Over AC We Disagree

This was an interesting blog topic since it almost naturally came up between a friend and I this week anyways. In one of my classes (Energy Politics) my teach informed us that utilities charges in apartment buildings are usually not based on individual apartments' consumption, but rather the aggregate averaged out between all the apartments in the building. A friend of mine had moved into a new apartment with separate utilities charges, and I informed him of this fact. He promptly responded "Awesome!" and declared he would run his AC all the time in that case. I was a bit taken aback and responded that he should at least be conservative for environmental reasons. At this point we hit our disagreement. He and I could not seem to agree about the moral imperative of individual conservation efforts. Though we both agreed on the dangers and reality of climate change, he was of the opinion that individual efforts were useless in combating itself. He suggested that the only way real change would come was either from the heavy hand of government or the invisible hand of the market. Though I am also of the opinion these are the most likely to really alter the trend, I also believe there is some sort of moral imperative for the individual to monitor and alter their own environmental impact. I realize no one can be the perfect "Mr. Green," but that there is some responsibility for each of us to act. He simply contended that as long as the whole system was flawed, there was no need for him not to be one the one that benefited from the flaws. After more lengthy discussion on ethics in general, we agreed to disagree and I secretly committed myself to running interference on his electricity use every time I visit his place.

Cradle to Cradle

After looking at Cradle to Cradle, my appreciation for "green" architecture has increased greatly. I enjoyed reading about the authors' interpretation regarding this area of environmental wellness, but also understand the moral compromise that it entails. Despite the efficiencies that green architecture can provide for, from the Pompedou Centre in Paris, France to our own SIS building in the process of being erected, green architecture is extremely expensive and not always aesthetically appealing. For large cooperations that are looking to cater to the masses, green architecture is not always the best way to go from a business perspective. On the other hand, much like the title of our blog group states, going "green" is the new thing to do, and architecture like this might be appealing to those organizations that are trying to appear to be cutting edge. I do see this form of architecture on the rise, however, as I see the green movement on the rise along with environmental optimism for the future of our world. 

Cradle to Cradle

I really enjoyed the book Cradle to Cradle. I think the views of William McDonough and Michael Braungart mixed views we have already learned with a unique twist that came from their background and the industry they are involved in. Those who are involved in design- such architects and chemists, are important for the future. Many people are focused on technology becoming cleaner and greener, while that is important, architecture leads to long term changes that are greener- if it is done correctly. It was neat reading about the office building that was designed to keep the building cool with good insulation, air passage and soil and trees on the roof. I remember seeing a design in my hometown with plant life on the roof and wondered the purpose for that. It was also good that chemists were involved in the creation of a safe, non-toxic, biodegradable upholstery. The water that ran into the factory came out just as clean after its use. This makes me wonder... why couldn't anyone else have thought to do that before?? These changes not only make sense for health and aesthetic purposes, but they make economic sense too! In the short run, the costs to build the more energy efficient and aesthetically pleasing office buildings and factories may be higher, but it is made up in the higher productivity of the workers and the variable costs are less, such as electric and heat. The same concept applies for the factory that creates natural, non-toxic upholstery. As an economics double major, I have not really seen a reason why firms should be so against becoming 'green.' Is it the pain of transitioning to cleaner fixed costs (capital)? The lack of access to resources that aren't as harmful? The lack of company will to want to come up with a green solution? There certainly is great pressure by the population for industry to become green and safer. Reading all about what kinds of cancers I am likely to get by studying on the carpet in my home and through other such things is very scary and yet nobody knows about this! This is a case in economics of asymmetric information. This occurs when one party in a transaction does not have the same information as the second party. The tobacco industry has regulatory labeling on their products displaying all the potential diseases one could accrue through smoking cigarettes so why can't the linens, carpet, furniture, etc all have the same? 

Global Warming

After reading both articles, I was surprised that there are scholars out there who are so passionate about the unlikely negative effects that global warming will cause. I constantly hear about the great dangers in global warming, and how certain factors and what we put into the environment will strongly affect and increase in global warming, which will have various other environmental implications. Even though I don't consider myself an environmentalist necessarily, I do feel that there is definitive proof that global warming has significant side effects on the world's resources. Furthermore, even if someone feels that the evidence about global warming is not completely concrete, it should still be closely examined. While it's a new area of environmental research from a relative perspective, there is clearly a great deal of destruction being put towards the environment right now. Any studies regarding such destruction are worth looking into, seeing the fast pace that the environment is being put at risk. I'm sure with time we will know for sure the true effects of global warning, but until then, it should continue being studied as there is nothing to loose in doing so. 

climate change. Does it matter? no

It seems that there are two sides of an argument which both wrap themselves in the banner of science. One side urges action against an impending disaster while the other claims that the record suggests otherwise and we should remain calm. While it's very hard to make sense of much of the data both sides cite, I found wisdom in the words of someone who is not even credentialed on the environmental debate. Christopher Hitchens was once asked what his opinion of the global warming debate was. Hitchens is regarded as a bittingly witty, hyper-intellectual with alternative views on issues that are hard to shake. When asked this curveball of a question, hitchens responded as an intelligent and wise person who has to make a decision with little information. His answer was "I don't think it matters whether global warming exists or not, that is not the issue. If we had a couple of extra planets, we could conduct plenty of tests and ascertain the truth beyond reproach. However, we have only one planet and we can not afford to be wrong on this issue. There is no room or time to test these theories." What struck me about this point of view is that when faced with a decision about an issue for which he has almost no information, he derived a logical criteria with which to make sense of the issue.

Both web sites list many counter-arguments to known questions and cite scientific data to reinforce their claims. I found that the pro-global warming (if thats the proper name) had more information and a stronger set of counter-arguments while the other one was more sparse. I can respect the bias for truth in science that both sides have, however it does bother me that one side feels it is wise to use a scientific jargon to ease concerns about the existence of global warming. A science teacher posted a video on youtube where he creates a punnett square to apply pascals wager to the climate change issue. For as much as I hate pascals wager, it did have a strong relevance to this issue. The teacher designated one axis "GW: True/Not True" and the other axis "We Act/ We Do Not Act". He explained through game theory what the risks and rewards are. His basic argument was that if we act and gw is true, we lose nothing but gain a new way of life that is more sustainable, if we do not act and it is true we lose everything. If we act and gw is true, we triumph. If we do not act and gw is not true, nothing happens. Cleary we have everything to gain from treating gw as a fact (regardless of its truth) and nothing to gain and everything to lose if we do not act (regardless of whether it is true). How could you not treat gw as a serious issue? Given these scenarios, it is very disturbing that a website beleives that dispelling gw "myths" is a wise course of action.

