at the risk of being repetitive

Here are my two favorite quotes of the semester. I am taking two quotes from Meadows because I think her piece was in part the one I was waiting for since the midterm...the clencher, if you will. Also, there are TONS of great quotes from Cradle to Cradle, but McDonough can quote them himself. So, here are my favorites from Donella.

"The most stunning think living systems and social systems can do is to change themselves utterly by creating whole new structures and behaviors."

On paradigms...."It is in this space of mastery over paradigms that people throw off addictions, live in constant joy, bring down empires, found religions, get locked up or "disappeared" or shot, and have impacts that last for millennia."

Favorite Quotes

"Like cancer cells, we destroy normal systems. Like cancer, we are very good at growth...at the moment of cancer's greatest achievement, its host organism is near death, but so is the cancer."
- from Island Civilization by Roderick Frazier Nash

"Procrastination is still the thief of time...and time is deaf to every plea and rushes on."
- from The Bridge at the Edge of the World by James Gustave Speth

Lines that Stood Out

The two quotes that stuck out to me from our readings were

Hot Flat and Crowded, pg 177.
Nicolas Sarkozy, " When America us not taking the lead on such an important global issue as climate change, I am asking, "Where is the American Dream? What has happened? Where has it gone?"...You cannot be the first champion of human rights and the last when it comes to obligations and responsibilities on environment"

* Vandana Shiva, “Globalization and the War Against Farmers and the Land,” in Norman Wirzba (ed.) The Essential Agrarian Reader (University Press of Kentucky, 2003) pp. 121-139.

"famines occur because they are not prevented: they are allowed to happen."

I realized over Thanksgiving break that my family is where I get my concern for environmental issues. And, thus, we are in agreement in pretty much every area. I decided to talk to my father anyway. I told him about what we had read and talked about during the class and my take on everything. He seemed fascinated by the same reading that really caught my attention: Cradle to Cradle.

I explained the main ideas in the book, particularly rethinking the way we look at waste. I talked about how the book had distinctly optimistic feel about it. We had a good discussion about whether or not the optimism was justified and what repercussions it might have on the environmental movement.

Look Outside In Not Inside Out

The Future. The Future sounds pretty far off from now, the present. But in all reality, the Future is here, now, in the present. We all from time to time, think the future is far away and forget to calculate the actual distance in reality. However, when we look at this problem from the outside in, then we see that the future is now, not later. The Environmental Movement, which consist of different movements with different ideas to go fight for the whole movement, tends to present the future to us in a glaring light of what is going to happen in the future. But what I think what needs to be done is show, the future as now. Show the communities, what is happening now to our planet. And that is the problem. The Environmental Movement is pushing us to move in the right direction, but to many of the skeptics, they are being pushed in the wrong direction.
If I want the global community from everyone to the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich, to the die hard skeptics to the all mighty believers that we are destroying the earth, then I would present it to them in the way they can easily comprehend it. We need to find the leverage point, in each situation in which people will be able to grasp it from their level and as a result, have it move it up to the next level to the very top.

Look at it from an economical standpoint. The market will not move to make solar panels, wind energy, and anything environmentally friendly unless there is the cost effective incentive to do so. Okay, so the question is, How do you make the market "agree" to be moved along with the environmental movement and make resources cost effective" You need the start up technology, investors, a plan, and producers and consumers. Produce the product, market it correctly, have a group venture to invest in it and show it off, give detail and upfront cost effectiveness in the long run and short run. Next, the supply will outweigh the demand, which means the prices will be expensive, but as the demand increases with subsidies and other trade measures, the price will decrease. Once the price hits the level where the majority that many can afford to buy it and then the cost is compared to fossil fuels, the market will show consumers, what is the most cost effective and advantageous to other resources.
In order for their to be a leverage, there has to be something that will make it change. In order for the masses to see what is happening now, it has to be presented in the now factor moving towards the future factor.
Thats all.

turning reactions into actions

Framing, re-framing, beginning and re-beginning has been a pattern of mine over the years as I try to discuss environmental issues with loved ones. With strangers there is an ease of introducing ideas and topics, then depending on the dialogue, situating the topic in the form of a constructive debate or just a more laid-back discussion. With family and friends this "directing" is far more difficult. So, I find myself constantly re-approaching how I approach these topics with people. Guilt and anger are not emotions I am all that effective with. I am far more prone to feel guilt about others feeling guilty and anger is not really something I excel at. Working with what I've got, I can do logic and information in the forms of science, academic work and suggested sources of information. With people like my mom, a doctor, who respond to science this is the more effective. Often, these are the people who distrust the politics of it all. Also, I do storytelling. This works the best for me because I can convey how people are actually dealing with issues surrounding the environment in the world and it engages in a dialogue that is further away from re-hashed political chants. While I prefer talking to people about issues in this way, I have yet to see this incite a large transition from someone in the form of proactive measures. However....I have, over time, having these discussions again and again, paired with tools to enable people to make small changes, gotten family and friends to make small changes that they had previously scoffed at. While these measure are SO small and fragmented, like re-usable water bottles, bags, buying local/organic foods, new light bulbs, recycling, and buying stuff they need used, it has given me the impression that while they are not people who will become environmental activists, whenever they say something will never work, I can point out to them how many small changes they have made in just a year or two. Often, they haven't even realized the change, the adaption and how it doesn't bug them like they thought it would. I am still really unsure about how to talk to some of my friends about issues, especially around the idea of working towards implementation, like writing letters, reconsidering norms or getting together to work on a project. This is the next step for me, from constructive dialogue that makes people reconsider to making constructive concrete action happen.

Fighting Instinct

Seeing as both of my parents having opposing political views to mine, I was worried that I would encounter a resistance when I brought up the environmental issue. Surprisingly, they seemed to understand my side and where I was coming from. I will mention what I said - indeed, who I borrowed from - but I want to quickly comment on the way I said it.

While it may not inherently make sense why I am mentioning my tone before mentioning what I said, after my debating experience, it is clear to me that tone, inflection, cadence, etc. is paramount. Talking about climate change can be a very touchy issue; yet, by being calm and polite while talking about this issue, I was able to engage in a civilized and thoughtful debate. By keeping the tone calm, I was able to avoid the tension and harshness that is the constant accompaniment to this issue. It is as if being "normal" depoliticizes issues.

While there is a sense of urgency for change in these matters, not putting that urgency in my speech seems to civilize people. I think, then, that urgency is the nemesis of reason. If people are forced to make sudden moves, those moves are instinctive, unplanned, and the first reaction is to revert back to the only things you know - in this case, your politics. If I attack someone with a different opinion than mine, their instinct is to fight back with the only knowledge they know. Clearly, one will not try to form an argument when under siege. Thus, I just made the conversation person-to-person, not advocate-to-advocate. Without urgency in my speech, the reasonable side to my parents was evident. They understood what I was saying - they heard my evidence - and then processed it. Whether they believed me or not, I cannot say. What I can say, however, is that my side of the argument was listened to without any apparent resistance. This seems the better option than constant bickering. Even if there is bickering going on in our thought processes during this talk, not to have it advertised - indeed, out in the open in public debate - can only strengthen the cause of the pro-environmental movement.

The thing that seemed to resonate most sense with my parents was Leopold's "land ethic". My parents agreed with me that humans do not see themselves as part of the environment, but rather its master. This paradigm, my father said, "needs to be changed." He went on to say, "If we don't know how to control what we think we're in control of, then it's clearly going to bite us in the a**." He later went on to say that this situation is like Terminator - close enough.

When I brought up Maniates' "Individualization", though, my parents started having some trouble. "I don't get it: How do we stop climate change from happening if we're not allowed to do anything on our own?" I explained - calmly, of course - that taking steps to reduce your impact is a good thing, but it cannot be the only thing. There must be collaborative action at some point. It is possible that that collective action is a bunch of individuals doing things that add up to collective efforts. Regardless, I personally cannot save the world. In fact, my household's efforts cannot save the world. But, if the households in my town started changing, and then the people in my state started becoming eco-efficient, and then the people of my country and so forth, then big changes can be made. I alone, though, am not the CO2 Crusader (although a superhero costume would be sweet). Together, and to continue superhero references, we could be climate change's kryptonite.

I finally mentioned "Cradle to Cradle." This business-oriented approach appealed to my right-wing parents the most. Becoming eco-efficient via business? What a dream! I explained the notion of "being less bad is not good," which I tied to "Individualization." Sure, my house can be less bad than anyone else, but that does not make us energy free, just efficient. The goal, of course, is being environmentally free - so to speak - so how can we say that efficiency is good? All design must be done so that we are being good to the environment. In return, it will be good to us. Then, using my tour guide skills, and the knowledge from the tour, I talked about the new SIS Building.

