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.

Washington - Future, Hopeful

So, here's an interesting thought. One of the biggest arguments as to how to save our finite resources is to decrease population - a valid theory. What those against population decrease fail, while they are entitled to their opinion, do not realize this simple fact: if we continue to consume resources at the rate we do, at some point we will run out of resources to sustain people, and people will die and decrease the population, rather than just not be born and not have to suffer through death. Thus, regardless, population will go down, but not peacefully. Therefore, 200 years from now, if we continue on this same path, I think Washington, D.C.'s population will actually start to decrease, but people will be angry because they are dying of starvation and thirst. The roads will have deteriorated, since the ability to transport such heavy materials that go into making roads will be much harder to transport. The temperature in the summer will perhaps be an average of 90 degrees Fahrenheit, thus summer will be the season where most people die due to heat stroke, dehydration, etc. Air conditioners will be limited in usage since they consume too much energy, so people will be constantly uncomfortably hot.

The education system will suffer because there will be no more buses to take kids to school, and most parents would not risk their kids walking outside in the heat or cold, depending on the season. Of course, teachers will have too much trouble getting to work themselves, which will increase the size of classes, or cancel classes altogether. And, if people don't live near their work, with transportation being near impossible, the economy would suffer along with education. What this also means is that future generations will not be educated enough to fix the problems we made, which essentially guarantees the persistence of our effects. Another problem with a lack of education is that education-poor countries typically have worse government, which could cause the absolute demise of American power.

All the government buildings that are symbols of American power in D.C. will start to deteriorate, since future Washingtonians will have the resources to keep them stable. Thus, America will seem weak, as it can't keep it's greatest symbols up. One day, there will be tragedy when the Washington Monument simply falls over because of all the decay. All the cities Rivers will be at levels seen only in the gutters on the sides of streets, and the entire city will be enveloped in a smell of excrement and other waste. What once would have been a citing glimmering with prowess will become a fallen soldier than had once fought for freedom and - ironically - prosperity.

The gloomy vision I have proposed is a possibility to happen if we can continue on our current paths. While some may disagree and think that my assumption is hyperbolic, the fact that I can say these things and not have it sound like science-fiction to some shows how bad our current state is. What follows now is a possible Washington, D.C. if the world's effort to preserve the health of our planet works. In other words, what my hope is for this city in 200 years.

In a sustainable D.C., the pubic transportation will be able to take people to more places while consuming less, and with greater speed. For example, buses that run on only clean energy, or massive trams that can carry 1000s of people, and takes them all over the city while using minimal electrical power. It might be government mandate to take this transportation, but people should want to since it gets them to work/school/home much faster, cleaner, and with no traffic jams.

The transportation situation would improve our economy because everyone could get to work easier, less would have to bought on singular things, and we would stop destroying our natural resources, which is part of our economy.

Anyone could live where they would like, since getting to work would be much easier. Also, with less people in the world due to intentional lower birth rates, it is easier to get everywhere, which reduces stress in the world. The D.C. rivers will regain their full-water strength, and perhaps greater schools of fish could live in the river, adding a while new attraction to the city. Tourism would pick up, since our city would be clean, which would help economic matters, as well.

With lower populations, and reasonable consumption, enough food and water will be available for everyone, sustaining every happily. Thus, the world of a sustainable D.C. is a happy D.C. We must change our path, or the first scenario is the most likely of the two.

Inspiring and Honest Leadership.

Dr. Maniates is, of course right, we have not been asked to do all that we can. Americans have a history of coming through when we are asked to by our leaders. But, our leaders today have not been honest with us about what we need to do and how important it is that we come through this time.

I want to look at the I=PAT equation. The P is population and Americans have not been asked to have fewer children. Americans abuse the environment at a disproportionate level; so, then one of the best ways we can reduce our global impact is to have few children and have a smaller population. Now of course I’m not advocating a policy like China’s One Child, I believe people should not be coerced into having fewer children by the government and indeed there are major human rights issues with the One Child Policy. But, rarely do people think about the environmental impact of having children. That should be on the radar screen.

The A part of the equation is where I think our government and other leaders have failed us the most. In my lifetime we have rarely been encouraged to consume less. In fact, I when I was in high school, George W. Bush actually encouraged consumption extolling its virtue as patriotic and American. That needs to stop, I can think of no society that consumes at a higher rate than we do.

