"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....