So, did I win the argument? I can say with decent certainty that I made the best points, but I don't think the assignment of bringing this up during the break was about "winning." I took the assignment as a way to synthesize all that I've learned and use it to my advantage. Maybe if the stakes were higher, I might have pushed for "victory." But, let's face it, my parents aren't very influential save inside my mom's classroom and my dad's laboratory. Yet, maybe I won the battle for eco-efficiency in my household. Of course, it's not a win if I'm by myself - I need the collective effort. I'll ask for my parents' cooperation as nicely as possible.

The True Cycle of Life

I really find waste=food concept the ultimate way of life. There are many critics to refute that this can become a reality. I am not saying that we can do this at a 100% rate of effectiveness, but we as a human race need to use this idea in mind when we go to produce and manufacture products. Even though I am a fan of recycling, when you look down the road...it really DOES just prolong the inevitable. There needs to be a mindset of eliminating waste all together.

This concept makes me thing of the city of Masdar in the United Arab Emirates, where there are no cars, the city will be run completely from renewable energies, and best of all.....no waste. In my spare time I have been trying to do further research into this, and grasp the ways in which they are attempting to live "waste free". I can not stress this enough, that eliminating waste would be like Utopia for the enviornment.

I think if we truly wrap our minds around this concept, we can take great strides in making this a reality. There was pressure to put a man on the moon within a decade from JFK, and we did it. We wanted to abolish slavery, and we did it. We wanted so many things, as a society, and when we fought to do it, we did. I don't understand why there is all this backlash on doing something so fundamental for ourselves, and yet instead of trying alternatives, we bash them down and say there's no way it can happen. I think back to the 1800's and beyond, and ask them if they believed we would have machines that transported us at fast speeds on land and in the air, or that an actual human being would be on the moon, and I bet they would say that would never happen. When we put our minds to do something, it will happen. But more importantly, for whatever reason, when there is pressure put on us, is when we are able to accomodate.

As far as the content of Cradle to Cradle goes, even though people may find some flaws or have the attitudes that it is a nice "dream" but it can never happen, I just take a look at what society has been able to do, and it REALLY isn't that hard to overcome really - at least how I see it. The majority of the people on the Earth probably would love the concept of no waste, and are all for it. So we wouldn't have to struggle to change the mindset. We just need to put pressure on ourselves to make it work.

a job well begun

There is something to be said for a manifesto. A calling together of ideas on a subject with a projected hope of a future vision, like William McDonough and Michael Braungart put forth in Cradle to Cradle. They are telling their story, perhaps a story that takes place in the future, but a story. The best part about their story is that parts of it are already in action! I appreciate their vision, their hope, their creativity and their hard work. I love that picking up that book says something to me. Also, that when I hand that book to someone else I can hand them ideas, a possibility, and an example right there in their hands. It, in and of itself, laughs at people who think they are bunk. It says, "try me!" and I love that. I knew before reading C to C that design and a green future were tied in my head. I also had a high set of expectations for the book, for McDonough especially, and was already aware of critiques against him. I think that the book is a wonderful piece of work and I think that optimism is KEY to its success and viewpoint. The book cleared up some of the critiques and insults I had heard about C to C products and Bill himself. Some of the critiques were obviously coming from people who hadn't read the book, others questioned why spend time re-designing products we really could do without (like throw-away water bottles) and others are either jealous of or annoyed with McDonough. To those people, I am sure that this architect who thinks he can define a greener future might be a pain in the ass....but come on guys, design is IMPORTANT. Others are just sick of celebrity environmentalism and think he plays into that...but again, while this kinda grosses me out too, I will admit that most Americans like their celebrities, in any form, so i'll take the ones who have good ideas about a greener future! The two issues that I have heard raised about C to C and McDonough in particular that ring a bit more serious to me are his reluctance to be transparent and share his knowledge with a commons. If the environment is the goal here, then SHARE and get people on board. Exclusion works for people trying to make money, not people trying to build a better, healthier future. I wonder which camp Bill falls into when it comes down to it?? And finally, It must be said that there is no message of equity and social justice in the C to C design principles. Of course, I don't think that these ends are incompatible with C to C, as the SIS building proves....it just requires vision and prioritization on the part of the project holders to make this a key element, rather than C to C having it part of their immediate goals. All in all, very excited about cradle to cradle. Hope to field opens up for others *like me* to do work like this. I would love to look at greener design either in political structures or tangible ones.

It Doesn't Matter

I am taking a class, concurrent to this one, on ancient political philosophy, we’ve been reading Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian War, which details the war between Athens and Sparta in ancient Greece. At one point, a plague wipes through Athens killing many people very quickly. As people die, the Athenians who are still healthy loose hope and become convinced they are next to die. With hope lost and nothing to loose, the people of Athens become all out hedonists. People eat and drink their life savings away, loot, and fornicate in the streets. Without hope the people lost their heads.

With that in mind, I believe it doesn’t matter if Braungart and McDonough’s optimism is misplaced. What matters is that people feel like they have hope. It matters that people feel this is a problem that can be tackled. Without hope, what’s the point of doing anything? Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” rocked the world and caught the attention of millions, but hasn’t lead to any sort of Green Revolution. Without hope, what’s the motivation to do anything? In order for mainstream America to embrace the environmental cause, they need to be inspired.

Cradle to Cradle is good for environmentalism. The question, is the optimism misplaced?, is not important. What’s important is that the book is overall hopeful, makes the argument from a ‘what’s good for people is good for the environment’ and outline steps to transform our society and save the world. In short, it inspires.

Optimism Goes A Long Way

Reading Cradle to Cradle, I realized that to push forward a dream to save the planet, we need optimism. Along with optimism, we need initiatives.
If the global community, really wants to save the planet, if the government cares about the planet, then we need to think outside the box. Instead of creating energy, why not use the energy we already have. The sun gives us light, heat, fuel and food in direct and indirect ways. Why not use the energy that is coming from above to heat up our homes, provide wind power to garner electricity, begin the process of photosynthesis for the plants to grow and become part of a the food cycle.
Instead of creating products that will be used and sent to a dump where it will sit there, why not model our system after nature. Nature creates, provides, and decomposes and reuses everything. Everything has a place and everything within that cycle is provided for. By thinking within the box will inevitably keep us where we are at now. This is why, optimism is going a long way. When we finally have people who think outside the box and see what can be done with the advancements of technology and the incorporation of nature, we can have eco friendlly building, products, transportation modes which are part of a continual cycle where nothing is watested. Everything is food. This is why Cradle to Cradle concept is on the right track but what we need is the initiative to get to these points. If we do not have the initiatives to get to this point, then this book will just be a concept on a reusable book that will become lost in the....dump..

We Found the Compromise

All throughout class this semester, I have sat back and absorbed almost everything (I hope!). Key terms, history of environmental negotiations, etc. The one thing that I have had trouble with the with the whole semester was "changing the system" - i.e. how to retool the economy to be more environmentally friendly. On my own time, I have been positing ways that this could be achieved. granted, it is a hard task, but I gave it shot. So, here's what I've come up with: we can't change economics.

I know it's gloomy, but my reasoning is this: economics is too ingrained in the world's psyche, and it is a system that, when used correctly, is not an awful indicator of how the country's finances are going. I agree that some minor tweaks are required - indeed, as the book pointed out, the GDP of an oil spill area went up because all the workers were buying things in the area! Despite this, economics seems to do its job very well; thus, it is hard to imagine that we will live in a post-economics world.

This, then, is why I love "Cradle to Cradle." It tackles the issues of the economic system, but does not try to eradicate it. Instead, it works with the drivers of the economy to work in the system while making environmentally conscious choices. Right now, as also mentioned in "The Story of Stuff", we live in a linear world. "Cradle to Cradle", then, tries to make our system circular so that, not only are we economically growing, but we are doing while not aggravating our world. It seems to be the ultimate compromise - environmentalists will not stop until change occurs, and economists will not change their minds, because who's to say they don't have a valid point, either? So, by using both systems' best options - growth and sustainability - we live in a world of compromise and peace. Indeed, does the war not end when a treaty is signed? I think McDonough and Braungart's vision is the treaty - now all the world has to do is sign it already. Granted, that treaty allows us to fight together in another battle, but we're not there yet. Soon, I hope.

Hope in the Trinity of Despair

I found Dr. Maniates’ trinity of despair rather insightful. I think he hit the nail on the head.

However, I personally think he is wrong about human nature. I think human nature is inherently selfish and rather lazy actually. And it makes sense that it would be, presumably, only creatures that looked out for themselves would survive, but I think there is also a community aspect built in to the selfishness of humanity. That is to say, communities look out for its members so an indirect way to look out for oneself is to look out for the other members of the community so that, when the times come, the community will have your back as well. So, even with my understanding of human nature, the environmental movement still has a way in.

