A Challenge to Sustainable Governments?

Sustainability, an environmentally-friendly term that previously incited political unrest, economic uncertainty, and even emotional outrage, has become quite commonplace. In federal, state, and local agencies, sustainable practices have dominated dialogues relating to indoor air quality, water availability, energy use and production; but also growth planning and development controls, public spaces and aesthetics. Governmental entities are installing low-flow water fixtures and energy-efficient appliances, redesigning rooftops and skylines, and inviting industry and neighborhoods to the negotiation table to determine the character of future communities. Sustainability has become the vocabulary of politics and is changing those past practices that have become known as resource-wasteful, inefficient, and costly relative to human and environmental needs. Despite the explosion of interest and excitement, many have wondered whether sustainability would find its own limits, or if limitations would be dredged from strategic litigation aimed precisely at identifying both the meaning of sustainability and the nexus between traditional police power authority and a growing awareness of long-term public welfare needs in the natural environment. The point of sustainable practices is not to disrupt existing markets, not to interfere with property rights, and not to place non-human interests above economic ones. Instead, sustainability integrates a comprehensive, whole systems analysis of every product, an integration made necessary essentially because we failed to do so in the past. The idea of sustainable industry is persuasive because it is flexible and responsive to new technologies and circumstances. Sustainable practices are likewise persuasive because they are economically, environmentally, and socially superior to the alternatives in the long term. What will make sustainability pervasive, however, is that, in its inclusiveness, sustainable choices are valuable choices

The Gap Between Informational Goals and the Duty to Gather Information: Challenging Piecemealed Review under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act

In 1971, Washington enacted the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which requires agencies to make a threshold determination of whether a project is likely to significantly affect the environment and, where such impacts are likely, to produce an environmental impact statement (EIS). One problem faced in implementing the goals of SEPA is the practice of piecemealing. Part I of this Article introduces the piecemeal problem by describing three common piecemeal situations. The first situation occurs when a project proposal is divided into such small parts that the environmental impacts from each individual part appear insignificant and the impact from the sum of the parts is ignored. The second situation arises when a project proposal is properly divided into phases of construction, but earlier phases avoid the speculative study of environmental impacts accumulating with later phases, and later phases are drawn narrowly to avoid study of the cumulative impacts from earlier phases. The final piecemeal situation arises when environmental review of land use legislation is deferred based on promises of site-specific review for projects subject to the proposed scheme, but project proponents subsequently disclaim responsibility for assessing the cumulative environmental impacts from that legislation. Part II will then demonstrate the legislative and regulatory intent that environmental impacts be examined in a thorough and comprehensive manner and confirm this requirement of comprehensive review with a brief examination of case law that establishes a prohibition against piecemealed review. After Parts I and II establish that the piecemeal problem should not exist, Part III will proceed to discuss the source of the continuing piecemeal problem, specifically addressing the continuing confusion in the application of two independent regulatory standards purporting to restrict piecemealed review—cumulative impact analysis and project connectivity. Part IV examines in detail the judicial confusion over the interpretation of these standards under both SEPA and its federal counterpart, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Having established that the interpretive confusion is unwarranted, Part V then considers whether practical concerns may justify the piecemeal loophole and concludes that such concerns are inimical to the purposes underlying SEPA. Finally, Part VI of this essay examines supplementary environmental studies as a potential, but questionable, solution to the piecemealing problem

Development and results from a survey on students views of experiments in lab classes and research

The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Experimental Physics (E-CLASS) was developed as a broadly applicable assessment tool for undergraduate physics lab courses. At the beginning and end of the semester, the E-CLASS assesses students views about their strategies, habits of mind, and attitudes when doing experiments in lab classes. Students also reflect on how those same strategies, habits-of-mind, and attitudes are practiced by professional researchers. Finally, at the end of the semester, students reflect on how their own course valued those practices in terms of earning a good grade. In response to frequent calls to transform laboratory curricula to more closely align it with the skills and abilities needed for professional research, the E-CLASS is a tool to assess students' perceptions of the gap between classroom laboratory instruction and professional research. The E-CLASS has been validated and administered in all levels of undergraduate physics classes. To aid in its use as a formative assessment tool, E-CLASS provides all participating instructors with a detailed feedback report. Example figures and analysis from the report are presented to demonstrate the capabilities of the E-CLASS. The E-CLASS is actively administered through an online interface and all interested instructors are invited to administer the E-CLASS their own classes and will be provided with a summary of results at the end of the semester

An epistemology and expectations survey about experimental physics: Development and initial results

In response to national calls to better align physics laboratory courses with the way physicists engage in research, we have developed an epistemology and expectations survey to assess how students perceive the nature of physics experiments in the contexts of laboratory courses and the professional research laboratory. The Colorado Learning Attitudes about Science Survey for Experimental Physics (E-CLASS) evaluates students' epistemology at the beginning and end of a semester. Students respond to paired questions about how they personally perceive doing experiments in laboratory courses and how they perceive an experimental physicist might respond regarding their research. Also, at the end of the semester, the E-CLASS assesses a third dimension of laboratory instruction, students' reflections on their course's expectations for earning a good grade. By basing survey statements on widely embraced learning goals and common critiques of teaching labs, the E-CLASS serves as an assessment tool for lab courses across the undergraduate curriculum and as a tool for physics education research. We present the development, evidence of validation, and initial formative assessment results from a sample that includes 45 classes at 20 institutions. We also discuss feedback from instructors and reflect on the challenges of large-scale online administration and distribution of results.Comment: 31 pages, 9 figures, 3 tables, submitted to Phys. Rev. - PE