Corn, Its In Everything

So as far as this weeks challenge regarding corn products, I would rank my success as somewhere between failure and absolute failure. Not only must it be extremely difficult for people making a really active effort to not eat corn products, but as a college kid who has a hard time making sure I get three meals a day at all, it was even more difficult. It made me realize that for those who do not have the luxury of being extremely selective with what they eat (i.e. the poor), they are really the victims. They have little choice as consumers in what products they eat, and so are major consumers of corn, willingly or unwillingly. I guess this exercise helped me see diet from a social-green perspective, in that there are social inequities in our dietary system as well, beyond the ecological impacts of a high corn diet, there are the nutritional implications for the poor as well. As a college student, my diet might be most similar to that of a poor person, and so like me, they struggle to eat at all, let alone having the luxury to eat products other than corn. If we all had the option and time to eat locally grown fresh food, the benefits would be enormous, in both health, and environmental implications.

Corn Exercise

Well, the corn exercise wasn't exactly the most successful on my behalf. I work at an organic sushi restaurant, and was there six nights for the past week so had dinner there during that time. However, a great deal of the sushi are seasoned with a miso aioli dressing that contains mayonnaise, a product that has corn derivatives. I also realized that the beer I was drinking (which I am not normally a fan of, but was the only thing around at the party I was at) also has components of corn, something I never thought of before. The biggest surprise to me about corn products wasn't even in food, but in the face makeup I wear! When looking to see if the bronzer I was wearing was hypoallergenic, I noticed that corn starch was found in the list of ingredients. Very bizarre, but true. This week, I'll definitely be sure to notice more about the corn in my diet, however I was able to make some pretty significant observations that I wouldn't have noticed had I not had such an assignment. 

Question 6 and 7 Combined

Before I answer this weeks discussion question I want to back track and complete last week's question since I did not have the opportunity to do so yet. 

As the first section of questions: "What, exactly, do you think about when you make food choices? Do you have environmental considerations in mind? Or other stuff?" I do keep nutrition in mind, yet; I'm also a college student with not a large income to spend money on fancy organic foods. I stay away from canned anything, yet; I do purchase frozen foods. I really wish that foods did have labels on them that said "Genetically modified" on them because it would probably reinforce my decisions or cause me not to purchase something. Whenever I buy meat I always purchase the brand that states it does not contain antibiotics or hormones, however; sometimes I'm skeptical about how much truth that holds. I would like the chance to blame my being Dutch-ness on my food purchases too. My roommates always ask me how much stuff I bought at the grocery and how much money I spent. They always do this because I have a tendency to buy only buy what is on sale or if I have a coupon for it. 

The second part of this question asks: "Take a few moments to consider everything you've eaten in the last day or two. Of the food or beverage items you've consumed, which, in your estimation, has had the greatest environmental impact? Why?"  I think the mini frozen pizza I ate for lunch today had a pretty large environmental impact. First, it consists of a plethora of inputs such as the dough, the sauce- which comes from tomatos, the peppers, mushrooms, and sausages. These inputs were either grown on a large scale farm somewhere that produces a large amount of waste, and the sausages came from a pig, which probably sat in a stall in an industrial farm without room to move and was forced to eat foods unnatural to him, such as the grain. Then these pizzas were put together in a large factory somewhere and frozen. These pizzas used energy to keep them frozen and also had to be transported in a truck that had a freezer to the grocery store. Then these pizzas had to remain frozen in the freezer there. Luckily i do not have a car so it did not cost any fossil fuel energy for me to transport myself to the store and back home with the pizza. From there the pizza went into my freezer until i had to heat the oven and let it bake there for 15 minutes. This pizza also came in a box and plastic wrapping- further pollution. And the cost of the pizza? $1.00. After analyzing that, i don't think i'm going to be buying those pizzas again. 

Now for this weeks question: The corn challenge! I also failed at this, but I did always look at the ingredients of what i ate to take into consideration there was corn involved. One thing that surprised me was bread! Just yesterday i went grocery shopping and found a bread that claimed it did not contain "High fructose corn syrup" in it. I didn't know most breads have that! And to prove it I looked at some other brands and it was an ingredient! Another thing I noticed was the frequency of corn, soy and wheat being in our diet. If it wasn't corn, it was one of the other two, often times there was a combo of 2 or even all three. This brought me back to senior year of high school when I went on a field trip to the Chicago Stock Exchange. There traders were buying and selling corn, soy and wheat- the commodities exchange. This really brings it all together for me and shows that these three foods are driving the American diet. 

Corn challenge

The short story is I failed. The long story is that I gained some valuable perspective on how deeply entrenched corn is in our diets and how difficult it can be for allergic persons to eat normally. While I already had considerable vigilance against corn based products prior to this experiment, I still managed to fail because I assumed that products like vanilla extract "probably does not have any corn additives because corn could not possibly substitute alcohol or vanillin (the only ingredients necessary). However, I found out after consuming certain comestibles that I had used a vanilla extract that contained corn syrup. I should point out that this occurred on sunday, and after many painful avoidances had been sacrificed. FML. This experiemnt helped to further illustrate how centralized the US food system is and some of the pitfulls that arise from such an organization.

Agriculture

My food choices center around three main criteria. First, I look for freshness. You can define freshness as the chronological proximity to the foods ideal consumption period. Second, I look at the ingredients. I usually try to avoid unhealthy or unnatural additives like corn syrups, partially hydrogenated oils etc. Finally, I prefer to buy locally made goods. Buying local usually assures that the product is not only competitive with leading brands but has a smaller carbon footprint than other leading brands.

The most environmentally damaging food I ate recently was a cheeseburger. Since it most likely came from a large scale industrial beef plant, it was grown by ranchers who use feedlots (discussed in Vegatable-industrial complex), slaughtered in a large processing plant and driven great distances on large trucks. While I normally don't eat such food, especially red meat, the Tavern didn't really give me any alternatives.