Dr. Maniates’ is right about the strategy. While the small things part of the environmental movement should not end and is important, the focus should be on larger scale things. If half the people on a given power grid change all their light bulbs, they’re not going to save nearly as much CO2 as if the grid changed to solar, wind, and other non-fossil fuel based energy.

The social change one is similar. The entire population does not need to be on board to affect major social change, just the key decision makers. While republicans have been more successful at this lately, there is no reason serious environmental legislation cannot get pushed through congress. And surely, no piece of environmental legislation will be more unpopular than the Patriot Act, which will probably be renewed within a year.

The Trinity of Despair is a powerful way to look at the lack of hope in the current environmental movement and offers some hope and perhaps a new calling.

Interesting - but here's the thing...

Let me start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed Professor Maniate's lecture on the current state of the environmental movement and where it might be headed. It was a completely fresh perspective on these issues and I applaud his effort to reform the movement to be more functional and efficient.

When he first presented the "trinity of despair", I was initially excited by the fact that Maniates had developed a great, simple rubric for what to look out for when challenging the effectiveness of the environmental movement. However, I think the inherent problem with the "trinity" is the exact thing the professor is trying to fight against - it's too simple! After further thought, it really did surprise me that someone whose main mission it is to fight simplicity in the environmental movement would create such a simple framework for the assumptions environmentalists should not have. Isn't Maniates saying, then, that the problems keeping environmentalists from going in the right direction is only threefold? Is he not really giving us the "3 Things That Impedes the Environmental Movement from Working"? I feel that, after having read his work, he is now advocating for the same thing that he has made a career of fighting against.

I also have trouble believing that we can boil down all the complex human emotions involved with the environmental movement into three categories. Are humans self-interested? Perhaps, but I do not think the answer is an emphatic "no". It would make sense if there were still some reservations on this issue. Do we need everyone on board? I agree with Maniates that we do not, especially since the majority of social movements had a bunch of people opposed to it. Then, of course, do we make the environmental movement to simple? Sure, I agree with this too - we cannot assume that "collective simplicity" will lead to a reduction in our complex problems. In this same vain, we cannot assume that we can change the complex environmental movement with the simple understanding of three conditions - that movement is too intricate to boil down to three factors.

What about corporate counteractions? Of course, not every corporation hates the environment, but a decently-sized bloc do. What about human initiative? With the rise of TV and the Internet, people now spend more time at home. Clearly, the fight to save the outside is, well, outside. There are other factors, definitely more than just the three Maniates mentioned.

I truly do have great respect for the man and enjoyed our class very much. I was truly enriched by the experience and the knowledge I gained. Despite this, I cannot help but be mildly disappointed that what he came up with to save the environment is "simple" - the thing Maniates seems to fight against. While I think he is on the right track, maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board. Perhaps a "squiggly-line-going-all-over-the-place of despair"?

Ecological Action: fringe or front?

The trinity of despair explains a fair portion of environmental movement frustration, getting caught in the trap of nagging, asking too little, and demanding full support. I agree that asking too little is a widespread issue in environmental issues. I mean, let's be clear, asking too little is rooted in the idea of people as 'consumers' who are not willing to act in ways that are not beneficial to them. Further, there is this idea that because we all share the planet we must all want to save it. However, as Mike mentions, social political movements don't happen because of full support. In fact, democracy is not ABOUT full support, it's about a majority. The issue here is more about environmental issues have a "powerful" majority rather than a "weak" majority. By this I mean that there is a difference between a united majority of people who care about environmental issues and can therefore pressure action to be pushed through a beauracratic sieve that in the United States often waters down and pacifies policies. The way to push forth social change to create structures that, as Mike said, make environmentally friendly actions the natural end result means working as a front, as a majority. Although there is that wonderful 51% of people who care deeply about these issues in the Yale graph, they care about them differently and act on their multiplicities of focal points in fractured ways. This means that a lot of people who in one way or another care about the environment are working separately...talk about demanding too little! Asking ecologically minded groups to stay small, to work as a resistance of sorts, even with such large numbers is asking too little.

Ecologically-minded social change would require that these fractures groups unite under a banner, be it a loose banner, to promote change at the structural level. Some theorists I am drawing on here, Derrida, Laclau and Mouffe, even Sartre, talk about this in the form of group action. Laclau and Mouffe, perhaps the most able to speak to current political social movements and their potential, refer to this as hegemony. Under a hegemony small groups are brought together to pressure the time wasteful bureaucratic paper shuffling to a point that it MUST act. Of course leading up to this, the hegemony and its coming to together signal to "empty signifiers" the change that must be done and they enact this...think politicians. This is a painfully watered down version of these assembled writings, but the gist of it is that heavy things don't get moved without communication and cooperative action. Even moreover, a collective saying, "we are now going to move this heavy piano....on three!" To further the analogy, the best cooperation might mean helping each other to put wheels under the piano then pushing it as a team...in the same direction with no one blowing their back out. Hegemony of course is problematic. Under what banner do ecologists unite? And, of course no social political theory demanding for group action can neglect the fact that groups are not permanent. Hegemonies are not meant to last, they are meant to get something BIG accomplished efficiently, then new hegemonies and groups form around that issue.

In my argument here for a social change strategy the trinity of despair is helpful in debunking the silly apathy that many feel when faced with these issues. However, I think that the 'tabs' are a small place to start and always a place to come back to, but might not lead to full structural change. Without a self-recognition of the numbers and power that exist within a more unified movement that can demand and push change through (patriot act is a fantastic example of a hegemonic front movement that pushed right on through the system and has had large structural repercussions), ecological movements are defining themselves as "fringe" and reactionary rather than comprehensive, effective, and empowered.

We must come together
If we hope to fix the weather
We must be a group
We must keep everyone in the loop
If you want to save the truffle trees
Or stop gasses the make people sneeze
If you want to save the truffafarks
Or build more national parks
We must all work together
Because alone, nothing will get better.

The Second Following of Hanna Lines

So lets go ahead and be the change
Decrease the carbon emission
A mission that sure will never change
And instead of being a scout, lets be a team
And never let doubt be our clout
A clout that many believe, that climate change is indeed not here.
But look at the evidence and you will see
The same story of the Lorax and that tree
All over the world
People are crying, because our governments are lying
Saying they will stop climate change
But all we have seen is climate change
Snow in the summer
That’s a great bummer
So lets get down to the change
Push back your sleeves
And put your brain on rerun
And see the mistakes that have been made
And let those mistake never fade
Let us never repeat, increasing carbon emission
Instead let us come together and bind our mission
To save what is here, and regain what has been lost

Following Hanna's Lines...

Would you not like
A nice world to live in?
Where we all think
Of each other as kin.
From the tops of the trees
To the bottom of hills
The loss of our resources
Will heighten the price of our bills.
It is imperative
We give it shot
And make sure our action
Is warranted and not bought.
I hope this rhyme
Will help us out
Towards working together
And going on a world-saving scout.

Our Seuss Verses!

Here are the Seuss verses we created in class. I am sorry that I'm not e-mailing this, but I don't have everyones e-mails. So, the alternate ending is as follows, plus at the bottom I added a few lines in ***. Please feel free to work off of these proposed lines, or to re-work them, or go on without them.

[after the once-ler hands over the seed]

Get all of your friends,

And the friends of your friends,

And find the Lorax and start a new trend,

But this cannot be the end of the show,

For we still have a long way to go,

We must do this together,

Together as one,

And we shall not stop until this fight is won,

There are no Is,

We are now Wes,

As a collective we speak for the trees,

Even you makers and wear-ers of th-needs,

Our united action must be as swift as the breeze

**Do not bicker or squabble

And forget why we care

We must do this together

Because it's a world we share.

Enjoy your seuss-ing!

"Science" vs Science

Two websites come down on separate sides of the global climate change debate. One the one side is Friends of Science (FoS) and on the other Grist. While FoS attempts to disprove the science behind climate change, Grist offers ways to talk to and convince skeptics of the realness and dangers of global climate change. For me, the most glaring difference between the two sites was the citations. FoS had absolutely no cited evidence. They only cherry-picked conditional sentences out of published reports in a way, that I’m sure, misrepresents the actual point and intention of the reports. The Grist article, however, is full of hyperlinks to reports from numerous reputable organizations in the field that back up what was said in the article.

Maybe I’ve been in college too long, but for me, it’s hard to take FoS seriously without cited evidence from qualified researchers. From my experience, if the argument is even remotely valid, there are pages and pages written that you can use to back yourself up. A lack of research raises serious red flags for me. I did a little more research on the group. According to a 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the Canadian biased Friends of Science receives more than one third of their annual operating budget from the oil industry. (http://www.thestar.com/article/175673). Which causes me to question their motives and connections.

