Climate Change
In terms of global climate change, it can be defined as a change over an extended period of time in the whole Earth’s climate, also known as average weather, which includes changes in temperature (e.g. global warming), precipitation, wind patterns, natural disasters, etc. Often, climate change and global warming, which is defined as the average increase of the Earth’s temperature, is used interchangeably; however, climate change is more than just a warming trend of the Earth’s surface. Climate is a complex, interconnected system that includes the atmosphere, water (liquid, snow and ice), land (rock, soil, and sediment), and the entire biosphere (plants, animal and human life). The resources included will cover the two main responses to climate change, mitigation and adaptation, as well as topics related to the socio-economic consequences and impact on human health.
Bernardi, M. (2008). Global climate change – a feasibility perspective of its effect on human health at a local scale. Geospatial Health, 2(2), 137-150.
I found this resource to provide a useful introduction—with handy charts, diagrams and pictures for the visual learners—to various concepts and terms associated with climate change, such as climate change, climate variability, and global warming. Bernardi also compares the two main approaches in response to climate change, mitigation and adaptation, in terms of the impact on human health. It is recommended that this article be used in addition with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) website, as Bernardi draws his main conclusions from the 2001 and 2007 IPCC assessment reports. A section of the IPCC reports (2001; 2007) offers research and literature discussing mitigation as an approach, but for countries with developing economies, reduction of green-house gas emissions is not a top concern. Bernardi expands upon this point in the article to emphasize how adaptation is highly location specific and requires a lot of ground data from local health monitoring systems, which is unfeasible due to the high cost currently associated with such technology. Moreover, Bernardi expresses concern over the gradually dwindling number of meteorological observation stations that are already limited in numbers in low-income countries. Therefore, this article’s main objective is to expand upon the gaps in climate change research related to human health impact on low-income, developing countries and small island states where information necessary for an adaptation response, is lacking. However, while clearly identifying the gaps in research literature and expressing the need for changes to make the adaptation approach more effective, Bernardi unfortunately does not propose much in how to achieve possible alternate solutions at a lower cost.
David Suzuki Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved June 14, 2010, from
Recognized as a leader in sustainable ecology, David Suzuki co-funded the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) and its website is included as a resource to offer another Canadian perspective on climate change action. The website focuses on four main issues, climate change, human health, oceans, and wildlife/habitat and under each section there are useful links subdividing each issue category into details on the foundation’s projects, how to take action, and some background information on the science and Canadian policies. One con regarding the website’s section on climate change is the introductory focus on global warming, which has been noted earlier in this bibliography as only one component influencing climate change. In addition, similar to Bernardi (2008) which is the first resource listed, DSF also draws its scientific bases for action from the assessment reports published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, the DSF website also acknowledges a contrasting opinion, namely the skeptics of climate change, and presents a list of resources with supplementary information. This resource also reflects the participatory and proactive nature of the foundation from sharing news and articles to giving suggestions for what to do. I also noticed that one of DSF’s latest projects to celebrate the foundation’s 20th anniversary is asking the community to create music to be shared with the public, which is a good example of environmental arts.
Davidson, E. A. (2001). You can’t eat GNP: Economics as if ecology mattered. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Borrowed from Catherine Etmanski, this book by Davidson (2001) offers a critical analysis on how to create sustainability by re-thinking the relationship between economics and the environment, basing the premise of his argument on the inextricable link between human activity and the condition of our natural world: “the economic system will fail if the ecological system is not carefully managed...[and] a failed economic system creates desperate people who will destroy the ecological system” (p. 8). Mainly, I found this book to be an interesting complement by specifically connecting our course readings and topics to economic theories. For example, Davidson references Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons (p. 131) in his discussion of water security and suggests that possible future solutions will need economic as well as regulatory incentives for both users and polluters alike. Overall, Davidson delivers a thought-provoking critique that can be understood by both non-scientists and non-economists. Although, it is important to note that the arguments presented cover more breadth of topics rather than depth. Therefore, Davidson’s twenty pages of notes in the back of the book can be a valuable resource with additional explanations, references, suggested readings for more in-depth information on certain topics that may be of interest, and even opposing viewpoints. Davidson encourages a bottom-up approach to sustainability that cultivates informed decision-making, from his suggestion of lending this book (p. 202) to critically analyzing our own habits. Overall, this resource serves as an engaging introduction to “ecological economics” (p.14), which is based upon the idea that a healthy environment and ecological management practices can yield economic incentives and prosperous economies.
Furgal, C., & Seguin, J. (2006). Climate change, health, and vulnerability in Canadian northern Aboriginal communities [Mini-Monograph]. Environmental Health Perspectives,114(12), 1964-1970.