Technology is the final part of the equation and another failure of the American leadership. Take automobiles for example, the technological accomplishments until recently have been developing bigger and bigger SUVs and trucks, transportation that is extremely inefficient. Technology has not been focused on developing affordable electric cars and more efficient and comfortable mass transit systems.

Combating climate change has been left to the free market, consumers would decide when the problems became too severe and they were ready to make the sacrifices. But, then the problem and consequences were down played and made to appear less severe. “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” is all we are really told to do; we can do so much more. Dr. Maniates is right, “throughout our history it has been knotty, vexing challenges, and leaders who speak frankly about them, that have fired our individual and communal imagination, creativity and commitment.” During the Great Depression and wars, our leaders have stepped up, spoken frankly and the American people came through. We can come through again, we just need inspiring and honest leadership.

It's Time For A Real Revolution

I could not agree more with Michael Maniates' thoughts and views when it comes to how we are treating this crucial and life-threatening issue. We are truly being coddled and scared of upsetting anyone.....and why? This country, has NEVER had an issue when it came to demanding change. Racism, sexism, gay rights, Vietnam, and the list goes on and on and on. Why are we treating this any differently? The importance of protecting our environment goes above and beyond any of the other eras of protests and revolutions that we've experienced, because if we don't even have a planet that can sustain life to live on....nothing else matters - because we'll all be gone.

I have to admit, however, that I had not even seen it, nor had the slighest notion, to look at it from Maniates' viewpoint. I have to say that I was content on having everyone do just a little tiny bit to help out and do their part; being happy with the slightest progress. I still am, with any progress - as long as it's progress; but why are we not demanding a true change? There is not really any opposition to what's going on! So if this really is the case - why the intimidation and fear to make a change? It just doesn't make any sense.

When generations to come take their history classes, they will see how people had no fear to demand change and how they wanted it NOW! They protested, they rallied, they put themselves into very dangerous and frightening situations...all in the name of positive change. They can see this from almost any decade, and any meaningful and significant cause. When they come to us, at this time right here and now, we will be seen as cowards, and fools. For being too afraid to demand change on the most important issue of all - the plight of our planet. We have become so absurd as a society to where if we slip and fall, or someone says something we don't agree with, we threaten to sue, point fingers, or throw the biggest temper tantrums in a heartbeat, instead of owning up to our own faults and taking responsibility for our actions. I always thought that as time goes by, we are supposed to become a little bit wiser and move ourselves as a society into a positive and forward direction. It seems to me in a lot of instances, we are doing the opposite. We need to save face, and save ourselves, and stop the ridiculous behavior and do what we all know we need to do: Grow up, take responsibility of our actions, not be afraid of demanding change, and do something about what we care about and cherish - our lives.

What is this? The easy red staples button?

I truly believe that we need, as citizens of the world, to stop acting like children and given the easy way to save the earth. Like hello, we have an easy time destroying the earth with our consuming ways. Not saying that consuming is bad, but we do need to pull back and make a better effort to protect out earth. We need to make a better effort to educate our young about the cause and the effect, and the footprint that we leave on this planet. “We’re treated like children by environmental elites and political leaders too timid to call forth the best in us” as Prof. Maniates said.
I agree when it comes to protecting the environment, many are politically scared to clamp down on the pollution or the foreign oil dependence because of fear of retaliation in votes or special interest groups. So instead of pulling teeth, we are treated like children and told to take the “easy way” out. What is this, STAPLES? Where all we have to do is push the easy button to get the best “results” We need to do better and that means looking for “Fundamental change in our energy, transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins”

In the way he challenges the mainstream environmental movement, I think right now we are at the tip of the iceberg. People know about global warming and climate change. That’s the tip. Now as we continue to “move down the iceberg” we need to do a better job of change. We need to look past easy and move towards a more coordinated individual but concise plan. However, the exact plan needs to be planned before we make any real progress. As I learned from reading, the United States is the lead emitter of carbon dioxide, and as a result, the United States, yes thats most of us, needs to be the leaders of change.
We never had a problem being the leader of change when pointing our fingers, clicking our tongues and placing sanctions for other countries for "doing wrong" The government never had a problem leading in global affairs, so it makes me wonder when will the United States and many other countries, decide to be the leaders in the mainstream environmental movement instead of waiting for others to take the lead and "following"?