Fact vs Myth vs Reality Check

It was quite interesting reading the “Friends of Science” website to see what they actually had to say, and see the reasoning they provided for the disproving climate change. But it seems odd, that this website is called “Friends” of Science, but it tries to disprove the evidence and facts that have been proven through meticulous evidences and recordings. For instance looking at Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth. But the website continues to explain that “the rate of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year.

So I can agree that, carbon dioxide has increased over the years, but I can’t agree with them that when they say the main driver of global warming is CO2. If there has been science experiments that has been done all over the world, and everyone is coming up with the same conclusion about the direct correlation between CO2 and global warming, how are the “Friends” of Science, disproving the facts right in front of them. As, the website, “How to talk to a Climate Skeptic” shows, they are in denial of the facts. It seems that sophisticated computer models, ice cores, and readings from all over the world, is not enough for them to believe.

The purpose of the website is to separate truth from myth, but as we can see, denying the truth, shows the true purpose of the website. The true purpose of Friends of Science is to deny the facts, without giving sufficient explanations, and without having credible research compared to “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” which gives detailed explanations, and research from credible reports. As a result of seeing the reports and explanations, a person who really wants to know what is true and what is right has to look at the information with open ears and eyes. Denying everything just shows a closed mind, not an open mind, which proves what? To who?

A Heated Issue

This topic is one that has been plaguing me since the last time that I went home. My parents are informed, well-educated, individuals who each feel a personal connection to the environment and to nature in different ways. However, it came to my attention in a heated debate about politics that my step-dad views the climate change issue as something that is open to debate. Yes, of course all science is open to debate, but isn't there enough science behind climate change? For him, the argument wasn't about the science, it was about who was behind the science in his eyes. He saw the country's left as supporting climate change, where the right was still skeptical. When I tried to put up a case that the right was skeptical because of ties to religious themes that deny human capabilities to destroy the environment (something he knows can happen) and their unwillingness to sacrifice corporations that are part of the problem, he pointed to the left and said that they had money to make off of this scare with energy transitions and technology. For him, climate change is a political issue that clouds over the science so thickly that he is unwilling to take sides.

In evaluating these sites, I thought of my step-dad's skepticism in comparison to my stubborn belief that climate change exists and we have to deal with it NOW and perhaps someone I went to school with in Kansas, who firmly believes that climate change is a part of God's natural cycle. At first glance I thought that the Friends of Science site might be a backup for those in staunch opposition to climate change and environmental issues in general. Although, as I read on, I found that Friends of Science is a group of retired scientists from multiple disciplines who are more concerned with water and air pollution and think that global warming is a current obsession fueled by politics. So, guess this is more my step-dad's crowd. When addressing Copenhagen, FoS explains that this conference will do little to address environmental issues, but will do a lot to give the UN more power. Hm, maybe there is something to be said here. It has been true that national and international leaders have not addressed climate change in a satisfactory manner and perhaps the focus on global warming has led them to distance themselves from other environmental issues. Yet, I am still stuck on logic that tells me what we put into the air in copious amounts that was not there before must have some effect.

Grist's How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic is a punchy and effective way to group common questions linked to the debate with answers supported by science, logic, and history. The method here is about roping together concerns and addressing them with arguments that fully refute them, a common debate technique to show how your overpowering evidence defeats their paltry concerns. And, while I am right there with grist and want to print some of these out to use in my personal defense arsenal, I am still left wondering how to convince people who do not want to see this. Even more important, what do you say to someone who accepts climate change as fact and burden about how we are going to fix it? Or why we haven't already? Also, who benefits from climate change issues? Perhaps the UN will use this as an opportunity to gain more power in the name of human survival. If so, is that a horrible and scary thing? I am not sure about this. All I do know is that climate change is a heated issue (hahahaha, intentional pun) because it points at big business, and therefore implicates governments, as well as religion, energy sourcing, and even our daily lives. With all of these players accused of participation, how do we assume our guilt in a dignified manner and make a more to ameliorate the situation?

Climate Change - Myth or Reality?

The first website I went to was the "Friends of Science" website. Which after surfing around their site, I found it to be quite appauling that they would consider themselves "Friends of Science". There is just too much evidence out there that shows what is going on with our environment and much of it is from human impact. However, if one wishes to still be a skeptic, then one has that right. At the same time though, like as my partner just stated in his post, I did not see ANY real references to the claims they were making to dismiss the claims of global warming and human involvement. I searched and searched the FOS website, and I pretty much thought it was a joke. The page looked pretty - but the literature was garbage in my eyes.

The "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic" site was more of something that I could find credible and even interesting. There were plenty of research and data and ways to refute those who believe along the same lines as those from FOS. Even going to the homepage of grist.org, there were massive amounts of actual articles and worldwide stories that caught my attention, and had some substance to it. It's a website I would like to look further into in my free time. Comparing grist.org to friendsofscience.org was something I saw as being no contest. Hands down, grist.org is something I can back up as being legitimate and worthwhile, and we already know how I feel about FOS.

To answer the question of what is the purpose of these websites? I clearly see the purpose of websites like grist.org, which is open to so many ideas and articles and solutions as to what we need to do, and gives their readers access to plenty of substanial and real articles that actually hold relevance to what is going on in our world. What is the purpose of the FOS website? I don't know. I really don't. It looked like a lot of time and effort went into that site by it's lay out, but to have people still to this day dismissing research and, as I truly feel, cold hard facts about the state of our environment, I just don't see why people choose to waste their time trying to convince people that the environment debate is all nonsense. And actually, let's just say it even is. I've NEVER understood why someone is in favor of drilling for oil, and having cars and busses run on gasoline when we can find cleaner ways. Let's say the dirty exhaust from a city bus, that kicks up into the air everytime it moves from a stop, didn't hurt the environment at all. That smog and that dirty air is of no harm to the enviornment. Why are people still against those who are trying to push for hybrid transportation, and vehicles that don't omit that junk from a their exhaust. Just from an aesthetic point of view. The people who believe there is no real harm being done to the environment from smokestacks, vehichles, and on and on...and just for the sake of argument giving them merit in their thoughts, I just don't see why from a point of view as that it just LOOKS and feels bad, why they are so opposed to having something look nicer. Or why they are so keen on paying for outrageous gas prices, instead of saving their own hard earned money by going hybrid and going easier on their pockets. But we all know that air pollution is harmful to our health, and the enviornment, so I digress.

I think how we should make sense of this and evaluate these claims are simply by doing our own further investigation ourselves, if we are inclined to find out the truth for ourselves. Not to just read something off the internet and say..."hey, this must be true. I read it off the internet", and actually dig deeper and go to the actual sources they cited and see what research is being quoted and these articles are being based upon. Actually researching the researchers and seeing what type of places these people are affilliated with, be it the governement, universities, etc. and see how credible these "organizations" are and with their research.

I for one believe in human driven climate change, and even if it really was a huge conspiracy and big joke, I can still find ways to dispute someone and fight for a more cleaner way of life, even if just merely on the notion that it looks a whole hell of a lot better. I would much rather be sitting behind an electric/hybrid bus at a stoplight, then be stuck behind one running on diesel/gasoline. As well as I would much rather live in an area free of smog and pollution than to live alongside the LA freeways or near a factory that omits chemicals into the air, and I would ask these same questions to those who say there is no real harm and ask them where they'd prefer to live and why. I'd like to hear their responses.

Websites on Climate Change

Let me start off by saying that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have no qualms with anyone stating what they believe, as long as they have evidence to show why their case is possible. On the whole, then, I respect the points of views from "Friends of Science" and "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" (HTCS). The difference, though, is that the "Friends of Science" (FOS) website, which believes that Climate Change is a myth, does not cite their sources or give any indication as to where their information comes from!

While I am personally of the belief that Climate Change is real - and could thus make the reader believe I am biased- I am solely focusing on how "Friends of Science" have gone about stating their claims. First of all, on their home page, where they state their goal, opinion and position, they say, "While FOS does not do any original scientific research, it does extensive literature research and draws on the worldwide body of work by scientists in all fields relating to global climate change." Ok, fine. What literature did you read, then? What scientists? Give me an example! While they have written articles, I wish that they would say upfront who their sources are, because then I would feel more obliged to continue seraching their site as opposed to disregarding it as babble. By the way, let me mention that if HTCS had done this, I would not be willing to believe them, either.