This resource is included to specifically present the health impacts of climate change on Canada’s northern Aboriginal peoples, many of whom still commonly practice parts of the traditional land-based lifestyle and witness first-hand the effects of climate change on the environment. The climate-related impacts on Aboriginal health range from decreased access to main country food sources, like caribou and geese, to hunting and fishing safety concerns due to reported increases in uncharacteristic weather patterns (p. 1966). Furgal & Seguin reviewed two projects and found that Aboriginal communities’ understanding and ability to respond to climatic changes were enhanced through participatory, community-based and dialogue-focused approaches. Chapin (2005) provides insight into the dichotomy of enhancing this baseline knowledge of Aboriginal communities by recognizing how generational sharing of local or traditional knowledge faces the challenge of the westernized lifestyle which involves more time spent on indoor wage-based economic activities (as cited in Furgal & Seguin, 2006). Similar to the Bernardi (2008) article found earlier in this bibliography, Furgal and Seguin clearly identify gaps in the current literature, such as the lack of information assessing the health vulnerability of Aboriginal communities. However, unlike the Bernardi article, this resource is able to offer useful discussion evaluating the advantages and challenges of locally appropriate adaptive strategies that are more proactive rather than reactive. In conclusions, Frugal and Seguin suggest that their assessment of a community-based, dialogue-focused approach may prove useful in regions other than Canada’s northern Aboriginal communities. However, Furgal and Seguin do preface their recommendation of such an approach by noting that research actually evaluating the effectiveness of current strategies is very limited.
Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2006). An Inconvenient Truth [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Classics.
Despite the film’s inherent bias, I found that this resource listed in our course syllabus might be useful in encouraging a sense of social consciousness about climate change, specifically in regards to the role and responsibility of human activity in impacting global warming trends. Granted there are many critics and rebuttals of Al Gore’s presentation in this documentary as it is influenced by Gore’s personal anecdotes and reflections. However, as Davidson (2001) remarks in his book, which is included earlier in this bibliography, we need to be careful not to get caught up in the statistics. Otherwise, it may cause us to miss the motivations for why we strive to raise awareness and discussion—that is, to initiate action and social change. Al Gore quotes Sir Winston Churchill by saying “we are entering a period of consequences,” and takes his argument beyond politics to contend that the issue of sustainability to be an issue of morality and ethics as well. This resource and the other by Ross (2009) that is also included in this bibliography could be used to provide additional insight into our initial in-class discussions of ethics. To offer a more unbiased view of the scientific claims made in the film by Al Gore, there is a National Geographic news article[1] that can be used to provide additional understanding and a contrasting perspective. Overall, I found this resource to deliver a critical analysis of our collective behaviour and consequences of consumption, persuasively instigating reflection that the way we exploit the Earth has immeasurable and uncertain consequences for generations in the future.
Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142(1), 14-32.
This resource would nicely complement the other annotated bibliographies on conservation and biodiversity as it demonstrates the intersectionality needed in future policies to address climate change. Heller and Zavaleta review literature regarding climate change recommendations for biodiversity protection, focusing specifically on adaptation strategies in response to climate change in contrast to the mitigation strategies discussed by the guest speakers, Rod and Lorenzo, on our first day of class. To succinctly summarize Heller and Zavaleta’s review, there is a table organizing all 524 recommendations cited from all 113 sources examined. The two most frequent recommendations found were to improve landscape connectivity through methods of land conservation so that species can move and to adapt and integration of climate change into existing conservation management plans with mitigation of other threats, like invasive species and pollution, being third. Of the article’s findings, I found it interesting and noteworthy that even though landscape connectivity is widely acknowledged, Heller and Zavaleta also found it is also “the most poorly developed recommendation, limited mainly to very general actions” (p. 25). I feel this resource has identified important gaps by its review of past literature, and in particular, the need for a more holistic landscape approach to conservation that integrates ecology with other social sciences, which is particularly relevant to our course discussion of intersectionality in ecological leadership. Moreover, in terms of developing effective praxis, the criticism raised by the authors concerning the lack of specific actions executing recommended strategies[2] is also valuable as a future reference.