So the question I ask myself now and everyone else is- " What difference can we make to make sure our government makes a difference in the fight against climate change" Petition, scream at each other at townhall meetings and have every news channel show it live? I don't have an answer..yet. But I know it is not pressing the red Staples button, that i see in the Staples commercial.

"Easy" Ain't Bad

Maniates could not be more right: there needs to be a stronger, more central leadership to persuade us Americans to change our ways. Without it, the people of this nation will not be inspired to act, and to act accordingly to what needs to be done. However, Maniates, even though he says doing the "simple things" is not all that bad, he did not emphasize that it is, in fact, good!

I remember reading the sections from McKibben's book Maybe One, and I can recall his point that, even though reducing the population is not enough, it gives us time. Sure, we would be delaying the inevitable, and clearly more would need to be done, but if we do not know what that is yet? Surely Revere did not gallop down those streets without sure knowledge that the British were coming, FDR would not tell people why we should oppose Fascism was bad until he had a clear agenda as to why, and certainly Martin Luther King, Jr. did not perform for those brilliant forms of prose until he was sure what he was going to say. I am under the impression that the United States is doing this now - they are not sure exactly what to do, but for the time being, they are prescribing the easy, almost "duh!" things. I reiterate - I agree with Maniates that there needs to be more, "easy" is definitely not enough. But if it is all that we have, that we know, and it could allow us more time to think, then is doing "the easy things" really that bad Should it be condemned so strongly?

Overall, the United States needs to clearly do more - and this is a fact that can not be debated against. But I have enough faith in this country and its past performances to be able to say strongly that I believe we have the will to act, and "the easy things" is only the tip of the iceberg. Whenever our government knows the game plan, they will relay it to us, and as the good nation we are that does well in a time of crisis, we will respond strongly and efficiently. Thus, the people will need to rely on the strong central government that understands that this is a test of our character, and will need to rule with dominion. The American people will respond when that time comes - until then, "the easy things" will have to suffice, for it the best (good!) option that will allow us to think.

He's right, but we're stubborn

I am right there with Michael Maniates and I cannot begin to tell you how much I wish this was the perspective of more Americans, especially more young Americans. What the unfortunate truth is though is that Americans are stubborn and as long as there is someone pushing the ideology of "Consumerism Before All", then they will take that easy way out with a gleeful chant of "This is Just How We Do It Here In the U S of A". So long as there is an immediate connection between patriotism, consumption, and American success then easy-does-it environmentalism is going to be the predominate tone. This is a shame because if we closely examine the tried and true American values, like Michael does in his section on American leaders who lit a fire under the people, we see that ingenuity, perseverance, strength, health, education, and freedom all hinge on a stronger environmental agenda. Yes, freedom. We currently have the freedom to come together as an American people and make choices for future generations and to lead the world by example towards a sustainable way of life. However, if we complacently linger and opt to do the little things only, then we are depriving future generations of the freedom to live healthy, safe lives on this planet. Yes, this might curtail the freedom of consumer power, but do we define our freedom by our purchase power?
My hope is that with Copenhagen on our near horizon international political, environmental, and economic sources can come together and say some honest, blunt, and open things about our future on this planet. Maybe Americans will dismiss this, but if bi-partisan leadership can accept the idea that the future of our environment is NOT red or blue and move forward, then I think their constituents might start to get the message.

The Real Story of Stuff?

I was a little disheartened after watching the video of "The Story of Stuff". Why? I just didn't feel that everything was factual or even had a solid foundation for a lot of the accusations that were made. This made me sad because I had heard about this clip, and really wanted to be 100 % behind it...but I can't. This isn't to say that I thought it was all bad; but I now see how and why those that oppose it can jump all over it and tear it apart. I wish she were a little bit more careful on some of the "critical" statements that she made, and were able to back up some of those things like military spending and U.S. involvement in depletion of other countries' resources. Many of these environmental issues stem from the governments of the countries themselves, not solely U.S. presence and/or domination. However, I felt that most of what she said was very eye-opening and in a lot of cases, true - just difficult for people to wrap there minds around. I just hated that a lot of the comments made at the very beginning more than likely turned a lot of people off and against her...resulting in many people to be turned off and not open to the rest of what she had to say.