At least HTCS shows me graphs, gives me data and labels where they got it from. That is all I need to believe that you have put effort into your argument and that it is credible. But if I were to say, "All monkeys have 18 fingers," and did not cite where I got my information, then the reader is most likely to not believe me. That is what is happening to me right noww - I just can't believe FOS. Sure, I do side with HTCS, but that is because they have the evidence to back up their claims. Maybe FOS didn't do it because they had no credible sources to cite?

It all comes down to credibility, and HTCS makes their case better because they have academia on their side. Reagrdless, people will side with whomever is closest to their personal beliefs, but FOS may in fact be hurting their cause by making their claim and have the reader realize that the arguments they believe in are based on nothing. 10 times out of 10, I'll take the side that has eveidence - this just happens to be the side I belong to anyway. While both sides are passionate about their opinions, a self-respecting person must take the side that tells them where their information is coming from. Otherwise, that person would be apt to believing anything - even that monkeys have 18 fingers. Maybe that's possible - but I want to see the source.

I wrote and forgot to post!

Here is a post a few days late. It seems that I wrote my blog post and never published :(

My most memorable and captivating experiences in nature have been through hiking, backpacking, and mountain climbing. Every summer growing up I traveled to Colorado where I spent five weeks at camp in the middle of the Rocky Mountains. We went out on five to seven day trips, hiking into the National Forests, doing trail work, sleeping in tents. We traveled above tree-line to summit 14,000 foot peaks. We watched the changing terrain as we ventured from swamps, to meadows, to alpine tundra. Bright green rock algae, electric blue sky pilots, and squeaking marmots welcomed us to the thin air and rock fields.

Each summit reminded us of our small size to the breath and expanse of nature. However, each descent back to telephone poles and toilets equally reminded us of our impact around the mountains we love.

Conservation, despite the drawbacks as presented by End of the Wild, still feels worthwhile to me in some aspects. Of course the greater issues of environment that cross ecosystems, boundaries, and space must be addressed. Yet, I find the National Parks in the US to be an extremely important program. We cannot save nature truly with part and parcel splits of conservation and reserves, but those nature spaces can inspire us to reformat our policies and educate us about the importance of nature to our health, hearts, and minds.

Many of my most thrilling encounters with the so-called non-human world have taken place on backpacking trips with my father. We’ve been backpacking since I was five and only managed to carry my pack, containing only breakfast, for about a mile before handing it off to my dad, who carried it in addition to the rest of the gear. These trips are great experiences and really quite a lot of fun.

Right before I left for college, I had one of the most memorable trips. On the morning of the third day of the trip, we woke up and ate breakfast, oatmeal as usual. After breakfast, we wondered off into the undergrowth about a hundred feet and brushed out teeth. We began packing and preparing to leave camp, when we noticed a juvenile black bear walked out of the woods uphill from the camp. He looked at us and we looked at him. He wore a, ‘what are you guys still doing here?’ look. And, it was true, we were late leaving camp that morning. After scrutinizing us, he walked around the camp, investigating the other tent sites and looking for food. We took plenty of pictures and remarked about how amazing and unique this experience was. Eventually, he arrived at out toothpaste and proceeded to investigate it. Looked back at us one more time and wondered back off into the woods. That experience was the highlight of the trip, and one of my favorite memories of backpacking with my father.

Of course we should save nature. But, perhaps ironically, we need nature to save nature. People need to see what it is that they’re working to save. And, our national parks work to achieve this goal.

Ho(a)rse

It was a bad day - I had broken my leg during a football/soccer match (I'm a goalkeeper), and I had lost my voice due to a previous bronchial infection. Oh, wait, that wasn't even the bad day. The bad day was when, even in my state, my mother signed me up to take horse riding lessons at the local stable. Hold the wedding! No, that wasn't even the worst - the worst was when I showed up to the stable, in a leg cast, and I found out I was the only guy in the class of 18 people! Granted, had this happened a few years later, and not when I was 9 and still thought "girls were icky", maybe I wouldn't have minded that last part so much. So, I'm 9, speechless, emasculated, broken, and on top of that...I hated horses. I couldn't tell you why, I hated them. Maybe it's because when I saw the event on the Olympics, I hated how they gave the medals to the riders - I took my aggression on the helpless animal. But what did I know? Every show I had been watching on Nickelodeon for years had talking animals! So, naturally, the Olympics horse should have said something.

I digress. Since I was the single male in the class, naturally I was teased. The bulky cast didn't help much with that, either. The instructor knew this, and could have helped me out by giving me the biggest beginners horse available - no such luck. I was assigned to Ralph. He was just taller than me, looked liked he had been on drugs for years, and was essentially the smallest one in the group. How much more ridiculous could I look? Cast, voiceless, the only guy, and riding a horse that donkeys would call an ass.

These were some of the best days of my life. For whatever reason, Ralph and I clicked. We were the fastest to learnt o ride with each other, were the fastest duo on walking back and forth, and was the easiest horse to prepare to ride on. Because I couldn't speak, we had to teach Ralph "horse sign language". When I pressed my legs into his body, he would go forward. We were awesome together. Had I not looked so hilarious, and been able to speak, maybe the "icky" girls would have fancied me more.

To this day, though I don't ride anymore, I go and visit Ralph. I don't think he remembers me much - for one, he gets many students over the years. Also, he think I'm a mute with a limp. Regardless, Ralph gave me wonderful days when I did not expect any at all. Ralph taught me to put trust in others and forget about the rest. Like I said, I think I looked cool. I was asked by the stable why I don't ride horses there again. Two reasons: 1) I don't have the money, and 2) I don't want to tarnish the memory of Ralph and I.

On a different note, I like what Friedman said, "not having nature would make us less than human." Uh oh, I don't want that . Granted, I've never truly had that much of a connection with nature per se, but I understand that those who do NEED nature around to make them feel alive. I think if nature was lost, to me it would be like graduating from high school and never seeing certain classmates again - sad, but I would get over it. For those who enjoy nature fully, it would be like losing a close relative, whose love can never be replicated. I know that when I hear of friend's family members dying, it makes me a little sad, too. This is the feeling I think I'd have. Sure, I'd be sad if nature wasn't saved, but I'd get over it. My friends, however, would not, and I don't want to see my friends unhappy. In this way, I guess I have an emotional connection with nature.

Freidman also went on to say that the, "biodiversity issue is not just about saving nature - it is equally about saving humanity." Of course, nature provides us with natural services that we need to live. Therefore, getting rid of nature only harms us. Why we would want to be masochistic? I don't know, but I sure don't like pain. Thus, on an emotional and physical level, we need nature, whether it's to keep us alive or for aesthetic purposes. Even if you don't necessarily love nature, like me, to not care about it is to not care about your fellow man and Earth-inhabitants, because surely some of them do. Getting rid of something that others love, then, makes you a monster, and monsters are scary.

In Defense of Eco-Tourism

Eco-tourism does have issues, but I believe the benefits outweigh the problems.

The biggest environmental benefit is that eco-tourism encourages nations to preserve and protect their environments. It makes sense. If you’re the president of a country and much of your economy is based on eco-tourism, you are going to work extra hard to protect and preserve that natural resource that is vital to your country’s economy. Eco-tourism is probably the best way to get developing nations to protect and preserve the natural resources they might plunder otherwise.

Protecting the environment is often takes a back seat to development and eco-tourism is a way to accomplish both ends. Take Brazil for example. They are tearing the Amazon apart in an effort to build the economy, but the Belizean government is actively trying to protect the coral reef off their coast and their endowment of tropical rain forests because they are helping build the Belizean economy.

Eco-tourism can also serve to teach the wealthy tourists about protecting the environment. The Sandals Resort in Jamaica (from the film) is a poor example and not what I consider true eco-tourism. When I was younger, my family took a vacation to the rain forest of Belize. The hotel we stayed in consisted of several traditional huts built in the middle of the forest. And, part of the experience was learning about the issues facing tropical rain forests around the world. Travel aside, it was a very sustainable vacation.

I am in support of true eco-tourism. It is a great way for countries to bring money into the economy and gives them a material incentive to protect their local environment.

Who likes tourists?

It is inconceivable to me that people are going to stop traveling anytime soon. However, as sydney pointed out, the fuel behind these jaunts and migrations is enormous. Also, because of the high rate of people who travel and rely on car, plane, and train transport frequently there is little incentive for these technologies to be reformatted to fit a greener paradigm. So, what about eco tourism? I am aware of a few different kinds of eco tourism that offer a spectrum of traveling light, consuming less, and learning more all the way to paying more, consuming differently, and traveling not much differently.