IPCC: Intergovernmental panel on climate change. (n.d.). Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm/
I included the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) website because some of its assessment reports and publications have been cited in other resources, such as by Bernardi (2008) included in this annotated bibliography. Established in 1988 through the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the IPCC can be seen as a collective scientific endeavour to provide knowledge and guidelines regarding climate change. In other words, IPCC does not conduct independent research like the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), which is another resource included in this bibliography and in the course syllabus, but rather it reviews published peer-reviewed scientific literature compiled from hundreds of scientists and experts from around the world. IPCC is mainly recognized for its extensive assessment, methodology, and special reports (all available online in PDF format) on the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to climate change, as well as its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. It is important to note that all drafts of reports and summaries are also reviewed once by IPCC member governments, currently consisting of 194 countries. Therefore, even though each government is at its own discretion of how to review report drafts, the direct involvement of many governments suggest that IPCC assessment reports have the potential to be extremely influential in international action and policy-making regarding global climate change. To address possible bias, limitations and gaps in IPCC assessment reports, the InterAcademy Council has very recently (May 2010) been requested to conduct an independent review of the processes and procedures of IPCC. Currently, the most recent published assessment report is IPCC’s fourth assessment on climate change released in 2007, which is also the year IPCC received the Nobel Peace Prize alongside Al Gore, while the fifth assessment report is scheduled for completion for sometime between 2013 and 2014.
Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS). (n.d.). Retrieved June 14, 2010, from
The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS) is a collaborative effort, hosted and led by the University of Victoria and working in partnership with the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, and the University of Northern British Columbia. In contrast to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also annotated in this bibliography, PICS assesses literature yet also conducts research on both adaptation and mitigation that is “BC-relevant but not necessarily BC-centric.” Moreover, PICS also organizes community outreach and educational initiatives in order to communicate research findings. In this respect, the PICS approach is similar to the community-based, dialogue-focused projects reviewed by Furgal and Seguin (2006) in this bibliography. For instance, FuturGrid Forum is the current PICS project and reflects a collaborative effort to bridge knowledge, communication and action through World Café style dialogue (http://www.theworldcafe.com), which is a rotating roundtable discussion forum to facilitate an organic conversational process. I found this particularly interesting because I have previously designed workshops using the World Café format and felt that it could be a useful tool for fellow educators in this course. In addition, many of the PICS reports and discussion papers available online through the website can serve as additional valuable resources in revealing current local action and direction towards sustainable development.
Ross, A. (2009). Modern interpretations of sustainable development. Journal of Law & Society, 36(1), 32-54.
This resource adds another point of view to expand upon the relationship between economics and sustainable development that also provides a nice complement to Davidson’s book included in this bibliography. Rather than the traditional definition of economics where profit is ultimately the desired end product, Ross argues that future sustainable development needs to be redefined as a process that places emphasis on determining our ecological limits first before considering how to take any action in response. Granted, this is has proved problematic and limited due to generalized direction of objectives that neglects to prioritize concrete action—a gap which Ross acknowledges. However, despite identifying the need for more leadership and suggesting ways to reframe how sustainable development can be achieved, some of Ross’ conclusions may be over-simplistic. For example, suggestions simply calling upon less use of energy or using economic penalties to decrease consumption may be too focused on treating the symptoms rather than the underlying cause. Ecological sustainability is more than just balancing conflicts of interest; it is also about having long-term foresight. In addition, I found Ross’ suggestion of using the legal system to shape policies and enact social change especially interesting by linking Rees’ concept of the ‘ecological footprint’ to Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons: “ecosystems don’t obey the rules of private property” (p. 38). Overall, Ross’ legal background and knowledge brings an interesting perspective that expands upon our class discourse on the role of ethics in developing sustainable ecological approaches, which in the article is predominantly in response to climate change.
Zerriffi, H., & Wilson, E. (2010). Leapfrogging over development? Promoting rural renewable for climate change mitigation. Energy Policy, 38, 1689-1700.
To provide a comparison to the adaptation approach in response to climate change, I’ve included this resource that analyzes how renewable energy sources might be able to mitigate climate change while also meeting the energy needs in rural areas. Zerriffi and Wilson discuss how to use this opportunity to provide cost-effective green energy for countries with developing economies, and thus avoid the fossil-fuel path of current industrialized countries, could be encouraged in various rural regions. To do so, this resource evaluated the policy designs of renewable energy projects implemented by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in order to examine whether or not developmental costs of projects could effectively while also inexpensively achieve its environmental goals. In other words, can the future of sustainable development create “cheap mitigation” (p.1684), which is the desired outcome for GEF projects. Unfortunately the data analysis from the research conducted was unable to provide any conclusive finding. However, Zerriffi and Wilson were able to suggest that when money was being divided between the interests of project developmental goals and global environmental goals, the majority of the GEF projects diverted money to meet the environmental goals. I found this resource to be a noteworthy follow-up to one of the included resources that advocates re-thinking the concept of ecological sustainability by prioritizing the needs of the environment (Ross, 2009).
[1] This article can be found on the National Geographic website here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming.html
[2] The uncertainty of climate change in the future is also important in considering recommendation strategies; therefore, while it is not included in this bibliography, the Metafuture website (http://www.metafuture.org/) from our course syllabus can provide interesting insight on the relationship between our state of mind and future action
No comments:
Post a Comment