The Gap Between Informational Goals and the Duty to Gather Information: Challenging Piecemealed Review under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act

In 1971, Washington enacted the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), which requires agencies to make a threshold determination of whether a project is likely to significantly affect the environment and, where such impacts are likely, to produce an environmental impact statement (EIS). One problem faced in implementing the goals of SEPA is the practice of piecemealing. Part I of this Article introduces the piecemeal problem by describing three common piecemeal situations. The first situation occurs when a project proposal is divided into such small parts that the environmental impacts from each individual part appear insignificant and the impact from the sum of the parts is ignored. The second situation arises when a project proposal is properly divided into phases of construction, but earlier phases avoid the speculative study of environmental impacts accumulating with later phases, and later phases are drawn narrowly to avoid study of the cumulative impacts from earlier phases. The final piecemeal situation arises when environmental review of land use legislation is deferred based on promises of site-specific review for projects subject to the proposed scheme, but project proponents subsequently disclaim responsibility for assessing the cumulative environmental impacts from that legislation. Part II will then demonstrate the legislative and regulatory intent that environmental impacts be examined in a thorough and comprehensive manner and confirm this requirement of comprehensive review with a brief examination of case law that establishes a prohibition against piecemealed review. After Parts I and II establish that the piecemeal problem should not exist, Part III will proceed to discuss the source of the continuing piecemeal problem, specifically addressing the continuing confusion in the application of two independent regulatory standards purporting to restrict piecemealed review—cumulative impact analysis and project connectivity. Part IV examines in detail the judicial confusion over the interpretation of these standards under both SEPA and its federal counterpart, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Having established that the interpretive confusion is unwarranted, Part V then considers whether practical concerns may justify the piecemeal loophole and concludes that such concerns are inimical to the purposes underlying SEPA. Finally, Part VI of this essay examines supplementary environmental studies as a potential, but questionable, solution to the piecemealing problem

Race, Space, and Place: Interrogating Whiteness Through a Critical Approach to Place

Drawing from George Lipsitz’s notion that whiteness is “not so much a color as a condition,” this Article embarks on the project of framing the manner and methods through which whiteness continues to dominate space and place. Wherever whiteness dominates space, space carries rules and expectations about the identity and characteristics of people who are present—visitors and jaunters, owners and occupiers—and the types of activities and cultural practices that might occur there. Occasionally, spaces are racialized because of intentional practices of discrimination and segregation. In others, less intentional methods produce racialized space. In both, American spaces tell their own histories of exclusion and violence and hate. This Article proposes understanding how the white space is maintained by looking to the intersection of race, space, and place. Race, a social construct often designed to create and maintain subordination, is an essential lens for understanding the ways that history and power disparities shape the values we attach to land and that come to define our communities. Space in this Article refers to geographical and temporal location, where racially defining moments may occur. Place, often appearing as a community’s sense of place, illustrates the ways that individuals attach to spaces and communities, as well as how spaces and community attach to individuals. This examination reveals that racism produces, and is produced by, the spaces that we inhabit, visit, or even hear about. This examination also reveals that such racialized spaces can become racialized places. Yet, just as place can serve as the consecration of bias, it can also assist in identifying and naming racial subordination. To understand how the framework of race, space, and place operates, this Article examines the idea of the community’s comprehensive land use plan, the publication of which signifies the moment when a grounded group of people raise their flags and announce to the world, “this is who we are.” The comprehensive plan is the grasp of the past, the path to the future, and the self-assessment of the character of a particular community. It is the statement that sets a community apart from others, and it entails the reasons that residents adore (or suffer) their communities. Although there is a lot of anti-racist work to do in the land use context, the comprehensive plan serves as a good launching point because it is intended as a tool of local strength and cohesion. The comprehensive plan is, in the land use context, the essential community-building moment of local governance. Part I of this Article introduces the purposes and challenges of the comprehensive plan, followed by an analysis of the racial biases evident in the planning undertaken in the seemingly picturesque Amherst, Massachusetts. Part II examines the framework of race, space, and place, identifying and illustrating the types of coded language and systemic practices that surface in a racial justice audit of local planning documents. Part III then introduces a variety of devices that will make racialized histories more visible and transform the white domination of space into something more just and inclusive. This abstract has been adapted from the author\u27s introduction

Pfizer Animal Health Gift

Wetlands perform certain functions, including water filtration and the provision of wildlife habitats, from which humans benefit in the form of drinkable water and biodiversity. Trees produce oxygen, capture air and water pollutants, and provide shade, which help humans breathe, manage storm waters, and find a comfortable place to relax on a hot day. These are services that are provided by functioning ecosystems and are measured through the ecological economics of ecosystem services. The study of ecosystem services has provided an important insight: for the most part, those very services are ignored or undervalued. Although humans derive enormous benefits from ecosystem services, these services are neither bought or sold in the marketplace, and, therefore, have no market value. This Article applies the idea of ecosystem services to the management of watersheds and, in particular, the manner in which decisions in floodplains often undermine ecosystem functionality in floodplains. For instance, road and home construction along water courses and riverbed dredging can disrupt (or trade-off) the ecosystem’s ability to provide flood control and habitat services. The dangers in making such trade-off decisions are illustrated by the flood damage suffered during Tropical Storm Irene and contextualized within the framework of ecosystems services