Food

I realized recently that probably one of my worst areas of environmental impact is my eating habits. This is also one of the hardest for me to grapple with, as I am a true blue food lover. While I understand one can be a food lover and be conscious of your environmental impact, this is something I had never really considered before. I am also one of those people who is not too fond of vegetables, making me a major consumer of meat products and processed foods, and therefore a contributor of environmental impact. Not only that, but I am often a consumer of delivery food, even worse in impact. Part of the problem is my pickiness with vegetables, and TDR often fails to provide options that agree with my tastes. Since I am moving off campus however, I can hope that purchasing my own groceries will not only make me more conscious of what I eat, but allow me to pick eco-friendly foods that also agree with my tastes.

If I look back at my recent food consumption, I can easily decide which item is the worst. In a very comfort food mood, I caved and ate a Chiburken at McDonalds. This is where you buy a McDouble and a McChicken, and put the chicken patty between the burger patties. I almost feel shameful in retrospect, not only because of how disgusting that must sound, but the sheer amount of meat in it. It probably contains more meat than the average person is supposed to have in a week. This is representative of my problem too, in that I am a food-loving, meat-loving, American, with a typical American diet, which in this case...is a very high impact one. It is also clear to me that this is one area I can seriously make a difference in impact, as it is simply a matter of choice, and maybe manning up and eating my veggies. I will have to focus on greening up my diet, pun intended.

yes! to technology

yes!!! i do believe technology holds the answers for the future regarding our environmental situation, and in the end, does have the possibility of ¨saving us,¨ as much as i hate to hear that! when thinking of technology in regards to the environment, it is easy to see the down sides as well as the positive effects. for one, technology has been the root of all waste, one could argue. with wealthier nations having access to unlimited amounts of technology, there does come the inevitable problem of waste. as we saw in the video about ¨stuff,¨ with new forms of technology comes the throwing out of old forms. all this is very bad for the planet in deed. but just think of all the positive uses technology has created too! for example, recycling. now we can recycle our ink cartridges, as well as paper, plastic, glass, etc. old cars and out of date computers can also be re-used. technology has also created THIS--the form of communication we use everyday. how else would we know about climate change and global warming without technology? as the planet earth video pointed out, technology can be used to save DNA of particular species (although we don´t fully agree with this theory at times). because of technology, scientists and environmentalists are able to study the various trends of climate change, as well as how various species react to these changes. technology has also led to the creation of hybrid cars, solar panels, green energy, and more. it is because of technology that we will be able to trigger the negative effects of global warming before there is no option. i believe that with the right objectives, as well as the right policy makers and leaders in power, technology will be used a positive tool to help with the environmental crisis. 

Pro-Technology

Perhaps I am just naive to the whole environmental school of thought, but I definitely think that improved technology suggests an improvement to the environment. Of course, I don't know all of the facts about this idea yet, and this is why I'm taking the course, but as an outsider on the subject matter, there are definitely outward signs that help in arguing this point. For one thing, we've been able to develop one of the most integral components to the pro-environmentalism movement, recycling. Although it has existed for some time now, recycling has not only helped to dispose of less waste but has also acted as a PR tactic to enforce care of the environment, through its very symbolism alone. Technology has also allowed us to develop new forms of transportation that are less wearing on the planet. Over the past hundred years, cleaner gas emissions, public transportation, and now, Hybrid vehicles and Smart Cars also encourage ways of getting around without being as harmful to the planet. While some argue that cars in general are extremely toxic to the environment, with the emissions they produce and their bodies themselves as being wasteful, technology has helped to work with the times in upgrading environmental efficiency that most compliment our needs. Furthermore, technology has been a key tool in creating products that are biodegradable and environmentally friendly, like laundry detergents, shampoos, and other chemically-based products that act as waste and disturb the environment and its wildlife. Yes, we have become more needy and with that, have developed more materials and "stuff" that could be potentially detrimental to the environment we live in. However, technology has also led us to find ways to stop the harm. I guess technology is a two-fold argument. It has developed the weapons that have harmed the environment, but has also assisted in developing solutions that could help to save our messy situation. 

Technology

Technology simply put, is a tool. Any tool can be used for good or for bad, it simply depends on how one uses it. This is a generalization of course, but on a macro scale this rule applies. The problem is that technologically advanced societies and states also tend to have extensive wealth and affluence, which leads to more consumption and a larger ecological footprint in general. So, while usually technology will first lead to an expansion in the scale of ecological impact, there is no reason it cannot be used to reduce the impact afterward. For instance, it is only with highly advanced technology and materials can we produce efficient wind turbine technology. In addition, it will be difficult to undo much of the pollution and harm we have done without advanced technology. Another important factor to remember is that the internet (i.e. technology) is a useful tool for communicating the facts of the environmental cause, educating people across the globe about environmental issues, and organizing for action. In addition, it is only with advanced computer models that we can really model the impact and effects of much of our environmental impact. Clean coal technology is yet another example of how technology can be used to reduce harm and impact. These are just a few examples, but they help illustrate how technology can be a force for environmental good when applied in the right manner.

The problem is not necessarily with technology, but with we the users, who use it to abuse or harm the environment rather than protect or reduce impact. After all, if we recall Nash's article, he depicts an ideal future of minimal environmental impact made possible only with highly advanced technologies. Indeed, if we put focus into increasing general technological efficiencies across the board, it might be possible to keep a relatively high standard of living while reducing environmental impact to a long-term sustainable level. In addition, technological advances can help supplement reductions in the workforce enabling us to sustainably reduce population. As previously stated, technology is merely a tool, and the real challenge will be learning how our society can use it appropriately and for the right purposes.

technology and the environment

In considering whether technology can save the environment or not, I feel it is important to consider what technology essentially is. Technology is defined by merriam-webster as the practical application of knowledge, especially in a particular area so as to create an ability. Philosophically, it is how humans control their environment to their advantage, regardless of how you define environment. Whether it involves fashioning a spear to ward off bears or a fishing pole to catch fish or even a house to protect from predators and inclimate weather, technology is how humans secure THEMSELVES in nature. It is also the engine by which they separate themselves from nature (as in building societies to escape a state of nature). There is no doubt that technology has played a multiplier role the global environmetal degradation, but can it also reverse this? I think not. While a cornicopian might argue otherwise, I am of the opinion that to start repairing the environment, we need to reverse population growth, reverse material consumption rates and improve efficiency whereever possible. Speculating this from a macro perspective, technology should be able mitigate all of these requirements, but only to a certain exent. For instance, technology can craete contraceptives and abortion techniques to curb growth rates, but it is up to individuals not to reproduce excessively. Technology can make industries and processes more efficient thereby reducing consumption rates, but it is up individuals to consume less to begin with. In short, I do beleive that technology can help save the environment if we apply it properly, but in the end it will require more than just technology to save the planet.