One thing that made me laugh hysterically, because I felt it was true, was during the revolving lifestyle that we come home from a long day of work to watch TV with ads saying "You Suck", leading us to buy products to make us feel better. That I will cherish the most...because I feel she hit the nail on the head with that.

I read both of the articles that were in regards to her film, and really felt along the same lines as Steve Cohen, from Columbia University's Earth Institute. When I read the second article from the Heritage Foundation, I was completely appauled and disgusted from the second paragraph on. I would love to say everything that was on my mind after reading this, but I won't. I just lost so much respect for those affiliated with that organization, and many of the people that responded in adhearence to that post. From the very beginning, I found so many holes in their arguments and distorted interpretation, that I couldn't even warrant any merit to the integrity of that person's article. It was sad, and I truly feel embarrassed for all of those who saw a basis for their opposing views from that article.

All in all, I really think it was a great model and representation for the most part. I enjoyed watching it, and am not opposed to her and her views in any way. EVERYTHING I see or read (i.e. media, blogs, articles), I know I'm getting one or a group of peoples' thoughts. It is open for debate/interpretation and I don't take it all as fact. That being said, I am not against her, and know where her heart was in making this short film...I just wish that she were more careful in some of her statements, which left her open to be attacked when what she was doing, was bringing a conscious and mindful eye to all of us who walk this planet.

Better Late Than Never

Hello everyone,

This is Andrew Walicki and this is my first semester here at American University. I am at a Junior standing, however I have enough Community College credits to have an Undergraduate Degree....however one can only transfer 60 credits, sad to say. I have had a little problem with getting started with the blog but believe I have it rectified and am HAPPY that I can finally get with you all here on our blog now!

As I had said before, I am a Junior here at AU and still have to figure out if I will be going for a degree in International Studies, or in Spanish/Latin American studies. Either way, both my focus and desires, are in the Environment. Ever since I can remember, I have been deeply troubled and conscious of the issues that face our planet. I can recall being in one of my classes in the 4th grade, and really realizing that I wanted a career that dealt with environmental protection - or something along those lines.

I like to think that I do everything in my power to change the fate of the planet; by recycling, taking alternative transportation (walking, public transportation, bicycling, etc.), getting others involved with recycling, carpooling, and the list goes on. Yet, I eat a lot of meat, I have a car from the 70's that gets about 7 miles to the gallon, and constantly travel and eat out. However, as that article from Fish pointed out, one can't beat themselves up for not being a model citizen of this planet. We all do things that aren't "the best" for the planet, but it doesn't make us bad people, or people who don't care about the environment. I love my old car, and I love driving it...but I don't drive it every time I go out, and if I am with a lot of people, we all pile into it, instead of taking multiple cars with 2 or 3 to each vehicle. I make notice of how much I use, reuse, and recycle, and even cut down from there....but I'm not perfect, nor can I even strive to be.

I am taking this class because of my passion for the environment and because even the course title is what I'm all about - International Environmental Politics. As our friend Justice said earlier in one of his posts, I would love to be able to work with the environment and tie it together with politics. I would also love to do this on a global scale, though not opposed to doing local work too. We all know the state that our planet is in, yet we don't really ever hear about ways to truly change it, or how to better ourselves and everyone around. We only hear about the negatives (which there are a lot), but there definitely are ways to make positives, and that is what I am hoping to get out of this class, ultimately.

I look forward to this class and being with you in a group. We seem to have a lot already in common, and I really am looking forward to getting to know more about you all. Sorry for the late posts, but again - better late than never.

STUFF VS FACT

Reading the two articles let me to realize a few things. Both articles represent polar opposite views. The Cohen article represents the fact, that yes American is here and this is what our economy is built upon and we should change it for the betterment of the world.The belief is that "our economic base is built on over consumption and waste of finite natural resources" Which economically is true. America consumes more than any country in the world but the population barely contains over 5% of the world's population.

This is true, look at all the research.

