Cory Whitely, a Master's of Sustainable Environmental Management student in my lab was selected to receive the Farley Mowat Award.
I tried something a bit experimental in a keynote I gave recently at a 'Sustainability Slam' held by the University of Saskatchewan's Graduate Student Association: I tried to boil my message down into five words. The video is below. I think I'm on to something.
In many small-scale communities, people’s health and well-being are intimately connected to their local environments. Indeed, it seems self-evident that healthy ecosystems are essential to people’s well-being. Yet, the relationship often works the other way: many contemporary ecological problems are the direct result of people meeting their needs. This has come to be called the environmentalist's paradox: that solving environmental problems will require some, perhaps significant, costs to society.
We talk about this paradox, and propose an alternative way of thinking in our new publication in Facets.
Periodically, I see headlines or tweets referring to a scientific consensus on the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs). Famously, Bill Nye reversed his initial negative assessment of GMOs, for which he had received much criticism; most recently, the consensus has been invoked again in reference to the new GMO labeling bill that recently passed into law in the United States.
I've been repeatedly frustrated by this assertion of consensus, as a scientist who studies food and food systems, I have several concerns regarding the social and ecological risks of GMO foods, concerns that are founded in scientific research and that I know I share with numerous colleagues. Further, I also do not see any scientific consensus that these risks are worth taking: that GMO foods solve problems that non-GMO foods, alternative farming practices, and political reforms cannot solve as well.
I have a new paper in press on fisheries and social justice, one that reflects on a commercial net ban in Florida and one that was proposed for Alaska. I wrote this paper, along with a second and more detailed social-ecological analysis of the Alaska case, in late 2014 / early 2015 with the goal of contributing my expertise to the policy debate over the proposed ban.
However, the issue was decided by the courts long before either paper was published.
How does cultural coexistence theory complement existing theoretical frameworks in the world of sustainability science, specifically Elinor Ostrom's Social Ecological Systems (SES) Framework? A true science of sustainability must be able to explain periods of stability in complex human-natural systems; what CCT aims to do is just that: explain how competing groups of people in a shared resource setting come to coexist stably over time, as opposed to a scenario where one or more groups is pushed out because of some disadvantage.
My team and I at Sustainable Futures North have a new publication on energy security in the rural North. It offers an interesting discussion, I think, on how we think about the challenges that 'progress' have locked us into over time, and what potential there is for replacing vulnerabilities with strategies for resilience and sustainability.
My new paper in the journal Human Ecology explores the issue of conflict over resources, focusing specifically on conflicts over salmon in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska, and asks the question: what does it take for people with diverse interests in shared ecosystems to co-exist?
There is no doubt that climate change is real and that it is exceeding our expectations; regardless of what the many nations of the world choose to do following COP21, in the near term, legitimate and often dangerous consequences of climate change will continue to materialize for people around the world. Some of these consequences are dramatic and unpredictable, such as major storms and short and long term droughts, and the certain human costs of these hazards demands that we find ways to be more resilient--to endure and bounce back (or, better, perhaps, bounce forward).