First, lets start with the flight. Yes, flying is expensive. I am trying to buy a plane ticket to go home for the holidays this week and I get online, look and the prices, and shut my computer a few times before I can actually pull out my credit card and make the purchase. These days, when I fly I am going to see my family or coming back home to DC. With the occasional longer flight here and there (aka to study abroad) this is the extent of my flying. Yet, this still feels like a lot and I have high hopes that one day I will be able to go on more longer flights to places I have never seen before. So, how do I couple my small budget with the desire to offset the environmental cost of these flights? Well, I think that paying to offset the carbon footprint of flights is great and anyone who can afford it should do so. However, I wish there was a way that the airlines themselves could be held accountable for this external cost. Of course they would pass this cost onto the consumer, but perhaps this would also motivate them to look into their own efficiency. I would LOVE to pay $30 to offset at least part of my flight rather than pay that same amount to bring one bag.

So, as shown by the clip there are a variety of eco tours! There are eco tours that include flying to say....Costa Rica and staying in small, sustainable farms that partner with locally owned restaurants. Many of these little projects of animal rescues, or eco farms rate really high on the sustainability scale, using solar power, grey water, and serving all organic food. However, in my experience in the Caribbean they are often owned by Americans or Europeans. This isn't all bad, but I would love to stay somewhere locally owned and eco friendly. I think I might find more of this in say India, South East Asia, and the Mediterranean. The alternate less eco version of this trip would have travelers staying in a hotel that might have some efficiency measures in place, but would still be sending sewage right into the ocean along with all the other hotels.

For me, traveling in a more eco friendly way means traveling light, buying local crafts from craftsmen when I want to bring back a souvenir, and trying to interact with locals in environments like outdoor markets and public areas rather than going on guided tours. I like to stay in small hostels, bed and breakfasts, or on farms or small hotels that check out as eco friendly after research. Of course, these are often cost effective too! The hardest places to travel eco friendly are in the United States! This is frustrating, especially because our lack of good hostels and expensive b&bs often force low income travelers into motels. I guess all in all, I agree with the Wonder Women that research before buying and consciousness of travel impact are the best steps to take. Also, by staying locally or in hostels you meet great people and avoid other tourists! because seriously, who like tourists?

When I first hear the word, eco tourism, it sounds pretty interesting. Imagine a city dweller or tourist who never saw the Amazon River and Forest, the ice shelves of Antarctica, etc. The tourist physically sees this great beauty and is now able to grasp what is global warming, climate change, unsustainable living and how it effects Earth. It sounds all great to me, knowing and seeing what is out there, then being educated on the ways to make the change. As a result, bringing back their experience and spreading it around word of mouth and going to great lengths to fight for the “planet” Okay, It sound good, but, where did the eco tourist go, and where did they come from? What lengths and what modes of transportation did they use to get to point B and back?

What’s the sense of going on an eco trip if, if we are all destroying the planet by taking planes, and gas guzzling cars, and staying in luxurious hotels that are not eco friendly to get there and back? Does the good outweigh the cost? The cost being the impact on the environment to make the trip but at the same time, the knowledge obtained and the possible lifestyle change can possible over shadow the trip.

However, what will be the draw for participants in eco tourism if they have no interest whatsoever in the social and environmental impacts? Showing them pictures of a tropical paradise and then informing them everywhere in billboards, advertisements, commercials, that the paradise they just saw will not be there in 20 to 30 years? Should areas of the world, advertise and show directly to tourist what their impact on the earth is and then show them the destruction, instead of sheltering them. For instance, allow tourism but resorts allow tourist physically to see what deforestation looks like and who and how it effects the ecosystem around them.

I feel that for people to understand what they are doing is unsustainable and physically showing them the results, then that can be their eco tourism and also inform them that the plane they took just increased their unsustainable ways.

I don’t mind indirectly sending someone on a guilt trip, but hey, the question is how to draw the people who just do not care and allowing them to see what happens when they do not care.

When Good Things Go Bad - Tourism

Tourism, in most cases, is not good. Every time a tourist goes to an impoverished nation, the perceptions that tourist has of that country is based upon what he or she sees. In other words, the country of Jamaica is just a platform for resorts; Spain is only a country where people eat and watch bullfights all the time; the Japanese are constantly in kimonos and eating sushi. The mainstream tourist these days barely ever wants to experience the true place he or she is visiting. Thus, when tourists go to impoverished nations, since the majority of the people will not see the impoverishment, the collective thought of the masses will be that the situation in that country is "not that bad."

However, when globalization makes it so that countries like Jamaica can't really make enough for their country's economy to survive, one can only think of one resource that is still in demand in their country: Jamaica itself. People go all over the world to stay at luxury resorts so that they can enjoy delightful scenery and be pampered at the same time - because their lives are so difficult. Regardless, the people that come spend lots of money and that money goes into the financial system in Jamaica. In other words, the only reliable income for Jamaica (and other islands nations) is the money of "fat cat" tourists; therefore, we run into the main problem with the environmental debate: do you care about the economy of poor countries or do you care about the environment?

This is not an easy question for me to answer - for the problem here is that the poorest countries have the most to lose, in this situation, if tourism is curbed throughout the world. Then again, if tourism is curbed, then poor nations will suffer even more. To me, then, this is the only environmental issue that really can hurt poor nations. So, it appears to me that, if we are to take environmental protection measures, then there still must be some way to assure that a steady inflow of cash makes it to poor nations that rely solely on tourism. (Quick digression: I also understand that many developed nations rely on tourism as a staple of their economy - Spain, for example - but MDCs do not have tourism as their backbone).

If the world takes a global stance on environmental protection, it must find a way to ensure the financial safety of these nations. The only thing that comes to mind would be a stipend that LDCs would receive from MDCs which would allow them to sustain themselves during the absence of tourism. Anything else would cripple island nation's economy, which would in turn demolish MDCs' economies down the road. A drop in the bucket now makes a lot more sense that getting doused in that water later.

Is that the best solution? I don't know, but I do know that this issue emphasizes the "poorer getting poorer dilemma", and, unfortunately, a great cause is what causes it.

My Favorite Subject or Is it anymore?

Every Sunday when I was younger and still to this day when I go home, I go grocery shopping with my dad. When I was younger I would always ask him, how come the prices of fruit and vegetables would change during each week or each season. His response was because different fruits and vegetables are harvested throughout the year, which means the price would reflect the availability. Many of the fruits for example, mangos and avocados, were always a dollar or more during the winter months but cheaper during the spring and summer months. The apples and orange prices would shift a bit but never on a grand scale. Why?, I would him and my dad would reply because our apples come from New York and our oranges would come from Florida. He also told me that a lot of the fruits you sometimes see were not even grown in this country. That for example, if I wanted a mango in the middle of the winter, there is a good chance that mango was not grown in the States at all, it had to be transported to get to the store to our table.

Now that I am older, those lessons always stick with me when I do my own grocery shopping. I always buy fruits and vegetables that are in season, like apples and carrots in the fall, winter squash and fresh spinach in the winter, strawberries in the summer and late fall months, and of course watermelon and kiwi in the spring and summer months. I rarely buy pineapples during the middle of the winter because of the fact that I now know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has a direct link to climate change, and transportation on planes or ships deeply increases my carbon footprint. I also know that the little tags on the fruits and stickers on the vegetables tend to tell you where your that product was grown and harvested. To many people, this is just a sticker with words on it. To me, it’s a sticker reminding me of the impact I am having on this earth.

Since we are on the topic of food, I realized that taking a look back on the food I have consumed in the past two days, I am speculating what item had the most impact on the environment. The answer,the Chinese food I ordered last night. I ordered chicken and string beans that came in its own plastic container, the side of rice that came in its own paperboard container, the two vegetable spring rolls, that was wrapped in paper. Then to think of how each item was individually wrapped, then placed into a plastic bag, that was placed into someone car who delivered it to me is a little frightening. Why, you may ask, because I do not know where that chicken came from, nor do I know where the string beans came from, where the plastic and paper was manufactured, where did the delivery man car came from, nor do I know how much gas he consumed driving back and forth for my one order, to the point where I ask myself, how much raw materials were needed, how much energy was consumed to feed me that one meal? Now multiple that by how many people ordered in that night, to the energy it took me to eat and consume my food, to the end point of where will my products go after I am done using it all?
The scary question is: How much energy did I just consume and use? Was it sustainable?
The scary answer is: I really do not want to know right now. Maybe I will just stick to grocery shopping and prepare my own meals so that I know I can make a difference by trying to live more sustainably.

Food Impact

For a while now, I’ve made an effort to buy the food with the least amount of packaging that was a local as possible. At the beginning of this semester I decided to go vegetarian at least two days a week and it’s early, but so far I’ve done pretty well. But, I do like tropical fruit, I do like coffee, and I do like fresh fruit in the winter. However, I think my worst offense is the soda and coffee I drink. And, I have paid little attention to my consumption of genetically modified food and I just can’t afford to eat organic food all the time.