The Heritage Foundation view is that we should not be ashamed of what America has worked hard for and it does not matter what or how we built this country, this is America and we are proud. Its not about consumer child vs. consumer child. If our child wants it, let them have and forget about where it came from and where it will go.

The point is, If you want to become and stay the "greatest" country in the world, its important to lead by example. That example should be- "One Earth, One Population, Take care of it."

The Story of the Future of America

This debate, as many debates in politics, is, in large part, a debate over the future of the country. I say that because this debate (as covered by the articles) really centers around children and what is presented to them in their schools.

In the video and these articles, we see two competing visions of the future America. There is the America of Annie Leonard, an America in step with the needs and dreams of the rest of the world, an America that is resourceful and respectful of the planet: an America building a better future for the generations around the world.

But, that is not how the Heritage Foundation sees this video; and perhaps, the environmental movement as a whole. They fear, an America that has compromised, downgraded, and my very well be socialist: an America that has thrown away all that our ancestors worked so hard to built us.

Stuffy Stuff Stuffers

The contention over stuff and buying it, having it, and throwing it away is rooted into the fabric of industrial society. I am also intrigued by how flustered people get when asked to think about their stuff. Peopel prefer to think of their relationship with their stuff as surface, very shallow, and uncomplicated. Of course we all have things we are attached to, but by and large even the 'things we can't live without' are sacrificed for upgrades when the newest model comes out. So, that said, it is no suprise to me that people got all in a huff over "The Story of Stuff". I agree that the academic response by Cohen makes easier reading as he is looking for a constructive answer. Also, I loved reading in the Times that her video inspired other videos by elementary schools and high schools. I personally think the video should be shown at schools and I plan on suggesting to a good friend who teaches in DC that she show her 5th grade class. The Heritage foundation neglects to consider that the litterature and information that neglects or underestimates our consumption problem is commonplace! Perhaps you could view "The Story of Stuff" as one-sided, but I think she is adding a voice that has long been ignored and deamonized. Also, labeling her "left" as he wants to do or "extreme" is counter-productive. She is NOT politically left, or "extreme", she is an environmental activist with some obviously Marx-influenced political ideas. Now, the fact ath Marx is a modern-day-satan to the uninformed American is another sad story entirely unto itself. I stand with Cohen in that I would love to see the sequel of Sustainable Stuff, but I think the blunt-edge information Annie offers is equally as important even if it is onlly a small part of the picture. What really gets me cooking is that some people want to shelter our children so much from independent thinking and from *oh no* their teachers. If you are so afraid of people re-considering capitalist ideology, you must be scared of something........knowledge?

Reaction to "Stuff" Debate

It must be said: I love to argue. Even weirder, I love watching arguments; thus, seeing the uproar of Annie Leonard's video "The Story of Stuff" could not have made me happier. The Heritage Foundation, for example, showed their discontent toward the New York Times article profiling the 20-minute movie immediately - "in case you weren't reading the New York Times front page today, we wanted to point to you to an especially disturbing story." This conservative think-tank went on to spew that Leonard's message was, "the story of how America is not a nation to be proud of." The rest of the article, essentially, bad-mouthed Leonard and her "un-American ways". With this, I find a major contradiciton.

Leonard could not do anything more American than make the exact video she made. Sure, not everyone will agree with every fact, detail and proposal she made (including myself), but can we truly say that she is "un-American"? To me, making a strong statement for something you believe will only make this country better is not just American, but patriotic. It is apparent that Leonard believes strongly that her ideas will only make this country better, which is a great thing to add to the public discourse. Her leftist argument is well posed, and the right did not treat her patriotic remarks with the respect it deserved and merely started a smear campaign against her. I condemn the Heritage Foundation for simply attacking her instead of making a smart rebuttal, especially since they missed an excellent opportunity to add to the public discourse in this very important topic - which, in my opinion, is the main function of the media.

In this sense, I applaud the effort Steve Cohen. He, like the Heritage Foundation, did not accept Leonard's presentation, but he rebutted academically, with wit, and with actual counter proposals. For example, he says, "The world economy is so tightly interconnected that even the slight reduction in American consumption now underway has already increased misery here and around the world." This is completely different from Leonard's message, but he counteracts her argument with one of his own, instead of just putting her down without any academic backing. Also, he gives legitimacy to her film when he says, in the article that he is disagreeing with, "I urge you to take twenty minutes and watch it." (I added italics for emphasis) This is precisely the kind of debate this issue deserves, and this kind of discourse can only do more good than harm. Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation's blog is nothing more than a smear campaign and barely fit enough for toilet reading.