Technology

I'm a bit on the edge when it comes to technology. I can't deny that I own quite a bit of it- I have a lap top, i-pod, cell phone, hair straightener, toaster, microwave, refrigerator, dishwasher, TV, DVD player, etc. All of these things I probably couldn't live without honestly. Maybe a few I could cut from my life but in order for me to go back and remove a dishwasher or microwave, I would need society to slow down to allow me to be able to wash dishes by hand and actually enjoy a good meal made by an oven. I feel society is constantly pressuring technology to speed everything up to make us live our lives faster and get more things done in a day. When it comes to technology saving us I'm even less sure. I think technology needs to be given a chance but not allowed to spread so fast so far that if the consequences turn out to be more negative than positive, then it should not be allowed. In this respect I'm thinking about medicines to cure or prevent particular diseases. I remember watching the film, "I am Legend," and a lady found a cure for cancer or something like that. This 'cure' was rapidly injected into people, and the unintended consequences turned out to be even more harmful than the cancer. I do think something like this could happen in the future if humans don't extensively test for unintended consequences. I feel a bit better about genetically modified organisms although i do think people have the right to be nervous when something is first introduced. Nerves of the population would be calmed through this extensive research on newly discovered technology. I do think the concept of "genetically modified forests" is a little weird. After all what's nature if it's not natural?

Environment AND Economic Growth

President Obama's recently passed stimulus package was not only an economic stimulus, but it included several points of environmental protection and legislation on cleaner and more efficient energy. In many of the instances the government stimulus is expected to protect the environment while at the same time, help boost the economy. Some examples include the following:

• Setting aside $5 billion worth of spending for weathering homes and buildings to become more energy efficient. This in turn is expected to economically help those in the business of weathering homes. Additionally, it will prevent 9.7 million tons of global warming pollution from being produced and create 375,000 jobs.
• A tenth of the money will be given to environmental initiatives, with $32.80bn in funding for clean energy projects, $26.86bn for energy efficiency initiatives and $18.95bn for green transportation, giving a total of $78.61bn directly earmarked for green projects according to an analysis made by Environment America.
• About 3.5 million 'green-collar' jobs are expected to be created or saved over the next two years.
  
• In the original Senate version of the package, a provision of $50 billion would have gone to and been used by the nuclear and coal industries; however, this provision has been cut from the recently passed package.
• The stimulus package is also expected to create 67,000 solar jobs in 2009, and 119,000 in total through 2010.
  
• $8bn in new high-speed rail projects will also be invested.
  

A setback environmentally was the plan to upgrade the country's electric transmission system to use renewable energy and improve its efficiency. It's original funding was to be $11 billion but was cut to $4.5 billion.

There's a whole list of environmental provisions included in the stimulus found at this link: http://environment.about.com/od/environmentallawpolicy/a/econ_stimulus.htm

What also makes me pleased about this stimulus package is that the money will be disbursed accountably and transparently. Vice President Joe Biden is even in charge of tracking this accountability. The White House is also creating a website to track the spending. I find all of these environmental provisions and even the set backs as astounding accomplishments. Not every environmental need will be met by the government, but the government is taking a big lead in promoting environmental protection. Hopefully, this will inspire other countries and companies around the world to act. Most arguments against protecting the environment have been from those arguing economic advancement, but most of these provisions are benefiting our country both economically and environmentally.

Some online sources I used to look up this data relating to the Stimulus Package include:
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2236575/obama-stimulus-bill-green

obama makes environmentalists smile

i was very pleased to read a recent new york times article specifying obama´s environmental focus regarding the $787 billion stimulus package. it is high time that our government take the reigns concerning the future of our environment, and i have been absolutely appalled in america´s lack to do so for so long. the truth is the rest of the world looks up to us to take these challenging tasks and do something about them. we are a country made up of creative, intelligent, hardworking and sensitive people who should care about the environment. it has been disappointing that in the past, particularly in the past eight years, the environment has been put on the back burner. therefore, i was extremely happy and frankly not surprised to see obama take this step towards obtaining clean energy. obama stated that this investment in clean energy will ¨double the amount of renewable energy produced over the next three years.¨ this is extremely exciting because it has the potential to completely shift the way americans use energy today. it is a bitter sweet subject, and quite incredible to hear that just three years is all it takes to double renewable energy...if only this could have been done sooner..yet, i digress...

obama also announced that a large portion of the stimulus package would be given towards more environmentally-friendly programs, including $5 billion for low-income weatherization programs, more than $6 billion for state and local governments, and several billion more to help modernize federal buildings--all with a focus on energy efficiency. ¨smart grids¨ are also high on obama´s to-do list, as well as clean coal projects, and experimentation involving electric car batteries. perhaps the most promising of all these new programs and endeavors is the $500 million that will be invested to help train workers in ¨green jobs.¨ this is exciting because it has the potential to start a ¨trend¨ in the work sector, and if americans see that there are opportunities to make money as well as make a difference, the results for the future could be extremely beneficial. obama´s idea of  restoring the economy and at the same time helping progress the energy agenda has huge potential in transforming america´s energy situation. investments made now can greatly alter the future for green energy for the better, while at the same time replacing the old and dirty with the new and clean.

stimulus

President Obama's stimulus package for over 787 billion dollars included a significant chunk to be dedicated to environmental issues and projects. It includes replacing the fleet of federal cars with hybrids, a massive EPA budget to reduce pollution, "greening" federal buildings to increase energy efficiency, increasing the efficiency of the power grid (and its ability to use renewable sources like wind), as well as many more programs and slush fundings for environmental programs like job retraining. Frankly, this is a fresh wind in an area that has been deprived of the previous administrations attention and funding. It is not a cure-all, but is a step in the right direction in my view. Permanent increases in funding and studies on systematic ways to reduce our environmental impact will be necessary, but that was not the sole purpose of this package and hopefully this signals a permanent shift in national policy towards more environmentally conscious ones.

