong econ background. This type of profit-driven conservation makes the most sense to me. I've met quite a few business majors that seem to think environmentally conscious people are wasting their time. "Why should I recycle? How is that going to help me make more money?" Well if we can find a way to incentivize activities like recycling, business-minded people will have a reason to hop on board. Both of these articles seem to realize this notion. Both articles also stress the importance of correctly allocated funds. PES cannot be effective if the buyers money doesn't serve to actually help the environment. The Wunder article stressed that it isn't good enough if the money simply goes to organizations that claim to not be environmentally destructive. The money needs to fund actual conservation efforts. The Bapna article points out how if corrupt governments get a hold of REDD funding, they will use it to fund corrupt ventures (obviously). It all boils down to stable governance.


Queries/Questions
Concerning the Bapna article, I wonder what progress was made in the year 2010 concerning REDD. Did the EU decide to include REDD in its emissions trading scheme? What other progress has been made on REDD? Has the Governance of Forests Initiative been successful? How does simply diagnosing a government as corrupt serve to improve their nation? I would support some type of plan that also provided a framework for stabilizing and assisting these young governments. Essentially what confused me about the Wunder article was the scope of PES. Is PES an all-encompassing term for all types of economically motivated environmental conservation? Does carbon credit trading fall exactly under PES? Due to the fact that the concept of PES is a new one, we can't totally grasp whether or not it is or will be effective. Over time we will come to realize which PES techniques will be the most helpful and profitable. The idea of carbon trading is intriguing to me. I think the problem lies in the fact that some businesses are almost over-eager to sell away their environmental regrets. We need to be sure that the buyers money is actually going towards worthwhile conservation activities.

Blog 7, Coffee Production and Its Implications

Cristin Williams
April 3, 2011
Readings Discussed: Tucker, Sethi

Summary
This Sunday I read the Tucker and Sethi articles and skimmed the Taylor article. If I have correctly interpreted the class schedule, I believe Dr. Catherine Tucker will be be speaking with our class tomorrow, Monday April 3rd. The Tucker article was broken down into several chapters or sections, 4 of which we were required to read. They were Planting and Caring for Coffee; Harvesting, Processing and Inequality; Environmental Sustainability of Coffee Production, and Environmental Conundrums of Coffee Processing. Learning about the various processes involved with coffee production was interesting and allowed me to have a greater understanding of the social and environmental problems associated with coffee growing. I have a biology background, so I appreciate when authors like Tucker explain the science behind greater problems. Her article described the 2 different types of coffee (arabica and robusta) and what growing each type entails. I had no idea that growing coffee plants was so difficult. Granted, once you have mature plants they can provide you with beans for around 30 years, so the investment is certainly worthwhile. Taylor explains why coffee growing is so risky, due to the unpredictability of weather and the availability of labor. Also important is the distinction between largeholders and smallholders. Largeholders are larger growing operations that are 5 hectares or larger. Largeholders invest immense amounts of capital into their growing operations and generally hire a legion of low-paid laborers. Smallholders, however, are more common. They have a smaller amount of land, labor, and overall investment. Also discussed in the Tucker article was the social implications of the coffee industry on developing countries. In places like Papua New Guinea and Ethiopia, coffee production provides employment for a significant number of citizens. In other countries, new generations of coffee pickers are choosing instead to move to cities in search of better opportunities. Environmentally sustainable coffee growing is also discussed, with emphasis placed on shade vs sun growing and wet vs dry shelling.

The Sethi article, on the other hand, talks about how farmers in villages around Bandipur National Park have switched from subsistence farming to selling dung to coffee farmers. Subsistence farming was expensive and unprofitable. During non-harvest times, the villagers had to work other low paying jobs. However do to weather variations, Brazil's coffee harvest was a failure one year. This gave other coffee growing regions of the world a chance to sell their coffee for higher profits due to increased demand. These coffee farmers needed fertilizer for their crops however, and this is now the "dung trade" was started. This meant that the villagers selling dung were now raking in more profit. However, nearby forests relied on the dung for nitrogen fertilizer. Now that the dung is being exported, the forests are struggling. Nutrient cycling in the region has definitely been disrupted, and new GIS results confirm suspicions.

Compare and Contrast
An easy comparison that can be made between the two articles is that they both concern developing countries that grow coffee. Both articles also mention the environmental consequences of economic activity. People living in these developing countries are trying to do the best they can for themselves. With only a minimal level of education and low skill level, many of these people have few options. Like the family described in the Tucker article, they are essentially forced into picking coffee cherries to make a living. However the villagers in the Sethi article have found an alternative way to make a living, selling dung. The dung selling, though it may be profitable on some level, won't end up drastically advancing the families. As far as the environment is concerned, the Tucker article shows how coffee farmers have found more sustainable ways to grow coffee (shade growing). The dung collectors could find a similar technique to lessen the forest damage they are currently creating. They could maybe collect dung only from certain regions, or perhaps cycle the dung collection locations.

Reflections/Questions/Puzzles
Before reading this article, I had no idea how much was involved in coffee production. Tucker's table 11.1 shows just how many steps are involved in growing coffee. Between planting, transplanting, weeding, pruning and fertilizing, coffee growers are always busy. When I get my 4 dollar cup of coffee from Starbucks, I never take the time to realize all the time and effort that went into producing the beans. Coffee is predominantly a cash crop, as the growers can't exactly eat the coffee beans themselves. The workers spend all this time farming a crop that they will ultimately sell off to some wealthy company. It seems like a very brutal life, sleeping on wooden planks and eating tortillas for every meal. As the world becomes more globally connected, and opportunities for low-wage earners expand, who will be there to pick coffee beans? Will we remedy this problem with technology (a picking machine) or will there always be a supply of workers? Americans need their coffee just about as much as they need to use petroleum products, so it is certain that demand will be steady. Or perhaps with the expanding popularity of caffeinated beverages like 5 Hour Energy and Red Bull we will see a movement away from coffee and towards more convenient forms of "pick me up" drinks. However, my friends who are coffee drinkers swear that there is simply no replacement for a warm cup of coffee in the morning! Another question I have is this: how can I determine if the coffee I'm buying is shade grown? Is there a logo of some kind that would help me distinguish between shade grown vs open sun coffee or free trade coffee? Advertising like this would help to guide environmentally conscious consumers to sustainably grown coffee. Also I wonder what the price difference would be between shade grown and regularly grown coffee.