Probably the single worst food item I have consumed in the last couple days is coffee. My coffee it is probably the worst just by sheer volume. I have been writing this paper on Authoritarianism in Russia and have therefore been drinking a lot of coffee. First there’s the packaging. I’ve been making the coffee myself so this coffee wasn’t bought in bulk, it came in a 12 oz bag made of some bizarre hybrid of plastic and foil that cannot be recycled when it’s empty. The beans were grown quite far away in a likely unsustainable fashion. Then, energy was used to roast the beans and grind them. And finally, the whole thing travelled to my grocery store.

One of the biggest problems with eating in an environmentally friendly way is that it either takes lots of money, or lots of free time: lots of money to be able to shop at a place that guarantees a low environmental impact, or lots of time to do the research or grow a vegetable garden. I think one of the things I am most looking forward to about being a real adult after college is having more freedom and resources to be more friendly to my environment. I am pretty good at gardening and look forward to growing many of my vegetables in a vegetable garden, but for now, I’ll do as many of the little things as I can.

Food

When I go shopping for food, which I have to admit is not really that often since I eat out most times, I do not by any means consider an environmental approach in what it is that I'm buying. I focus more on what is healthy for me. When I'm at a grocery store, I'm usually proud that I'm there and not in line at McDonald's! I have been really trying to push myself to be more healthy and eat and drink the things that one ought to, and really never think of getting food that is local, or think about where it came from or anything along those lines....I've never thought to do that at a grocery store. I guess I have a long ways to go in changing my habits and becoming more enviornmentally focused. I never think of enviornmental impact and the such when it comes to food, I always seem to focus it on transportation, and energy and so forth. Same thing goes when I am out at a restaurant. I try to get something that's healthy and won't feel guilty about afterwards, in the respect of eating "right".

Having to assume responsibility and admitting what I eat is always embarrasing. The things I've eaten in the past two days...? That would be Subway, and McDonald's. Not gonna lie. That's about it most days. I don't honestly know which is worse in terms of considering an environmental impact, but I would have to guess that between the two, it would be McDonald's. It takes a lot to get the final, poorly wrapped double cheeseburger into my bag and out the door with me. I'm not sure how far away the meat comes from, but I know there's quite a process involved even if it were local.

All in all, I have to say that my first step in changing my eating habits has to come for myself. And that is making a change in my food intake and becoming more healthy. Then, at that point, I think I will feel good about myself and then be able to focus my attention on making enviornmentally "healthy" choices from there. Once I start to feel good about eating healthy and becoming more optimistic about my lifestyle changes, then I feel that I could really make some eco-friendly changes in what I eat and buy from the grocery store. I would really like to know what some of these eco-friendly purchases could be? But to be honest, at this point, food is food to me, and I wouldn't even know the first place to start in making sure I make a better decision when deciding what to put in my cart. I'm sure between choice A, B, and C, there's one that's bound to be the best, and I wouldn't care less either way, but haven't the slightest clue as to find out which would be the smartest from an environmental stance.....

Stomach Schitsophrenia

Food, food, food. I spend so much time talking about, writing about, making lists of, planning around, paying for, and shopping for food. I have been researching food for work a lot and my recent project has been to research organic sourcing options for restaurants in DC. So, my goals in picking which farms we want to support are that they be local, organic, and sustainable. I like to think that these are the categories I look at when I make my daily food choices.

Local keeps the money in town, at least for another cycle. I buy local as part of my effort to support small businesses, especially small restaurant owners and local farm owners. I think that having people who thoughtfully prepare and grow food in and around town are key components to having a healthy community. So, I choose to support local restaurants, especially if they source from local markets. Also, I purchase the bulk of my meat and produce from farmers markets. I am lucky enough to be right near a farmers market where the farmers are the ones selling the food! Local is not always the most environmentally kind choice, as it does not mandate organic. So, if a local farm is not organic then they are polluting near me. This is a tough call because many local farmers cannot spend the many or take the time to become certified organic, so I rely a lot on trusting their word about how they say they grow their food.

Organic is my second consideration when it comes to eating. Buying organic food not only supports farmers who go organic, but it is a health consideration. Eating organic food means I worry less about pesticides and other inputs. I know I am eating produce, not wax and dyes. However, I will admit that organic produce is not always local depending on the season and not always affordable. When my lovely local, organic farmers expend their late fall squash and roots I am left with the choice between Whole Foods or Yes! Organic or Giant. Also, when I buy canned goods, spices, sauces, dairy, beverages, bread, and even some meat I have to decide between these three all year. I often buy organic products sold at Giant and use Whole Foods and Yes! for specialty goods that I need. I am lucky in that my Giant has lots of organics and even some grass fed meat!

Finally, my diet as being sustainable is the biggest issue I come to terms with. For me, sustainability means how sustainable my diet is in terms of environmental impact, but also if is is a sustainable pattern for my health and wellness. I am what many people call a 'recovering vegetarian', so I eat meat rarely and with lots of hang-ups. I eat grass fed beef, lamb, and bison as well as fish. I have tried to cut out poultry items as well as a lot of my fish intake by substituting soy products. However, over the last week I am noticing more and more that soy makes me feel really bad physically. Also, only a portion of soy products are organic and soy production uses a lot of fertilizers, so how is this really a big win? So, back I am to the drawing board. My overall standpoint on this is to eat less meat, higher quality (grass-fed organic and preferably local) with LOTS of fresh organic produce. But, being on the run between work school, the gym, friends, and life in general makes cooking and packing food all the time very hard. Still, I think about the environment when I eat and sometimes this is an unfortunte plague and gives me eating schitsophrenia between what my body is telling me to eat, healthy considerations tell me to eat, and environment tells me to eat. too many voices sometimes.

The worst this I've had this week...... I ate all vegan on Tuesday, but as I said the soy made me kinda sick. So this was the best eco food day (despite some no organic soy), but it was the worst day I felt all week! I ate salmon on Monday with farmers market veggies. We grilled the salmon on Sunday night and ate it for dinner Sunday and lunch Monday. It was 'wild caught' which Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood watch suggests as the Best Option, but I am betting ours filets were from Washington so they are the Good Second choice. This 'wild-caught' still worries me because of the potential destruction to fragile river and ocean eco systems. However, all I've read says that salmon is VERY closely monitered. Alas, it was delicious. Also, I am a little concerned about my decision to try organic turkey over soy for enviro reasons, although health and mind are telling me that turkey makes me feel way less gross than soy. hmm....

Shoppin' Ain't Easy, or Why I Can't Stop Eating Farting Cows

Until this class, I have never thought about how my food choices at the supermarket would affect the environment. Honestly, just because I buy "iceberg" lettuce as opposed to organicly-grown lettuce can't have that much of a negative impact, right? This sis something I've never thought of before, and something I might have to start asking myself. What worries me is that not everyone in the world is taking this class, so not everyone is going to start thinking about these things. In other words, there are millions of "past me's" out there that will buy what their hearts desire, and some of those, even with all the information in front of them, won't change their minds. However, it must be noticed that morality does not play much of a role now, since price seems to rule the day. Even if something is less environmentally friendly, if it is more expensive, then it probably won't be consumed. This is a common theme all throughout the natural dilemma. So, while I have changed my perspective on shopping, the majority of persons will not have, and that is an even bigger question: how do we get them to be like me now? Surely, they can not all take this course - Ward 105 is not that big of a classroom. We must then appeal to people's pockets, preferably their wallets. Prices of environmentally friendly products must be lowered as whole or non-friendly products made more expensive. Without this, frugality will win, and ultimately destroy our food supplies.

Recently, I went to Chipotle on a business meeting for the Ambassador Program here at AU. As someone who enjoys meat a whole lot, I order the Steak Burrito without much thought. Of course, Chipotle advertises that they only use the "finest meats" from "well-treated cows." Yet, when I look at the price of $6.75, it is hard to believe that those cows were treated well, since that would cost a lot of money. It is my belief, then, that my Chipotle eating habit is, in all likelihood, brutally affecting the environment. The poor treatment of animals, the nature they graze on, and (histerically), the more cows there are, the more methane is produced from their farts. Not to mention the disease that may be in those meats. I wish I could write on here once and for all that "I declare that I will never eat at Chipotle again!" Sadly, I like the guacamole too much. Either it goes bad, or I'm still going. Trust me, my head is down in shame.

In Two Hundred Years

I think my two images of life two hundred years from now are the same. Two hundred years is a long time, ten generations in fact, and I think regardless of whether we take the current path or dramatically change our life styles tomorrow, it will all even out in two hundred years and both will take us to more or less the same place.