What is most interesting to me however, is that there is a subtle perceptual shift encompassed in this bill that might not be first apparent. Like I said previously, the sole purpose of this bill was not to reduce our environmental impact, it was to create jobs and help the economy. Wait...help the economy? Surely there must be some misunderstanding... the previous administration assured us the reason we couldn't be more environmentally friendly was because it would prevent job growth. And there it is. Suddenly, environmental protection is no longer a goal at odds with that of creating a healthy economy, and this recognition, more so than the actual policies entailed in the stimulus bill itself, is possibly the biggest and most positive step we could take as a nation. While I'm sure the effects of the stimulus bill will be endlessly debated for generations, there is some sort of consensus that we can now benefit economically from environmental protection and reduction of our impact. If this new assumption rings true on a very large scale, it could even end up defying the basic assumptions of the I=PAT equation on affluence and impact. Its nice to know our politicians have started to embrace the idea that you can benefit from doing the right thing. It will take focus, direction, honesty, serious examination of our society, and hard work to really get results, but people are at least starting to get that we CAN work to protect the environment AND help our economy.

All I can say is...thank god, its been a long time coming.

Obama's Stiulus Plan

Wow, it's already one of Obama's first initiatives as of the new administration. It's crazy how quickly time goes by in the political world, and with that, political objectives and regimes. I think that it's quite impressive that one of Obama's first initiatives deals with the environment. With the stimulus plan, Obama laid out the pieces of an economic plan that would add an additional three thousand miles of electrical lines. This would not only increase homeland security, but will DOUBLE the United States' renewable energy capacity within three years. At 825 billion doubles, the plan first appeared as being controversial and unappealing to republicans. With an attempt to appear bipartisan, there is still some doubt from the opposing party. 

Obama's plan aims to to the following things:

-Double within three years the amount of energy that can be produced by renewable resources, and with that providing power to 6 million households

-Upgrade 10,000 public schools with the new-found energy and improve learning for approximately five million students

-Save two billion dollars each year thereafter due to new energy efficiencies

-Triple the number of undergraduate and graduate fellowships in science

Not only will this plan be more beneficial to the environment from what I've learned so far about it, but will also work to stimulating new jobs in the midst of the devastating economy. While conservatives are worried about their pockets, the situation we are in warrants the attempt of such a solution. Even though it's not perfect, anything is worth a try at this point both environmentally and economically. And for some reason, I have much greater faith in this than I've had in any initiatives over the past eight years...

experiences with the non human world

i´ve had many incredible experiences involving the non-human world. i remember one trip when i was young, my family and i went to yellowstone and actually snow mobiled through the park..it was amazing. i remember seeing deer and elk walking by as we would slow down on our snow mobiles as to not disturb them grazing nearby. i spend part of the year in colorado, and love when i see a bald eagle flying in the sky, or the occasional mountain lion hiding in the woods! since i am a huge fan of animals, whenever i travel i try and visit areas where animals native to the area live, such as nature preserves. i think the most incredible experience i had with the non-human world was on a small island off of thailand, called krabi. there, i woke up every morning to the sound of a ringing bell: a baby elephant making her way down the beach with her trainer. i made sure to wake my seven year old cousin up early so we would make our way down to the beach to see her. she was so beautiful, and i remember how smart she was--she could find a water bottle (using her trunk as both a nose and hand) deep in the bottom of another tourist´s backpack. it was incredible. one morning, we had the chance to go swimming with the baby elephant. the trainer told me to rub sand on her back, so i did, at which point she began to play with me! she would take her trunk and try and trip me, and this amazing game began..of me rubbing sand on her back and her chasing me! finally, we jumped in the water and she used her trunk to spray water on me. it was magical. 

On Nature

It's hard to say what the most magical or enchanting experience I've had with the non-human world. Some that come to mind right away are my childhood memories of El Dorado and Yellowstone. When I was younger, my father would take my siblings and me to El Dorado, both in the winter and the summer. One summer, I remember camping next to a serene lake. We were tucked away in the forest just far enough not to be able to see the lake, but a two minute walk was all that really separated us. One memory I'll carry with me is of a tree that had fallen only ten feet from our grounds (some years prior). Curiously, I jumped onto the tree and walked down it like a bridge. This "bridge" carried me through a grouping of dense shrubbery that wouldn't be navigable. After falling on top of this concertina-like bush, the tree blazed a natural trail into an area which not only wouldn't be accessible but also unnoticeable. The "bridge" ended with a small clearing (surrounded by the thick barrier shrubs). This clearing was bizarrely inhabited with beach sand and a small beach of its own. I remember myself taking the bridge to my hideaway more times than I can count. Another memory of this lake was of my brother and I being to adventurous for our own good. We were on one end of the lake and decided that we should conduct an amphibious raid of the opposite shore. Since the other shore was easily a mile or more away, we would require some sort of raft. What we decided on was a giant log that had been soaking in the lake for some time. It had the perfect amount of buoyancy, just enough so that when he and I boarded it like a motorcycle, it floated just beneath the surface (actually very dangerous in retrospect). We paddled our way for what seemed like 2 hours until we arrived at the opposite only to discover that after all our hard work, bravery and ingenuity, we liked our original shore better. The lesson being that the grass really is greener on the other side of the lake. Nature really is the best teacher.

Absolutely. Aside from ecological and environmental health reasons, nature provides a nurturing counter point to the psychological abrasiveness of modern society. Being able to learn about nature with all of your senses rather than a picture book is a scenario to which there is no alternative. The real question isn't whether we should save nature, but whether we can save it. It seems that today, more than ever, we are heavily invested in our self made habitats. People don't hunt their own food, nor do they even hunt the lattes they run on. It seems to me that the only way to reverse the damage to nature is to undue much of what we have built. Can people put down their lattes? Can CEO's of destructive companies dismantle their polluting machines against the better judgement of capitalism? Can people regardless of their profession become more attentive and informed about the environment, enough to make smart choices? To me, these are the only questions worth asking

magical enchanting nature adventure time.