Hopefully, this kind of debate will receive more opponents like Cohen and Leonard - they can be leaders for their respective sides and lead the country down a path that can help make this country good again. Together, they are what it is to have freedom of speech in this country, and people like the Heritage Foundation abuse it to no end.

Introduction: Justice Randolph

My name is Justice Randolph; I am a junior in SIS concentrating in International Politics with a minor in Political Science. I thought I'd introduce myself for this class by sharing my unfortunate collection of environmental sins. I live in Kansas City (about a thousand miles from DC) and I fly home several times a year. I eat meat. I love driving. I drink soda and coffee on a daily basis. And, there are others, I’m sure.

Environmental issues have long been a concern of mine. As an elementary school student in Berkeley, California, the environment was probably the most common theme in science class and as I recall, all of our experiments connected to humanity’s environmental impact in some way. Also, as a child, I would always ask to pray for the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil during the Joys and Concerns portion of the church service every week. Finally, my father is an ethicist who works on environmental ethics, so environmental justice was also a common topic of conversation at home as well.

I’m taking this class to reconnect with a life-long concern and connect it with a newer interest: politics. I hope to gain stronger grasp of the environmental issues facing humanity now, as well as a better understanding of what has, and can, be achieved through national and international politics.

In his article, Fish expresses the feelings of many Americans. I believe, we want to live as an environmentally friendly people, but in our society, it is usually the easiest solution that wins out: it takes effort and sacrifice to live sustainably.

I also think this title is interesting, "I Am, Therefore I Pollute." My original score on the Ecological Footprint thing was 4.6 earths; however, I went back and re-answered the questions in the most environmentally sustainable way I could. The second time, I was a vegan who only traveled by foot and bicycle, I lived in an efficient house with a dozen roommates, and I lived without electronics and even that was not enough to make my lifestyle sustainable. The few people who do actually manage to live that environmentally friendly still rack up an ecological footprint of 2.6 earths, by virtue of being American I think. I think many Americans say to themselves “I am, therefore I pollute, therefore I life might as well be easy and comfortable.”

Hey everyone, my name is Sydney Taylor and I am a junior majoring in International Studies with a concentration in U.S Foreign Policy. Like we have been asked plenty of times before, why did you choose to enroll in this class?, my answer is the following: I do not know a whole lot about environmental politics nor anything about International environmental politics. That says a lot since this past summer I worked as a full time intern at the United Nations and one of the things I had to work on was a briefing on the Copenhagen Agreement. To tell you the truth, I do believe in global warming and climate change, but to be completely honest from what I learned and experienced this summer, I do not think the world will come to a complete agreement on anything serious that will have great benefits on Climate Change. Sure, the leaders of the world will say, “Yes we need to do something”, but in reality how many of them will actually do anything serious about it. Except Denmark and a few others who have led the way in solar and wind energy.
Why I have come to this conclusion is because this world has become extremely competitive and many nations do not want to lose their standing in being an economic powerhouse. Also there are many countries, who depend on the exporting of millions of barrels of oil a day, a week, a year, who will be greatly affected by the cut back of oil. Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria are two countries, if I stand to be corrected that economy depends on the oil and other resources. This is what I believed and learned so far.
As a result, I definitely decided to stay in this class to learn more from an academic standpoint on what is going on in the world when it comes to climate change. What are other countries doing, that is not projected in the news, when it comes to climate change? What other technology is out there that is being created to decrease our dependency on oil? I would like to know more about how the environment effects food security in Africa and Asia where the result of climate change is being felt the most. Do people know that changing of the environment results in food instability or increase stability? If that answer is yes, what needs to be done to increase food security.
As you can see I have many questions and my one question that seems to confuse the mess out of people is, Why do they or do not believe in climate change and global warming? Is it because of the news media, the environment around you? Are we as a people in denial about the changes going around us? Are we too comfortable to realize that in order to live on this earth we must take care of it, just like we take care of our families. So everything I have just said explains to everyone why I enrolled in this class, what I hope to learn from this class and what I can hopefully contribute.

