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.