Nature holds a very special place in my heart. Most of my favorite memories usually involve enjoying my local park during the summer, camping in the great outdoors, and just plain old beautiful natural scenery. Even when I travel now, my vacations are not complete without some sort of natural experience.

I recall a special place that my friends and I would always go to in our town park, to... commune with nature if you will. We called it Mordor. You see, there were these massive overturned trees all in a line, such that they formed a wall. To pass this wall, you had to pass through this tiny path in between the torn up roots of these overturned trees, and this we called the Black Gate. Forgive the geekiness, but once you passed through the Black Gate into Mordor, the whole place just took on a magical quality...

Over the course of our years making mischief in the local park, we developed our own nomenclature for this natural world. It took on a mythical quality, with the relevant stories for each place, each landmark, and we developed a magical bond with our surroundings. The natural world around us was as alive as we were, and eventually became as much a part of our "good 'ol days" stories as us too. It was a second home for us, and it still retains a fond place in our nostalgic musings. We of course take the opportunity to return from time to time still and enjoy the place that in many ways has remained the same and yet still different and magical each time. I cannot fondly think of home without also thinking of this place and the memories, stories, and bonds it helped us create. I can't help but think that if more people developed the type of bonds with their natural surroundings I and my friends developed, their respect for it would make it easier to attempt the of society wide changes necessary to preserve these places.

Saving Nature

There are so many magical moments I have had with the non-human world I can hardly name just one. Often when life gets to be moving really fast, I escape by enjoying nature. Through literally 'stopping to smell the roses' I not only appreciate nature but am able to get my personal life back on track and realize this world is so much bigger than my small issues I am dealing with. Thinking back to a specific moment I was absolutely blown away by was when I was in Kenya on safari in the Masai Mara. There were not any tourists in the Mara at the time so it was just me, a small group of people, a Land Rover, and endless land. I remember we were sitting on top of a hill looking over a valley towards a cluster of larger hills when our driver told us the country of Tanzania was what we're looking towards and it would take us around five hours to drive there; yet, my eyes could hardly even imagine that because I've never saw a distance of five hours before! Nature made me feel so small and insignificant! There was not any telephone poles, no electricity, no lodging anywhere in that expanse. At night, I could see EVERY star in the sky. I cannot believe that's something that's withheld from so many people because the sight of a brilliant sky put me in the philosophical stance talked about in so many articles we've read about. In those articles, the authors discussed how humans don't appreciate nature and treat it without ethics because the philosophy we apply to other humans is not the same as toward nature. Looking up at that sky, looking out across the valley, I felt insignificant. I felt my issues, were not that important. I also felt more equal with everyone else in the sense that we're all on this Earth and rich or poor, powerful or not, we are all just one. So yes, I do think we should concern ourselves with saving nature. It shouldn't remain static and unchanging since the Earth is naturally going to adapt to changes due to human and non-human consequences. However since humans are the species with the most negative effects on nature, we should try and lessen our impact. This is especially the case of my views on the food chains in nature. In the Masai Mara, the Maasai warriors have had difficulties with lions because the Maasai herd cattle and the cattle is an easy target for the hungry lion. Historically, a Maasai rite of passage is to kill a lion but because of the Kenyan governments efforts to protect lions this rite has been regulated (Maasai warriors are put in a group to kill one lion for each age group). However, hostilities between lion and Maasai are great because lions prey on what makes up the Maasai's livelihoods- cattle. If the lions are exterminated, the gazelle, impala, and other types of animals will compete with the cattle for the grasslands, which will eventually be degraded without a predator to control their populations. Even though humans are now a part of every food chain, humans must realize the consequences of all their actions in nature. This is something that does need to be undertaken from the top-down, however it is pressure resulting from grassroots movements that needs to help the movements to start and be maintained so they do as they are supposed to. 

professor Maniates

I think professor Maniates makes an important point that encouraging a "baby stepping" approach to more sustainable lifestyles is to slow and can allocate a false sense of reward and accomplishment. Though its unlikely that our society will go from full throttle consumerism to full throttle environmentalism, the "easy" does offer a happy, consumer friendly transition into what will need to be a faster paced movement. Also, small market shifts in behavior can provide an "early warning system" of sorts for big business by signaling early the new direction of market behavior, allowing them to adapt and facilitate the process from their end. While I find it hard to condemn Obama for not having a more open, direct dialogue with the country about our need to consume less, he has made rapid environmental achievements in a very short time. Too many people drive excessively when alternatives are present, many companies design products with the design that they will not last very long. There is alot that needs to happen, and while we don't have time to lollygag about this issue, we can't reject every effort undertaken simply because it isn't big enough. Holding out for a rapid, fundamental change is not likely to yield anything anytime soon.

Environmental Leader?

I am a bit conflicted as I can understand both the "small, easy adjustments" argument as well as the fundamental changes that need to be implemented argument. These arguments are something I both agree with. As my fellow blogger and classmate Mike Lally stated, the small adjustments fit with the American way of life. That is why a lot of typical Americans who are concerned about their environmental impact choose to take these small measures. With our lifestyles being as they are, rushing from work to running errands as well as attending school, unless someone works for an environmental organization, it is difficult to really take time out of our lives to mount a huge campaign to press for the big changes that need to be done. I also find it difficult to press for these changes because there is not a visible individual who is able to identify with so many Americans to win us over as a leader for these changes. Al Gore is one person who comes to my mind when I think about American environmentalism. And as Michael Maniates stated, he was one person touting the triumphs of small changes. Until we have a Martin Luther King Jr or FDR of environmentalism, Americans are going to continue their hectic, busy, consumer driven lifestyles.

