Introductory Essay: Catastrophe Thinking, Fast and Slow

We know far more about certain catastrophic risks than we have been willing to do anything serious about. This was not always the case, of course. There was a time when we could have plausibly said we had no real knowledge of a problem and therefore no possible obligation to do anything different. For climate change, the nuances of the date can be endlessly debated; the possible window puts Americans knowing somewhere between 1896, with transatlantic arrival of scientific findings from Sweden, and no later than James Hansen’s testimony before Congress in 1988. For the threats posed by a Cascadia fault megaquake, the range of possibility is smaller, with clear establishment somewhere in the early 1990s. In either case, however, no fewer than two decades have passed since a core idea was established and no powerful contrary evidence has countered it. We have moved from ignorance, to knowledge of an existential threat, to inaction at any meaningful or suitable scale. Tempting as it is to look backward and condemn inaction, the more necessary concern at present must be how to look forward and think urgently about rapid action. The complex world we have made on top of the prior world was built, we now see, on ignorant assumptions. We did not know then what we know now. Our concerns were not the concerns of the builders of the superhighways, or the coastal ports, or the downtowns, or the energy grids, or the communication networks; they could not have built or planned with knowledge we have but they did not. At all points in time, policy thinking and project planning are informed by the knowledge of that moment

Introductory Essay: Catastrophe Thinking, Fast and Slow

We know far more about certain catastrophic risks than we have been willing to do anything serious about. This was not always the case, of course. There was a time when we could have plausibly said we had no real knowledge of a problem and therefore no possible obligation to do anything different. For climate change, the nuances of the date can be endlessly debated; the possible window puts Americans knowing somewhere between 1896, with transatlantic arrival of scientific findings from Sweden, and no later than James Hansen’s testimony before Congress in 1988. For the threats posed by a Cascadia fault megaquake, the range of possibility is smaller, with clear establishment somewhere in the early 1990s. In either case, however, no fewer than two decades have passed since a core idea was established and no powerful contrary evidence has countered it. We have moved from ignorance, to knowledge of an existential threat, to inaction at any meaningful or suitable scale. Tempting as it is to look backward and condemn inaction, the more necessary concern at present must be how to look forward and think urgently about rapid action. The complex world we have made on top of the prior world was built, we now see, on ignorant assumptions. We did not know then what we know now. Our concerns were not the concerns of the builders of the superhighways, or the coastal ports, or the downtowns, or the energy grids, or the communication networks; they could not have built or planned with knowledge we have but they did not. At all points in time, policy thinking and project planning are informed by the knowledge of that moment

A House Divided: The Minnesota Experimental City and Competing Narratives of Conservation

Minnesota’s Twin Cities have long been powerful engines of change. From their origins in the early nineteenth century, the Twin Cities helped drive the dispossession of the region’s Native American peoples, turned their riverfronts into bustling industrial and commercial centers, spread streets and homes outward to the horizon, and reached well beyond their urban confines, setting in motion the environmental transformation of distant hinterlands. As these processes unfolded, residents inscribed their culture into the landscape, complete with all its tensions, disagreements, contradictions, prejudices, and social inequalities. These stories lie at the heart of Nature’s Crossroads. The book features an interdisciplinary team of distinguished scholars who aim to open new conversations about the environmental history of the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota.https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-chapters/1039/thumbnail.jp

Wildlife Law: A Primer, Second Edition

Wildlife is an important and cherished element of our natural heritage in the United States. But state and federal laws governing the ways we interact with wildlife can be complex to interpret and apply. Ten years ago, Wildlife Law: A Primer was the first book to lucidly explain wildlife law for readers with little or no legal training who needed to understand its intricacies. Today, navigating this legal terrain is trickier than ever as habitat for wildlife shrinks, technology gives us new ways to seek out wildlife, and unwanted human-wildlife interactions occur more frequently, sometimes with alarming and tragic outcomes.This revised and expanded second edition retains key sections from the first edition, describing basic legal concepts while offering important updates that address recent legal topics. New chapters cover timely issues such as private wildlife reserves and game ranches, and the increased prominence of nuisance species as well as an expanded discussion of the Endangered Species Act, now more than 40 years old. Chapter sidebars showcase pertinent legal cases illustrating real-world application of the legal concepts covered in the main text.Accessibly written, this is an essential, groundbreaking reference for professors and students in natural resource and wildlife programs, land owners, and wildlife professionals.https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-books/1072/thumbnail.jp