Just think about how far we have come in the last two hundred years; think about how much life has changed since 1809. Slavery was legal and huge business, no indoor plumbing, it was nearly impossible to travel faster than 35mph, unless in free-fall, and food came nearly entirely from local sources often from within sight of the house in which it was eaten. Human lifestyle has changed so much in the last two hundred years, that anything I can say about Washington DC two hundred years hence will be highly speculative, but here goes.

People will live in multi-unit dwellings, mostly apartments. The layout will be similar to family dwellings today. There will be several bedrooms, a couple bathrooms, a kitchen, a dining room, and a family room. There will also be a home office because many companies will switch to a telecommuting model. Telecommuting not only saves the employees commuting time, but also eliminates the need to rent and maintain costly office buildings. Some jobs however cannot be telecommuted to and will still require employees to be present daily.

I think energy will come nearly entirely from the sun. Recently, I saw prototype solar panels that looked just like colored glass. I think in the next couple hundred years it is possible we could see solar panels built into clear housing windows that are powerful and efficient enough that a house can fully run on solar panels hidden in its windows and on the roof. Power from the panels can be stored in batteries that fit inside the walls and under the floors. A typical family dwelling will also probably be able to store enough energy to run conservatively for a few days without sunlight.

Food will be almost entirely from local sources. Many apartment complexes will have large greenhouses on the roofs. The greenhouses will allow people to grow year round, limit bugs and weeds without pesticides, and partially control the climate to grow the best and hardiest food possible. These gardens may be communal, but may also be divided into tenet plots, or a combination. Water for the gardens will be collected from the rainfall, but may be supplemented by the municipal water supply.

Transportation will be accomplished by several means. I don’t think we’ll ever convince Americans to give up private transportation, we really seem to love that sense of freedom. Cars however, will look completely different. They will be totally electric. The advances in battery, motor, and safety technology will allow them to run for hours at more then a hundred miles an hour on a single charge. They will also take only minutes to charge and chains of neo-gas stations will spring up for people to charge away from home. For longer distances across land, electric bullet trains will also be an option. These trains will be more luxurious than before and will travel at great speed, perhaps two hundred miles an hour or faster. Airplanes may contain the last remaining hairs of the modern internal combustion engine, but they will be more efficient and will loose popularity to the trains as people become more aware of their personal environmental impact.

I also see the population shrinking during this time, as the human population self-adjusts to returns to less than the maximum carrying capacity. On a final note, I’m a little sad I won’t be around to see how close I am to the actual life style of humans in two hundred years.

That Choice

Looking into the future, two hundred years from now, I truly believe Washington D.C will look different from now whether if society takes its current path now, whether society decides to go completely green and use reliable energy, or whether society goes 50-50. When I say 50-50, I mean we continue on our way but at the same time implement “green” measures halfheartedly. Two hundred years from now, D.C and all the cities around us will look different. What national capital has stayed the same without some serious adjustment due to technological and architectural adjustments? When D.C was first created, it did not look like the D.C we know now. So when I look ahead at D.C, at its current path, I see something a little different

In 200 years, I see the Capital Building, the Memorial, the Mall, the White House all there, still standing. I see solar panels, thermal protection sheets, rain and water reusing technology already installed in the museums, homes, and government building. Energy will be considered reusable because the advancements of technology in capturing sun in the solar panels and wind from the mini wind farms on top of all homes and building. People will be of course using recycled paper and becoming more serious about recycling. It would seem that the environmental movement succeeded because in reality, due to the way society has moved at the paced we are now moving, we have failed.

We have failed the planet. Our ozone layer depleted, our carbon emissions did not drop significantly, our climate temperatures have risen, our ecosystems have change, our environment is no longer the environment we have now. Why, because of man’s failure to change, to adapt. 200 years from now, people will be asking, why did we not see the warning signs? Why, did we not see that with the increase of temperatures, biologically systems would change as a result? In which, we would have to adapt along with it because we are directly linked to how and what our environment will provide for us. Of course everyone is going to use solar power because, if the sun is beaming down UV rays and skin cancer is officially on the rise, why would the human population not take advantage of the high level of energy that is piercing through our atmosphere, and when of course, there is no more oil or fossil fuel left. Which means everyone is relying on alternative use of energy. How do we use fossil fuel if it doesn’t exist anymore?

People will be forced to grow their own food in different environments we are used to now. People will be forced to be responsible in their consumption levels, not everyone can be meat eaters because of the energy it takes, and the methane cows produce to feed every mouth will increase and as a result, add more pressure to our earth to sustain us. Housing will be forced to be green, because the rate were going, there will not be enough timber, wires, cables, cement, glass, etc to house to everyone in the middle class setting. Houses will have to be built using glass, which captures to the sun’s energy, all the water use in the house will be monitored and constantly reused, because the planet’s oceans can’t provide for the 15 billion people who need clean fresh water.

However, if society starts now, we will not be forced to go green because of depleted sources. Society will go green because we want to save our planet. We want to save our environment; we all want our children to live in clean safe environments. As result, it is important for Washington, D.C to go green as soon as possible. Unfortunately not all the affordable technology is there yet to implement it worldwide. But when the technology does become affordable for everyone to take part in the “green” revolution, Washington D.C and the whole world will not be forced to live sustainable, because our resources are depleted, we go “green” because we have a choice. We have a choice to take care of our planet and a choice to take care of our future.

That is why I hope our country and D.C, will look like what its needs to look like. Solar panels, wind technology, biomass, thermal protection sheets, heat absorbing glass, mass public transportations that use biomass, reusable water technology implemented in every public, private building and homes. Social responsibility along with environmental responsibility implemented now into schools so out future can be aware of their impact and make a positive change for our environment. Our monuments, State Capital, White House and memorials are still there but of course with the added technology. Our housing will probably have more stories added to decrease the amount of sprawl use. As a result of decrease sprawl more farms can be added around the city to decrease transportation cost and use again less energy to feed the population. Two hundred years from now, people will be more food consumption responsible and know what impact they are having on the earth and actually take due action. This is what I hope for the future. I hope that society won’t be forced to take action because there is no other choice, than take action now so that choice of living in a depleted environment is not an option.

Sydney

A movement that begins now

I was inspired by the president of d.'s speech on September 22, Car Free Day. He asked us to envision D.C. a mere 15 to 20 years from now with more greenspaces, larger community parks, more walking-only streets and bike-only access. My mind began to wander to the idea of having more of D.C.'s beautiful oaks stretching over boulevards that shade a bustle of walking locals below. So, thinking forward to 2210 my mental vision begins to fail me. The picture of D.C. in 200 years will depend on the upcoming choices that our generation and those after us make about this city, but also the decisions of our local, national, and international neighbors. D.C. cannot move to 2210 on its own, but only as a piece of the global ecological puzzle.

So, where does that leave us? If I entertain my preferred vision of D.C. 200 years down the road then I begin with my original vision of D.C. in 2030. This vision requires a decided switch to favor foot and bike traffic, to run more efficient and energy-lite public transport and to reduce our overall dependence on fossil fuels. This, combined with a national and international reduction of energy use, over-haul of our food system, and redefined housing demands could lead to a beautiful union of urban-nature living in our 10-mile square.

Housing would need to be smaller and more energy efficient, using recycled materials and offering shared community space. Think apartments with shared green-roofing and atrium gardening that work together to filter air and water for the building. Solar panels would provide electricity, possibly along with children's playground equipment and sports equipment that generate electricity. No more yards, no more pools, no more un-used space. Food would be produced in urban gardening areas and food production would be done by residents who would be given the time to produce their food around their work schedule and personal pursuits. This would be expected and everyone would have to do this as an integral part of their social life and responsibilities.

Energy might by produced by an algae that eats methane and expel ethanol alcohol that burns as fuel. Perhaps all long-distance travel in the region would be done by speed rail trains. Suburban sprawl will have been scaled back and this move to urban environments will encourage smaller families.

The scary doppleganger version of this if we continue on our current route might resemble a dis-topian capitalist burn-out. I imagine a depressed human population that is forced to go to war over food and water once the legal system and governments can no longer mitigate the shortages. The District would be subsumed into the surrounding locale once the governemnt lost credibility and could no longer garauntee food. People would begin to migrate out of urban areas to attempt to till the already stripped soil. This mass starvation and movement would decrease the population but increase environmental harm as urban populations evacuated and preyed upon the land like locusts. There is a powerful truth Americans learned in the 1920s crash that we seem to have forgotten the lesson of today, but the market cannot feed people. It can move money and create money out of nothing, but it cannot feed people or give them water. Once the "owners" of these resources are discovered to be in fewer numbers than the starving masses than their property rights and stocks won't mean much.

I don't think we will get there. I can't think that we will get there because I have too much faith in human ingenuity and self-preservation instincts.