Response to Prof. Maniates

While I understand the argument Prof. Maniates makes in his article "Going Green? Easy Doesn't Do It," namely that small consumer shifts in behavior will not bring about the large-scale environmental change necessary, I believe that he belittles the contributions these efforts make, and ignores a very important aspect of the battle to halt environment degradation. While I believe large-scale change initiated from above is necessary to truly impact our environmental impact, when people are willing to make the small sacrifices in their daily lives that, while limited in impact, signal a shift towards more responsible consumption habits and attitudes, it will be easier to call upon people to make the large scale shifts necessary. Yes, the "10 easy ways" type of sacrifices are not going to save the planet, but what Prof. Maniates ignores, is that these types of sacrifices are consistent with the American way of life, which is fast paced and busy. They are an effort to synthesize the American way of life with these new environmental ideals. When we as Americans can begin to change our personal consumption habits to be slightly more environmentally conscious and lower-impact, it signals an embrace of the ideals behind the environmental movement and the recognition that we as individuals bear some of the responsibility. If anything, it does not symbolize laziness and apathy, it symbolizes the awareness of the American consumer that they too are partly to blame, and that the effort to reduce our impact will be one of individual as well as societal efforts. While the ten easy steps may be of far too small scale to make real impact, we as Americans have a hard time having things imposed on our culture, rather, Americans need to incorporate the green life-style willingly and in their own way in order for them to really accept a shift in their perceptions and values. Over time it would be appropriate for Americans to further alter their individual consumptions habits on a larger scale, and hopefully our leaders will begin to enact the society-wide changes necessary as well. However, while I understand that Prof. Maniates would prefer to see progress on a much greater scale, it is important to recognize that even a little progress is a step in the right direction, and the fact that we have begun moving in the right direction at all is an important first step. Hopefully over time we can bring about the real large scale changes needed, but that our society is beginning to embrace these changes at all is a hopeful sign for me.

Article Reaction

I don't know how much I agree with the article we just read. The author holds strong convictions that pop culture encourages us to make small changes in our life in order to stop the ever growing problem of environmental destruction. He claims that we are merely slowing down Earth's destruction, rather than actually doing anything to fix the growing problem. He feels as though our minimal changes have no impact and slow the process rather than actually change what the problem is in the first place. While I do see his point and his strong beliefs on the issue, I strongly disagree with the point he is trying to get across. To say that it is pointless to make small changes and that the work of celebrities and other public individuals making service announcements in regards to the environment is worthless is simply a poor argument. Regardless of the small impact that these actions make, they are still making an impact. Even further, they will encourage others to take part in similar small actions, which will lead to greater results when more participants become engaged with the idea. Furthermore, taking small action promotes others to recognize the need to a response to environmental issues, and encourages other people to become active in doing what they can to be environmentally conscious. Thus, the author's argument is entirely invalid. Although he is right in saying that greater steps must be taken in order to stop destruction, small steps are the only way to begin the road to an even greater outcome.

Moral Responsibility

Last week in class, we discussed in small groups how many children we'd all like to have, if any. Author and environmentalist, Bill McKibben originally talked about how he and his wife agreed they could not have children on the basis that population growth is leading to an increased strain on the environment. Later on, he goes on to analyze the possibility of having just one child and researches deeply into this topic. In the article, "People, Nature and Ethics," by Paul Wapner, the 'future generation' is discussed again, and it really made me think back to our small group discussions we had about family size. I've always wanted to adopt children and have never thought it a bad thing to want to do an act so selfless. After reading Wapner's article, my views on my potential future family have been strengthened and reaffirmed. 

In his article, Wapner discusses an ethical dimension of environmentalism that is lacking in most, if not all the dimensions of environmental issues. Environmental displacement happens across time and space with two aspects, resources and pollution, that are being displaced.  Displacement involves, "Shifting the experience of environmental harm... postponing or evading harmful effects of environmental degradation" (Warper, 357). 

The section that caught my attention the most in regards to future generations was titled "Displacement Across Time." The argument made was that the present generation was 'solving' the current environmental problems (such as the question of how to dispose of nuclear waste) by displacing it to a future time. The theory being that later, someday the problem will be cured (this also stretches to the assumption people are constantly making that technology keeps improving and will some day solve all our problems). Warper states that people living in the present see themselves as the most worthy by not addressing their own environmental impacts as a result of their decisions they may make, and in doing so, they discount the lives of the future generation. When I read this assumption, I thought back to fifth grade when I learned about endangered species and extinction. I remember learning about a particular species of bird that existed in what is now the United States. This species became extinct because the newly settled American colonists used to use the birds as target practice. I grew really upset about how selfish the past generation had been and how myself and my generation was deprived of seeing these birds we can only now read and learn about in school. Also from this assumption, I do not understand how anyone could want to bring any additional lives onto this planet if our and past generations don't care about the next! Displacing toxic wastes to a future time and another location only delays the problem and eventually it will catch up to us! I know I would not like to suffer from cancer one day because I grew up in an area that was impacted by polluted air or was near toxic wastes that I could do nothing about, so why would I want to bring a future generation into this world who would have a higher chance of living in an area affected by this. Also, there has been such an increase in diseases that have emerged since I was born, I can only imagine how many more diseases will come into existence or diseases thought to be at bay (such as malaria) will spread due to global warming. I cannot imagine myself wanting to live in such a threatening world and would not want to pass this legacy along. I find it my moral responsibility not only to NOT have children due to the increased environmental strain, but because I do not want the future generation to have to suffer any more than this world's population already is thanks to our predecessors. 

Stanley Fish Reaction

I definitely sympathize with Stanley Fish to an extent. Although he complains about the environmental issues that face the devastated planet, he also doesn't want to make any changes that will affect his quality of life. While some may criticize him for his bluntness, I appreciate his courage and his honestly in the matter, more importantly because I am quite guilty of the same, and so are many Americans. 

Think about it: We sit in theaters and cry over Al Gore's message in "An Inconvenient Truth", we commend celebrities who pose in the trendy PETA campaign ads, and we praise ourselves for being vegetarians. While activism does promote small changes, how much are we really giving up? Okay, so we're not eating meat, but we're pulling out of the Vegan diner parking lot in our Cadillac Escalade. So how much are we really helping?

I'm incredibly guilty and definitely suffer from the Stanley Fish syndrome. I rarely drive and am mindful about not wasting electricity, but am a meat eater to the fullest and have a hefty collection of leather handbags. I bring my own bag to the supermarket, but I make sure that I fly home to Rhode Island ever month. Even though I am trying to be environmentally conscious, I'm doing nothing that actually effects the quality of my life. I have maintained my lifestyle, without depriving myself of anything, claiming that I am environmentally conscious-yea right. 