As to this article I just finished reading, a quote struck me in a way I can’t seem to explain. The quote reads, “But it is possible to believe something and still resist taking the actions your belief seems to require. (I believe that seat belts save lives, but I never wear them, even on airplanes.)” I think many of us can be defined by this quote. There are those who smoke and know it is extremely bad for you, but they still do it anyway. There are those who own and drive a gas guzzling SUV or Hummer, we know it’s a gas guzzler, but they still purchased the vehicle. I can go as far as to say there are many of us who yell that we need to wean off the oil dependency but um hey you guys, “ Many of you own SUV’s! There are millions of us that know that leaving the lights on when you are not in the room, leaving the water running when you are not using it, is bad for the environment because we are wasting the precious resources we have, but how many of you will actually unplug that electrical outlet when we leave the house. Because as we all now know, your TV may be off, but if its still plugged in the outlet, there are still electrical currents running through the system.
How many of us, are willing to change our ways because it will become less of a convenience to do it. Now when we try to calculate what it means to be living environmental friendly in the U.S. That takes a lot of planning to do. Turning and unplugging all the appliances every time we leave the room only to do it when we walk back into the room 10 minutes later. Not watering our lawn every two days but instead once or twice a month. Cutting our shower times down to less than 5 minutes or so. Not turning on the Air conditioner the minute it hits 77 degrees, but instead keeping the blinds close to keep the hot sun rays out. I think America can live environmentally friendly but when we have different people screaming different things from climate change is not real or the earth goes through this every so often, to the world will end in 50 years and not have a concise answer, it will definitely take some time for people to believe in sustainability and eco-friendly development.

I'm in the same pond as Fish - Alex

I will start simply by wishing my blog partner Hanna well with her ordeal vs. H1N1. Feel better, The Planeteers can't survive without all its members!

As for myself, I'm Alex Ward and I'm an IR major living in Southborough, MA. I spent this past summer catching up on a ton of books and working as a waiter at a fancy Italian restaurant called Papa Razzi. I was surprised they hired me, though, since I am an underage kid trying to sell ludicrously high-priced bottles of wine. Still, it was an interesting experience. That job didn't stop me from going to Barcelona, Spain, though, to visit my family, since all but my parents are all the way over there. I'm very happy to be back at AU and look forward to a great semester - this class (obviously!) included.

In all honesty, I still don't know why I enrolled in this class. This is not meant to sound bad - I'm very excited and happy that I'm in it - but if you had asked me six months ago if I would ever think to enroll in a class with even a shred of science in it, I would have laughed in your face; however, I couldn't let my dislike of "science" keep me away from learning such an important subject. As an IR major - but, more importantly, a citizen of the world - it would have been wrong, in my view, to pass up the opportunity to fully engage with the problems I'm sure will become pertinent in the near future (as much as that pains me to say). Ultimately, as cheesy as it sounds, it was my sense of morality and concern for my fellow man that lead me to enroll in this class - I need to know what's happening, what's going to happen, and what, potentially, I can do to stop it. That, I guess, is why I'm enrolled in an environmental politics, and that is what I'm expecting to learn from this course. In return, I hope that my perspective of the guy "just here to learn" can help, because from what I've seen, most of the class is fairly environmentally literate. And while it sounds counter intuitive that the guy that barely knows anything can contribute, my hope is that my point of views as an outsider may fall upon ears that have not heard that argument before, and maybe start challenging some already preconceived notions. Thus, even though I don't know much on the subject, I do not plan to just sit back and listen - I feel I still have something to offer to the course. Indeed, I'm here to learn.

At first, I was very put off by the article - it just didn't make sense to me that a man who has devoted a career to the environment would suddenly say how much he hasn't really done for it. It was later that I realized that within the article lied his subtle wisdom: not even someone who has spent his career on the matter can be perfect at "living environmentally"! It's impossible! He essentially said it can't be done; however, and herein lies the true meaning of the article, it doesn't mean that perfect environmentally conscious living shouldn't be striven for. Thus, his main argument is essentially is just because it's practically impossible to do does not deter from the fact that you should try to anyway. Just because there are "too many battles to be fought" does not mean that one shouldn't try to. Living an environmentally perfect life would essentially mean an end to living - no travel to far away lands, worse tasting meals, less kids (if a big family is what you enjoy), etc. The environmental problems we face should not necessarily mean an end to the life you know, but striving to keep your life in balance while help the environment is all that can be asked for. Failing is not the biggest issue, it's the attempt. While, of course, succeeding is the ideal, is the fact that someone hasn't succeeded really be that big of a "black mark" on the person? Should not that fact that the person is trying to help be enough? At least to me it is, and I think Mr. Fish would agree.