I think Stanley Fish's article shows that is takes so much more to truly be environmentally conscious of the world around us, and yes, that means giving up some of those luxuries we never thought that we could survive without. 

Blog Question 1

In regards to the question of what the most pressing environmental concern in my view is, I'd suppose that they're all pretty important. What really scares me is the potential for drastic ecological or environmental change or collapse causing such a drastic shock as to create a worldwide disaster.

For instance, in another class today we discussed the idea of the butterfly effect (you know the butterfly flaps its wings and causes a tsunami), and how a slight increase in ocean temperatures could drastically alter ocean currents and cause massive and rapid climatic shifts. Formerly temperate regions would become near arctic, once humid rain forests would become virtual deserts, etc., and all this in a matter of relatively few years. The results would be catastrophic. This simply one scenario however. Another example might be a disease that hit food staples that are almost genetically identical with no mass produced strains surviving. If the disease were to effect the dwarf wheat we read about for instance, the resulting famine would be monumental.

This is what is really scary to contemplate, for while I believe that there is hope to change our environmental habits, if such a disaster were to happen first, the resulting human tragedy might be irreversible. The governmental response might be even scarier. This is not to suggest that the current environmental degradation is not a tragedy in and of itself, but... contemplating a post-environmental disaster world doesn't exactly give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Pressing questions

In my opinion, the most pressing environmental issue today is not an environmental issue at all. People have this fallacious conception of how social, political and economic change. Essentially, most people have this tragic notion that politicians have some magic wand and conduct the countries affairs like a conductor in an orchestra. This is not true, especially in today's times. In keeping with contemporary events, "change" has been a major theme in this country's new political renaissance (I say this because more people are becoming active). While I regard this new found enthusiasm for reforming our state as the best possible scenario, there is one thing out of place. The vociferous crowd that catapulted Obama into the hot seat at one of our most desperate hours in history thinks that they have done their part in fixing our country. Better stated, people think " We got you, a black man for crying out loud, into the most powerful office in the world, now the ball is in your court Obama!". I know I am not alone when I posit this, for only moments after receiving his nomination, Obama confessed that he alone can not repair America, that we must all be a part of this process. After riding on a wave of prophetic promises, this was the first time he hinted that maybe he wasn't the "end all", just merely a means. This effectively demonstrates how many Obamians may have a passive attitude towards taking ownership of their government because their "leader" issued a heavy caveat only minutes after winning the historically exhausting presidential race. People act as though Obama will make some clever political maneuvers and Boom! Problem solved. In reality, change can only occur when the people take ownership of the problem and make earnest efforts to remedy it. When inflation occurs, its not some calculated government stimulus that stabilizes prices but the individual person deciding to spend more of their savings and inadvertently contributing to an aggregate boost in GDP figures. The same is true for most every other problem. For us to even consider whether we can handle the challenge posed by environmental degradation, we need to ask ourselves whether we can remember to unplug appliances not in use, eat less meat, consume less "stuff", take time to recycle properly, cut back on showers, ride bikes/walk/take mass transit when its available, choosing a smart car over a safe gas guzzling SUV, or just being willing to question someone elses consumption habits. Big corporations NEVER ask themselves whether the material the choose has any environmental side effects or whether its part of a sustainable practice. The government does not regulate this. People need to understand that they bear a lot of responsibility for the environmental damage that is caused by the oil companies and Apple because they are demanding those goods with all the eco-woes that they entail. If this were a command economy, then one could divert blame away from themselves. To conclude, the biggest obstacle to environmental recovery is that the individual relies on the politician to remedy their problems, when in fact they the only ones who can save themselves. When millions who voted for Obama in 2008 elected him, they weren't nominating a solution, fore they are the solution themselves. My fellow compatriots took their first big step towards changing the world when they choose Obama, I only hope they maintain their stride.

In response to the second question, I think that there are businesses that are trying to target a guilt-tripped market. Many products make claims that either can not be verified or are so ambiguous that they don't mean anything. Terms like "natural" and "organic" and "eco-friendly" are absolutely relative and mean less than the average person ascribes to it. I think that a lot of the environmentalism in the US is a superficial fix to a guilty conscience (like indulgences) or just fad that says loudly "I'm political and attentive" whether its true or not. I think the government should retain the rights to terms like "natural", "sustainable", "environmentally/eco friendly", "organic" and others. The purpose being that they can regulate who is allowed to make these claims so that consumers aren't duped into buying goods that don't live up to their name. A third party certification could also work, but not as well because fraudsters could produce similar looking images that might mislead a careless buyer. This way, the government is making it easier for citizens to make everyday decisions that are eco-conscience. For those who might cite the need for "laissez-faire open markets" against my proposal, I would counter that by having the government regulate the use of these terms on products, information asymmetry (the only natural predator to the free market) is eliminated in the most effective fashion and buyers can make truly rational decisions in the marketplace. I think part of Fish's frustration is that he wants to practice eco-friendly behaviors, but that its so difficult to know what is safe to use and that what is safe to use is never cheap or easy to get. We can't expect every citizen to be an expert at determining the relative carbon footprint of any given product, so me must create a system that effective decision making easier.

"Paths to a Green World"

This is just an outline of the four worldviews that Clapp mentions in her article. These themes are pretty general and I bet that they'll come up again, so I've listed them here but if anyone can add to them and create a kind of study guide out of this it would be greatly appreciated. 

1.) Market Liberals: Believe that economic growth is essential for human welfare, see globalization as a positive force, feel that economic degradation causes poverty, draws on moderate examples of economic damage. 

2.) Institutionalists: Stress the need for stronger global institutions, feel that global institutions can enhance the capacity of the state.

3.) Bioenvironmentalists: See the planet as fragile, can only support Earth to its "carrying capacity", population growth is the biggest stress to the Earth.

4.) Social greens: Activists, hate industrialism and inequity between the first and third world countries, view globalization as domination and control, embrace indigenous knowledge systems versus Western ones. 

Welcome!

Okay guys, so I figured out how to make the blog. If you have any questions, can't access something, etc, email me at angela87@tmo.blackberry.net.