I believe I'm in the same boat as Mr. Fish when I say that "living environmentally friendly" should not consist of having your life be dominated always by having to make the environmentally moral choice - it would drive you crazy! However, I do believe in doing things to help the environment constantly: for example, turning off the water when not needed, combine laundry loads, carpool to places/ride a bike if it's possible, by locally grown foods. These are things that I believe people should start to do and continue to do if they so choose. Living environmentally, then, is doing things with the environment in mind that you believe can help. This seems like the U.S. version way of doing it - "don't tell me what to do, but I'll do it because I know I have to." As long, then, is trying to do their part, I cannot be mad at them. Just because they're not perfect doesn't mean they're bad. The only people I'd have trouble with are those that choose to ignore "living environmentally" altogether. But, if you make an effort under your criteria of "living environmentally", then you're doing your part; if everyone did things like this, then the world would be a better place already.

09/03: Introductions and Ponderings

Engaged in a moment of 2009 history, I have fallen ill with H1N1 and am therefore writing to you today from bed, a participant in the epidemic. I just want you all to remember that I had Swine Flu before it was cool.

As you might already know, I am a senior at AU where I study IR: Global Environmental Politics and double in Philosophy, with a French minor. I used to live in Lyon, France and just got home from Cameroon, where I studied abroad this past spring. I grew up in Kansas on a farm with lots of animals. I get outdoors as much as possible, so if anyone has any great suggestions on camping or hiking around the DC area I always love to hear them.

I am constantly looking into green businesses in DC for work at Live Green, so I would love to hear more suggestions about green business you love! On that note, please check out our web page at livegreen.net! I would love to sell you a membership for $13 :). Also, if you like I can post about our new green spots on here so you can go check them out. Let me know if you are interested.

I am in IEP because I look forward to making sustainability and environment a part of my career and lifestyle. I would like to go into green building and pursue a masters in sustainable development. I hope that my ever-expanding resources on living green for less money in DC will benefit others in the IEP course. Also, I hope that my p.o.v. on balance and environmentalism combo-d with philosophy can add to group discussions. I am an avid Foucault reader as well as Deleuze (I have a Deleuze and Guitarri inspired "rhizome" tattoo on my left side), Nietzsche, Marx, and Sartre. I think these lovely thinkers have a lot to say about nature and our attitude towards politics, industry, government, and human responsibility and creativity.

Reading the article by Stanley is like listening to my dad gripe about why we have to pay for recycling, separate it, and tow it down our 1/4 mile long driveway in separate containers. All this from a man who willingly and carefully composts horse manure for his garden. I for one have a list of eco sins the length of my arm. I shower too often, I mostly quit smoking but did that for a long time, I fly for travel, and I eat non-sustainable seafood. Worse yet, I am surrounded by a schizophrenic peer group that is split between vegan/vegetarians, those of us who shop local/sustainable/grass-fed, and the I don't care to change-ers. This mélange of information offers a daily sort of confusion for me. Am I doing all that I can? No. Am I making efforts that I can maintain over the long-haul, improve upon, and still keep me healthy? Yes. Unlike Stanley, I got into this environment thing when I was a kiddo. Let's blame that on generational differences. However, I have had to alter and re-route my eco-choices along the way, making certain mistakes and sacrifices along the way. I believe that living environmentally in the US today means doing the best you can for you, staying up to date on information and opportunities to green your lifestyle, and making steps towards greener choices. I believe in balance and lifestyle changes. So, for me that meant giving up being a vegetarian when I became very ill and anemic and switching to little meat, grass-fed. However, I still have some deep seeded feeling that my vegan and veggie friends are better people than I. Alas, we do what we can. If I could only kick this sushi addiction......